IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMOSSION, ALAPPUZHA

                     Saturday the 20^th    day of November, 2021

                               Filed on 22.03.2019

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)

2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)

                                                  In         

                                      CC/No.74/2019

                                                     Between

Complainant:-                                                       Opposite parties:-

Sri.S.P.Tulasidharan Pillai                            1.       The Assistant Executive Engineer  

S/o Late T.N. Parameswara Panicker                     Kerala Water Authority

 Saraswathivilasam                                               P.H.Section, Mavelikara. 

 Patoor.P.O, Nooranad,                                         Pin- 690101

Alappuzha-690529                                                         

(Rep by his Power  of attorney

Holder Indiradevi.S, W/o Sugathan               2.     The Managing Director

Nair, Gowrinandanam, Patoor.P.O                         Kerala Water Authority 

Nooranad,                                                                 Jalabhavan, Vellayambalam,

Alappuzha-690529)                                                  Thiruvananthapuram.

(Adv. Faizal .M.I)                                                 (Adv.  Joseph Mathew  for Ops)

O R D E R

SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

1.      Brief facts of complainant’s case are as follows:-

          The water connection, under the consumer No. NND/425/D, has been provided by the opposite party is still in the name of  complainant’s mother who is no more.  The above water connection is situating the property belongs to the complainant.  The complainant employed at Hyderabad in Andra Pradesh for the past 40 years. Hence the complainant’s sister, the  Power of Attorney holder has been paying water charges on behalf of him and she had duly paid Rs.940/-as per the bill dtd. 18/9/2017.  However, the 1^st opposite party had charged excessive sum of Rs.38,583/- and issued a bill dtd. 18/01/2018.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party has been charging cumulatively on all the subsequent bills.  The recent bimonthly bill dtd. 13/2/2019 bears water charge of Rs.58,381(Rupees fifty eight thousand three hundred and eighty one only)

2.      The complainant’s Power of Attorney had pointed out to the officials of 1^st opposite party that the water meter, in the above connection is not working and it ought to be replaced with a new one.  But said opposite party informed that the request for replacement shall be considered only after the payment of the pending dues. Hence this complaint has been filed for seeking following reliefs.

1. To direct the opposite parties to assess the water charges in the above consumer number from 2018 onwards in accordance with the relevant law.

2. To direct the opposite parties to allow the complainant to replace new water meter.

3. To direct the opposite party to transfer the water connection to  infavour of the complainant .      Further sought compensation for mental agony.

3.      Version of the opposite parties in short is as follows:-

Water meter of this consumer was in working condition up to 20/9/2017 (meter reading 3100KL), previous meter reading as on 26/11/2017 was 295KL and on 21/9/2014 was 1020 KL as per consumer’s personnel ledger. The consumer No. NND/425/ is allotted to Smt. Saraswathy Amma and even now no documents were produced by the complainant to get the water connection changed in his name.   It is clear that even though the complainant claims that he is not residing there, water was using by some body. The details of the bills from 2005 to 2015 is tabulated below.

4.      On the basis of reading recorded on 20/9/2017, the additional demand for the period  of 36 months, that is from 21/9/2014 to 20/9/2017 comes to Rs.34,530/- and the consumer has been served a demand and a disconnection notice on 18/1/2018 for  Rs. 38,583/- including water charge up to 01/2018.

5.      The meter recorded a reading of 1020 KL on 21/9/2014 and the next  reading recording on 20/9/2017 was 3100KL which  measures average consumption for  36 months ie, 57.78 KL per month with a average of Rs.1011 per month. Particular amount (Rs. 940 bill No. 29259123 dtd. 18/9/2017 arrives on the basis of Rs. 45 per month from 18/01/2016 to 20/9/2017 including fine also.  These opposite parties never imposed any excessive charges on the complainant by taking advantage of his absence from the property.

6.      The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the opposite parties have claimed any excess water charges from the complainant?

2. Whether opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. If so what would be the  quantum of compensation?

3. Relief and cost if any?

7.      The Power of Attorney holder of complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 series to A4 were marked.  From the side of opposite parties RW1 was examined Ext.B1 and B2 were marked.  We have heard  the  counsel for both sides.

8.      Point No.1 & 2:-

          Ext.A1 series of bill consisting of 6 water consumption bills for the period of  20/9/2017 to 15/2/2019.  Ext.A2 is the copy of settlement deed infavour of the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the photocopy of Aadhar Card. Ext.A4 is the photo copy of disconnection notice dtd. 20/7/2019.

9.      The facts of the case is that the water connection provided by the opposite parties is still under the name of complainant’s late mother. The complainant is residing at Hyderabad since he is employed there.  The complainant’s sister, Power of Attorney holder, has been paying water charges to the opposite parties.  She had duly paid a sum of Rs.940/- as per the bill dtd. 18/9/2017. On 18/1/2018 opposite parties issued next bill, demand an excessive sum of Rs.38,583/-.  The complainant alleged that the water meter is not working and the same is to be replaced. The same was pointed out by  the PW1 to the opposite parties.  But they did not allow her demand and directed to pay the entire dues first, thereafter they would consider her request.  Hence this complaint.

