Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/139/2019

Smt.Padmavally(68yrs) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2021

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Pazhaveedu P.O., Alappuzha
 
Complaint Case No. CC/139/2019
( Date of Filing : 12 Jun 2019 )
 
1. Smt.Padmavally(68yrs)
W/o Anandan,Naluthengilthekkethil,Ramancheri,Arattupuzha,Alappuzha District.Ph:8547653883
Alappuzha
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Kerala Water Authority,P.H.Section ,Kayamkulam,Alappuzha District.
Alappuzha
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S. Santhosh Kumar PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sholy P.R. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Lekhamma. C.K. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 13 Aug 2021
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                          Friday the 13th day of August, 2021.

                                      Filed on 12-06-2019

  Present

 

  1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
  2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.139/2019

   between

  Complainant:-                                               Opposite party:-

Smt.Padmavally                                                  The Asst. Executive Engineer

W/o Anandan                                                      Kerala Water Authority

Naluthengil Thekkethil                                      P.H Section, Kayamkulam

Ramanchery                                                        Alappuzha

Arattupuzha, Alappuzha                                    (Adv.Sri.Joseph Mathew)

(Adv.Baby Sreeja.J)

 

O R D E R

C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

          Brief facts of complainant’s case is as follows:-

          The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party.  She was regular in remitting water charges till 2018.  The opposite party did not collect water charges on the basis of bimonthly water consumption before 2018.  On 19-02-19 the opposite party served a bill towards water charge which shown arrear as Rs.705/- and earlier bill adjustment amount as Rs.8560/-.  It was learnt that said bill adjustment amount is for the excess water consumption charge for the period of 16 months in between August 2017 to December 2018.  The bill was prepared on the basis of bimonthly water consumption and found that usage is 83 KL.  The opposite party has never informed about the levy of adjustment amount, before the demand cum disconnection notice issued by them.  The opposite party did not record meter reading for the last several months.  But the complainant was served with a bill on 16.04.2019 directing her to pay Rs.705 as arrear dues and additional water charges.  The above acts of opposite party causes mental agony to the complainant.  The opposite parties are guilty of willful negligence in the matter of performing their duties.  There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence the complainant wanted to set aside the additional adjustment amount in the bill dtd. 16-04-2019.

2.      The version of the opposite party is as follows:-

          The opposite party contented that the water connection had taken on 01.01.1995 and was in the name of complainant’s husband.  The last payment of water charges was on 18.08.2017.  The same day itself the faulty meter in said connection had replaced.  On 18.08.2017, at the time of installation of new water meter the initial reading was 1KL.  After that following readings was taken.

    Date

 

Meter reading

 

Monthly Water

Consumption (KL)

Monthly water charge

 

   18.12.2018

663 KL

41.41

580.00

   21.02.2019

780 KL

           58.5

 1040.00

   17.04.2019

834 KL

           27

              243

   21.06.2019

886 KL

           26

              234

   22.08.2019

935 KL

           24.5

171.50

 

          The bill has been issued as per the said water consumption.  The bill issued on 17.12.2018 for Rs.47/- is based on the tariff rate as per the provisional invoice card (PIC) of the complainant.  But after the installation of new meter it was found that the complainant consumed more water than the tariff ratio.  Accordingly bill issued on 16.04.2019.  Therefore, on the basis of water consumption as stipulated in regulation, the complainant is liable to pay the water charges for excess water consumption.

 

3.      The points for consideration are as follows:-

  1. Whether complainant is liable to pay the additional charge claimed by the opposite party?
  2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the disputed bill?
  3. Whether complainant is entitled to get relief sought for?
  4. Reliefs and costs.

4.      The complainant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence.  Ext.A1 was marked from her side.  Opposite party did not adduce any evidence.

5.      Point Nos.1 to 3

Admittedly the complainant’s husband is the consumer of the opposite party.  The complainant is being the beneficiary can be treated as a consumer.  The complainant alleged that opposite party failed to record the meter reading of actual consumption every six months.  By belatedly issuing the bill cast on the complainant to pay consolidated sum for the entire period.  The opposite party justifies the belated issuance of Ext.A1 bill relying on the average bimonthly consumption of water as per the regulation.

Ext.A1 bill dtd. 16.2.2019 is the demand cum disconnection issued by opposite party to the complainant.  In which included the arrear for Rs.705/- and earlier bill adjustment amount as Rs.8560/-.  On going through the complaint there is no allegation at all that the meter was faulty or that the meter readings were erroneous.  There is no dispute that the new water meter installed on 18.08.2017.  Regulation 13 of water supply regulations stipulated the procedure to be adopted in the matter of assessment of water charges.  Regulation 13 (C) read as follows:-

The Authority may also introduce a slab system for collection of water charges.  The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased as the case may, based on the observations of meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period.

In this case, the arrear bill has been issued without taking reading as stipulated under clause (c) of regulation 13.   It is also stipulated that the adjustment bill in Form No.IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer.  In the present case no such adjustment bills have been issued to the consumer as per the regulation.  The additional amount charged is for the period from 18.08.17 to 18.12.18.  Admittedly the meter reading was taken after 16 months from the installation of new meter.  There is no explanation from the opposite party to said delay.  By belatedly issuing the Ext.A1 bill additional burden cast on the complainant to pay consolidated sum.  The said acts of the opposite party cause mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore opposite party has to compensate to the complainant.  In view of that there is no need to set aside the bill in question.

We have already discussed above that there is no complaint about the meter reading.  Hence the computation of the water charges by the opposite party will have to be accepted since there is no additional burden is cast upon the complainant by way of interest.  The facts and circumstances of the case we are refrain from ordering cost of the proceedings. 

 

Point No.4

In the result the complaint is allowed in part and directed as follows:-

  1. The complainant is directed to remit the entire amount as per Ext.A1 bill in 2 equal monthly installments to the opposite party. 
  2. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand only) to the complainant.  It shall either be paid to the complainant or deducted from future bill amount.

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 13th  day of August, 2021.

Sd/-Smt.Lekhamma C K (Member)

Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Sri.Subhash.A (Witness)

Ext.A1                -        Bill dtd. 16.02.2019

 

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

 

// True Copy //

 

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                          By Order

 

 

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-     

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S. Santhosh Kumar]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sholy P.R.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Lekhamma. C.K.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.