DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of April 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

Date of filing: 24/08/2009

(C.C.No.110/2009)

K.Vijayan

Brother of

K.Prasad

7/924, (1) Harisree,

Vadukappalayam, Kalpathy (PO),

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By M.Ramachandran

Organizing Secretary,

Consumer Protection Council of Palakkad)

V/s

1. The Asst.Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Palakkad

(By Adv.K.Raghu)

2. The Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Palakkad

(By Adv.K.Raghu)

3. The Asst. Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Palakkad - Opposite parties

(By Adv.K.Raghu)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant's brother having water connection No.15099/D/PKD and the complainant utilizing the connection with his consent. The water connection in question is established in 1995 and upto year 2004 there was no complaints regarding the meter or water charge levied. But a bill dated 4/10/2004 for Rs.13,015/- was received by the complainant and the bill is for a period of 23/2/2004 to 30/9/2004, which means a monthly water consumption charge is Rs.1859/- During this period only 3 persons were enjoying the water connection. The complainant has never used such a huge quantity of water. The father of the complainant has sent letter dated 21/10/2004 to cancel the bill. Thereafter the 1^st opposite party served notice dated 20/4/05 to the brother of the complainant demanding the immediate payment of the bill. The complainant sent the fixed water charges upto 3/12/08 by Money Order to the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party accepted all the Money Orders. But failed to sent official receipts. Also they adjusted the excess amount towards the pending disputed bill. The 1^st opposite party sent a memo dated 20/1/08 to the complainant stated that the water meter was faulty and it should be replaced. Then the complainant bought a water meter as per bill dated 2/2/08 and approached the 1^st opposite party to get the old meter replaced. But the 1^st opposite party informed to the complainant that the meter would be replaced only after paying the exorbitant bill. The disputed bill dated 4/10/04 for Rs.13015/- from 23/2/04 to 30/9/04. But as per the letter dated 10/12/08 from the State Public Information Officer of the office of 1^st opposite party no meter reading was taken on 30/9/04. On 3/11/08 the water connection was disconnected. The complainant sent notices to all opposite parties. The opposite parties has not taken steps to inspect the meter or to settle the disputed bill. According to the complainant that amounts to deficiency in service from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to

1. The cancellation of the disputed bill

2. Immediate reconnection of water supply

3. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony

4. Cost of the proceedings

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.

The bill in dispute is of the year 2004 and the above complaint is filed in the year 2009, hence the complaint was barred by limitation as prescribed Under Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act. The contention of the complainant is that bill is for a period from 23/2/2004 to 30/9/2004 is not correct. Actually the additional bill is for a period of 15/7/2000 to 23/2/2004. The opposite parties produced the detail bill of reading and consumption details. The opposite parties stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party, he will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Another allegation of the opposite parties that complainant has to remit monthly charge of Rs.22/- only is not correct. As per the provisions of Section 13(b) of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations the consumer bound to pay the excess water charge. The 1^st opposite party inspected the water meter and issued a memo dated 20/1/2008 to the consumer stated that the water meter was faulty and should be replaced. The opposite parties admitted that the water connection was disconnected on 3/11/2008 due to the non-payment of additional bill amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint and compensatory cost allowed to opposite parties.

Both parties filed chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to Ext.A14 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite parties. Commission report was marked as Ext.C1.

Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act ?

2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?

3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

4. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?

Issue 1 & II

After admitting the complaint, opposite parties raising objections regarding maintainability was considered. Heard and passed order on 23/2/2010. The two contentions raised by the opposite parties that as the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party, he will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Further contention is regarding the fact that the complainant has challenged a bill issued on 4/11/2004. Hence the present complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant filed I.A.233/09 for condonation of delay. Preliminary issue found in favour of the complainant.

Issue III & IV

Admittedly the complainant remitted the water charges based on the provisional invoice card issued at the time of taking the consumption. The water connection was restored as per order in I.A. 265/09. Section 13(B) of the KERALA WATER SUPPLY REGULATION clearly stated that “The authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in the case of existing connections and based on the estimated consumption in the case of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No.VIII indicating therein the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment and the institution at which the amount is to be remitted. The charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period”.

