DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 23.02.2021
CC/37/2021
Hareendran P
Pulakkal Veedu, Kavalappara (P.O)
Shoranur – 679 523 - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
The Assistant Executive Engineer
Public Health Sub Division
Kerala Water Authority
Shoranur – 679 121 - Opposite party
(By Adv. R.Gangadharan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
Complainant’s son is having a water connection with Consumer ID 3373108344 in Shoranur Water Authority sub division. The reading was taken bi monthly by the staff of the opposite party. On 28/06/2020, the opposite party’s staff noted the reading and issued a bill for Rs. 2,786/- and it was paid by the complainant. In that bill Rs. 900/- was marked as water charge and Rs. 1,886/- as additional bill. The bill issued on 28/08/2020 showed Rs. 40/- as water charge and Rs. 20,041/- as additional bill amount. When enquired about the additional bill through Right to Information Act, they did not give proper reply. Additional bill for the period from 25/02/2020 to 25/06/2020 was Rs. 20,032/- The opposite party is demanding to pay an additional amount of Rs. 5,458/- every month without any justification. All these amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
So this complaint is filed for declaring the bill demanding additional amount of Rs. 20,041/- and the bill issued in the month of June demanding additional amount Rs. 1,886/- as illegal and to adjust the additional amount received from the complainant towards the future bills. He also claims Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party and they appeared and filed their version.
3. Opposite party in their version admitted the water connection in the name of complainant’s son. The meter reading was taken by opposite party on bimonthly system. On 22/10/2019, the reading was taken and issued a bill for Rs. 2,438/- The bill amount was paid online on 14/11/2019. After this, meter reading was taken during the period of December 2019 and February 2020 and the bill was issued, but the consumer did not pay the amount towards the bill. Another bill was issued on 18/06/2020 for an amount of Rs. 2,786/- This includes water charge arrears of Rs. 1,882/- from October 2019 to March 2020. (Water charges for October 2019 to November 2019 – Rs. 22/- per month, from December 2019 to March 2020 – Rs. 452/- per month and fine Rs. 30/- and water charges of Rs. 904/- for April 2020 to May 2020).
On 22/07/2020, the original consumer (complainant’s son) paid Rs.2,786/- through online. The opposite party is assessing the water charge on the basis of monthly meter reading. The amount of Rs.1,886/- is not an additional amount and it is part of the bill amount. The bill issued on 28/08/2020 shows an additional amount of Rs.20,041/- is denied by the opposite party; the correct bill amount was given after meter reading. The complainant had consumed water heavily during that period which is evident from the ledger extract. On 25/06/2020, the meter reading was taken and the opposite party assessed the bill amount for the period of 4 months at the rate of Rs.452/- After the reading, consumption of water charge is Rs.5,460/- On calculating the amount (5460-452) x 4 will come to Rs. 20,032/- and that amount was included in the bill dated 20/08/2020.
The water consumed by the complainant during the summer season is very high. During February to June 2020, the complainant had consumed water at the rate of Rs. 5,460/- per month. Instead of giving bill for Rs. 5,460/-, the bill was given for Rs. 452/- After taking the meter reading, the opposite party has given notice for Rs. 20,072/-, which is the balance amount for the water charge during the period from February to June 2020 and the complainant is liable to pay that amount. There is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The bill has given for the actual amount of water consumed by the complainant and he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The complaint has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked from his side. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Ext. B1 marked in evidence. Both parties filed notes of argument. Heard.
6. Points 1 to 3 are considered together
As per the complaint, Complainant’s son is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority, Shoranur division, Palakkad. Usual bimonthly water charge of the consumer comes below Rs. 100/- On 28/06/2020, the meter reading was taken and the opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 2,786/- In this Rs. 900/- is shown as bimonthly water charge and Rs. 1,886/- is shown as additional amount. There is no basis for charging this additional amount. Further the opposite party has charged an amount of Rs. 20,032/- for the period from 25/02/2020 to 26/06/2020. They have charged an additional amount of Rs. 5,458/- per month for this period. This is without any justification. The act of the opposite party in charging excess amount is deficiency in service on their part.
7. The opposite party contends that meter reading is taken by them on bimonthly system. Meter reading was taken on 22/10/2019 and the amount was paid on 14/11/2019. After this meter reading was taken during the period of December 2019 and February 2020 and the bill was issued; but the consumer did not pay the water charges. They admit that a bill for Rs. 2,786/- is issued on 18/06/2020. This includes water charge arrears of Rs. 1,882/- from October 2019 to March 2020 (water charges for October to November 2019 @ Rs. 22/- per month; December 2019 to March 2020 @ Rs. 452/- per month and fine Rs. 30/- and water charges Rs. 904/- for April to May 2020. On 22/07/2020, the consumer paid Rs. 2,786/- through online. The opposite party has correctly assessed the water charge on the basis of monthly meter reading and the bill was issued for actual amount. It is not an additional amount and it is the part of the bill amount.
8. The bill issued on 20/08/2020 shows water charge as Rs. 44/- and shortfall as Rs. 20,032/- Total amounting to Rs. 20,081/- The opposite parties contention is that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the opposite party did not take the meter reading on April 2020. On 25/06/2020 meter reading was taken. The opposite party assessed the bill amount for the period of 4 months at the rate of Rs. 452/- After reading, consumption of water charge is Rs. 5,460/- So on calculating the amount (5460-452) x 4 will come to Rs. 20,032/-
9. As per clause 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water supply) Regulations, 1991, “the water consumed at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time, based on meter readings taken from the meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer.”
From the meter readings shown in Ext. B1, it can be observed that the opposite party has been taking regular bimonthly water meter readings from 02/12/2017 to 25/02/2020. Based on these actual readings, the average water consumption for this period comes around 37 Kilo Litre and the complainant duly settled these bills. It is noted that the opposite party did not take water meter readings during the period from 26/02/2020 to 24/06/2020 (4 months) and issued their water bills based on the complainant’s average water consumption. Later, on 25/06/2020 actual water reading was taken and as per Ext. B1, 168.94 Kilo Litre was consumed for this period. As mentioned in the explanation given by the opposite party in Ext. B1, the excess bill was calculated based on the applicable charges for the entire consumption of 168.94 Kilo Litre after adjusting the amount already paid on the basis of previous bills raised for average consumption which is not correct. The consumption of 168.94 Kilo Litre is for a period of 4 months and the average consumption is only 42.24 Kilo Litre. The increase or decrease in consumption of water should have been calculated after giving due adjustments for the average consumption already charged in the previous water bills. The opposite party has already charged Rs. 452 per month, which should adequately cover these charges. The opposite party has not taken reading for a period of 4 months and has charged higher tariff for the entire quantity of water consumed for this period.
The excess amount claimed from the complainant is not logically correct and hence needs to be cancelled. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in charging excess amount which needs to be sufficiently compensated. The complainant had suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the conduct of the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.
We direct the opposite party to cancel the excess bill of Rs. 20,081/- issued on 26/08/2020 and to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost incurred by him for the litigation.
The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of February, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Bill dated 26/08/2020 for Rs. 20,081/-
Ext.A2 – RTI application submitted by complainant dated 10/09/2020.
Ext.A3 – Reply for RTI dated 04/11/2020.
Ext.A4 – Bill dated 25/06/2022 for Rs. 21,302/-
Ext.A5 – Copy of ration card.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties –
Ext.B1 – Personal Ledger Extract dated 18/03/2021.
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost- Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