10.    The opposite party contented that the water charge, has been paid up to 20/9/2017 at minimum rate of Rs.42/- per month for consuming 10KL. The meter recorded a reading of 1020 KL on 21/9/2014. The next reading recorded on 20/9/2017 is 3100KL which measures average consumption for 36 months ie, 57.78 KL per months with an average of Rs.1011/-per month. 

11.    The allegation is with regard to exorbitant bill issued by the opposite parties than the consumption of water.  Admittedly the additional bill issued for the period of  21/9/2014 to 20/9/2017 ie, average consumption for 36 months.  On perusal of Ext.A1 series bills, the bills dtd. 20/9/2017 and 20/1/2018, nothing is mentioned about the status of the meter.  But it is to be noted that  in both dates meter reading was  3100KL only on 24/3/2018 the status of meter mentioned as not working. During cross examination, RW1 deposed that “ 36 amks¯ ImeL«¯n hmZnbpsS meter reading FSp¡m³ t]mImXncp¶Xnsâ ImcWw AdnbnÃ.   water supply regulation sâ rule 12 {]Imcw NmÀPv sN¿p¶ amk¯nsâ sXm«pap¼pff 6 amks¯  consumption sâ icmicnbmWv FSpt¡­Xv F¶Xv icnbmWv.”   There is no reliable evidence before us to show that the water meter was working when at the time of taking the reading on 20/9/2017, RW1 relied on Ext.B2 document.  Seemingly which is a photocopy of  computer entries but opposite party did not produce the authenticated physical entries for verification.  In view of the above discussions we are come to the conclusion that the meter was not working before the date of 20/9/2017 itself.  Eventhough the PW1 reported the  abnormality  of the meter, opposite party did not  care to find out the reason for the malfunctioning.  RW1 deposed that as per the Water Supply Regulation Act the opposite party  has  every right to  inspect the water meter. RW1 adds that they have not taken  such steps before the issuance of notice.  The learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out during the cross examination of RW1 and also in their argument notes that in Ext.B2, copy of the physical ledger on page No.2 towards the bottom some entries have been erased. This was denied by RW1.  Even though the original of Ext.B2 is under the custody of opposite parties  they did not produce the same for verification.  On verification of Ext.B2 we found that the allegation of the complainant is true.  So we are of the  opinion that the entries in Ext.B2 is  doubtful and hence it is not a reliable one.  Moreover the learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the meter reading was recorded as 1020KL on page No.1 of Ext.B1 seen over writing made on date 21/1/2014. The above aspect also original document is not produced for verification.  Non production of details and documents under the possession or  suppression of material facts draws an adverse inference against them.    The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar  Vs. Mahomed Haji Lathif & Ors  (1968 AIR 1413).

“Even if the burden of proof does not  lie on a  party the court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts an issue.”

12.    In view of the above discussions it is evident that the water meter is faulty hence the additional consumption charge is shown in Ext.A1 series bill are not valid in the eye of law.    The opposite parties have no right to issue further bill with respect to the wrong meter readings.   It seems that the complainant had remitted the water charges until 18/9/2017.  Thereafter, on 18/1/2019 the additional water charges claimed for the period from 21/9/2014 to 20/9/2017. In the light of above discussions we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have no right to claim any additional amount for the above period.   Moreover it is not known how the opposite parties can collect amount prior to 3 years.   In other words it appears that water authority had lost sight of limitation Act which clearly barred due beyond 3 years.  The remaining water charges from January 2018 onwards has to assess as per the relevant law, after the installation of new water meter on the disputed water connection. At the same time both parties are liable to take necessary steps to install new water meter, after the complainant has to submit an application before the opposite parties to change the water connection in favour of him within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13.    Seemingly, the above act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, since the complainant is entitled to get compensation  as well as cost  of the proceedings from the opposite parteis since we found that opposite parties have push the complainant into an unnecessary litigation. 

14.    Point No.3:-

 Accordingly we allowed the complaint in part as follows:-

A) Ext.A1 water bills from 18/1/2018 to 13/2/2019 ( 5 in  numbers) are hereby set aside and opposite parties shall issue fresh bill from January 2018  onwards considering the readings in new water meter.

B) Opposite parties shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5000/-  towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

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

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  20^th   day of November, 2021. 

                                                Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

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

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Indira Devi(POAH of the Complainant)

Ext.A1series        -        Bills 20/9/2017 to 15/2/2019                       

Ext.A2                -        Copy of Sale deed

Ext.A3                -        Copyof Aadhaar Card    

Ext.A4                -        Copy of Bill dtd. 23/7/2019     

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                   -        Mini.K.U (Opposite party)

Ext.B1                 -        Copy of Consumer Ledger

                             // True Copy //

To    

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-