In the present case in Ext.A1 series the disputed bill dated 4/10/2004 for a period from 23/2/2004 to 30/9/2004. Average consumption from 23/2/2004 to 25/8/2004 i.e. for 6 months reading was taken noted. In Ext.A14 shows that the meter reading was not taken after 15/7/2000 and before 23/2/2004. Therefore the opposite party has not taken meter reading more than 3 years. As per Sec 13 (b) of the Kerala Water Supply Regulation the authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in the case of existing connections. But in this case no such meter reading has been taken as stipulated under Regulation 13 of the Water Supply Regulation. So it can very safely be concluded that the disputed bill Ext.A1 issued without following the procedures prescribed under Water Supply Regulation. In Ext.C1 Commissioner report, the meter reading shows the unit of consumption as 5832. In Ext.B1, the water meter reading on 10/4/2007 as 5827. The opposite party has issued the disputed bill on 4/10/2004. In Ext.A2 the father of the complainant sent notice to the opposite party on 21/10/04. Thereafter the opposite party has taken the water readings under the provisions of Kerala Water Supply Regulations and issued bill to the complainant. In Ext.C1 commission report stated that the water meter is faulty. In Ext.A12 the opposite party has sent memo to the brother of the complainant stated that the water meter was faulty and it should be replaced. The complainant stated that he bought a meter and approached the 1^st opposite party to get old meter replaced. But the 1^st opposite party stated that the meter would be replaced only after paying the pending bill. In Ext.B1 the opposite party has not taken water meter reading during the period between 15/7/2000 to 23/2/2004. In Ext.B1 meter reading on 15/2/1999 was 1164. Meter reading on 15/7/2000 was 2213. Meter reading on 23/2/2004 was 5099. Between 15/7/2000 and 23/2/2004 the opposite party has not taken the meter reading. But the opposite party has issued the disputed bill average consumption from 23/2/2004 to 25/8/2004. The opposite parties stated that Ext.A1 the additional bill is for a period of 15/7/2000 to 23/2/2004. No evidence was produced by the opposite parties to prove the assessment of additional bill. Thereafter the opposite parties has taken the meter reading and adjusted the excess amount towards the pending disputed bill. So the fixation of average consumption in Ext.A1 disputed bill cannot be accepted.

Admittedly the water meter installed at the premises of the complainant is defective. The complainant is directed to take necessary steps to get the defective meter replaced and the opposite parties will do the necessary assistance in getting the defective meter replaced.

In the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is allowed. Thereby the aforesaid disputed bill was cancelled, with a direction to the opposite parties to issue fresh bill based on the actual consumption of water recorded by the water meter excluding water charges based on the provisional invoice card remitted by the complainant, without claiming any penal charges. The opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) by way of compensation and cost to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to give suitable installments to the complainant for the payment of the revised bill amount.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of April 2011.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 series – Bill issued by KWA in different dates (9 Bills)

Ext,A2 – Copy of Lr. Dated 21/10/04 sent to OP1 by SKV Karunakaran

Ext.A3 - Intimation dated 20/4/05 sent by KWA to the complainant

Ext.A4 – Copy of Reply to the Intimation sent by the complainant's brother

dtd.22/4/05.

Ext.A5 –Copy of Reminder letter sent to the opposite party dated 3/2/2005.

Ext.A6 – Copy of Lr. Dated 21/11/05 sent to OP by the complainant's brother

Ext.A7 – Copy of Lr. Dated 6/11/06 sent to OP by the complainant's brother

Ext.A8 - Copy of Lr. Dated 1/2/08 sent to OP by the complainant's brother

Ext.A9 - Copy of Lr. Dated 10/3/08 sent to OP by the complainant's brother

Ext.A10 - Copy of Lr. Dated 4/10/08 sent to OP by the complainant's brother

Ext.A11 - Copy of Lr. Dated 28/1/09 sent to OP by the complainant

Ext.A12 – Memo dated 20/1/08 issued by KWA

Ext.A13 – Copy of bill issued by Jayaraj Pipe Traders, Palakkad dated 2/2/08

Ext.A14 -Reply from Public Information Officer, KWA Palakkad to the

complainant.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Copy of Consumer Ledger

Ext.B2 – Copy of Meter reading record

Court Exhibit

Ext.C1 – Commission Report