IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 19th day of March, 2022.
Filed on 19.11.2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.305/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.K.J.Jospeh 1. The Asst. Executive Engineer
Kalarikunnel House Kerala Water Authority
Pallikkoottamma P.H.Sub Division, Edathua
Ramankary.P.O Alappuzha
Alappuzha-689595
(By Adv. Kora Jimmy) 2. The Assistant Engineer
Kerala Water Authority
Kidangara, Alappuzha
(Adv. Joesph Mathew)
ORDER
C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties by virtue of having water supply connection from the opposite parties since 30/10/2010. The complainant is regular with his payment and has not made any defaults regarding any payments. The complainant recently received an exorbitant bill amount of Rs.22,717.00 due over his water connection on bill received on 22/5/2020 compared to Rs.682 on his previous bill on 15/11/2019. The complainant and his family uses the water received from the opposite party for drinking, cooking and other house hold uses and they rely on river water for other purposes such as gardening etc. thus such exorbitant amount is erroneous and impossible.
A written complaint filed to the opposite party on 305/2020 however no satisfactory replies were received. On the contrary an exorbitant bills were issued on 6/7/2020 and 8/9/2020 to the complainant. Further the complainant had also brought notice and reported to the 2nd opposite party that the water meter was faulty. On 24/8/2020 another written complaint indicating the complainant’s issues and his right to information was sent to the 1st opposite party for which the 1st opposite party replied through letter on 11/9/2020(No.AB-2/199/2010) justifying such an exorbitant bill amount was by taking into account recent charges in water consumption and averaging it into bills of the previous years, ie, of 2018 and 2019. However the complainant asserts that this is against justice as current changes in water consumption should not be allowed to be reflected on to bills of previous years.
The opposite party by not replying or considering the complainant’s first written complaint on 30/5/2020 has caused deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for seeking following reliefs
1. to direct the opposite parties to re-issue proper bill and cancellation of issued erroneous bills(Demand and Disconnection Notice) by properly considering the true facts and not to disconnect water connection to the complainant.
2. to direct the opposite parties to check the faulty water meter and replace it.
3. to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.25,000.00 for mental agony suffered by old aged complainant and cost of the proceedings.
Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
Water supply connection with consumer no RKY/1034 was given to the complaint on 30/10/2010. The complaint has remitted water charge upto 4/2019 in the minimum tariff is @Rs.22/-. E-abacus system was implemented only on 4/2019 and regular reading and billing system started thereafter the actual consumption of the complaint during the period from 3/2018 to 20/2019 55KL was the usage of water per month water charge at Rs.919/- hence bill with an amount of Rs.17,880/- ie, (914-20)x 20 has raised as arrear in 11/2019.
The consumption of the complainant is calculated according to the reading recorded on the meter attached to the connection. The reading and consumption details are follows:-
14/3/2018 - 585
} 55.36KL @914/-
15/11/2019 - 1697
} 48.35 Kl @ 677/-
23/5/2020 - 1999
} 42 KL @588/-
7/7/2020 - 2083
} 38.5KL @ 462/-
29/9/2020 - 2160
} 33KL @ 396/-
24/11/2020 - 2226
} 10KL @ 40/-
19/01/2021 - 2246
} 56KL@940/-
25/3/2021 - 2358
} 38.17 KL @ 481/-
05/7/2021 - 2486
} 29.5KL@ 278.78/-
08/9/2021 - 2545
The bill is issued according to the usage as shown above.
The meter did not appear to be faulty from the check for reading. Reading decreased when usage decreased just as reading increased during peak usage.
Before E-abacus system comes into existence the consumer has to pay the water bill as per the provisional invoice card issued at the time of connection and then pay extra usage charge if the usage is found to be high in the reading accordingly the bill is issued.
The bill issued is according to actual usage of the consumer.. Once the exact reading has been obtained there is no need of further enquiry water meter is functioning. The bill is as per the reading obtained from the meter in the premises. The bill is based on the actual usage of the consumer. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Points for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the additional water charges claimed by the opposite parties?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties? If so what would be the compensation.
3. Reliefs and costs.?
4. The evidence consists oral evidence of PW1.From the side of the complainant Ext.A1 to A6 were marked. In which Ext.A4 to A6 were series. The counsel for the complainant filed argument notes. RW1 was examined from the side of the opposite parties. We have heard both sides.
5. Points No. 1 and 2:-
On perusal of Ext.A4 (series) meter reading card found the consumption of water per KL and find out the average consumption of water per month are given below.
Date Consumption Difference Period Average
In KL in KL months Consumption
Per month
27/10/11 11KL
2/01/14 173KL } 162KL 25 6.48 KL
11/4/14 223 } 50KL 04 12.50
27/8/14 254 } 31KL 04 07.75
27/11/14 276 } 22KL 03 07.30
30/12/15 341 } 65 KL 13 05.00
15/06/16 418 } 77KL 5 ½ 14.00
21/12/17 860 } 442KL 05 73.00
6. Water consumption showing as per Ext.A6 bills are given below
Date Bimonthly water consumption inKL
15/11/2019 10
6/7/2020 84
12/11/2020 77
15/1/2201 60
2/7/2021 112
2/9/2021 76
7/1/2022 74.37
On perusal of the above tables it was found the meter reading is fluctuating as per the use but no comparing with the above readings the water consumption shown in Ext.A6 series bills is very high.
Comparing the readings in Ext.A6 series with earlier reading it is found that the meter reading is very high after 15/11/2019. Therefore, we found that the above fluctuation in meter reading shows the malfunctioning of the water meter. Hence the bills as per Ext.A6 series from 22/5/2020 upto the last bills dtd. 7/1/2022 are not valid in the eye of law, since it was prepared without the backing of actual meter reading. On perusal of the entry in the meter reading card in Ext.A4(Series) it appears that on 21/12/2017 the consumption shown is 860KL. At t he same time the very next reading mentioned in the version is 585KL on 14/3/2018. The above disparity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant in his argument notes. The above error found in the meter reading itself shows that the meter is faulty and it is found from Ext.A1 and A2 the complainant had rightly brought notice to the opposite parties of his doubt about the exorbitant bill amount. During cross examination RW1 deposed that “AanX _nÃnsâ ]cmXn e`n-¡p-t¼mÄ ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ aoäÀ ]cn-tim-[n-¡m-dp-v. sN¡v aoäÀ F¶ D]-I-cWw D]-tbm-Kn-¨m-Wv. ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-¶-Xv. Sn D]-I-cWw Hm^o-kn BWv. CXv D]-tbm-Kn-¨Ã Cu tIkn ]cn-tim-[n-¨Xv”. But nothing is before us that they have taken necessary steps to inspect the accuracy of the water meter. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the water meter in the disputed connection is faulty and it is to be replaced with a new one and it is to be noted that the issuance of Ext.A6 series bills and claiming exorbitant arrears shows the failure on the part of the opposite parties in taking the meter reading in time. Regulation 13 of water supply regulations stipulated the procedure to be adopted in the manner of assessment of water charges. Regulation 13 reads as follows:-
(a) The water consumer 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.
(b) The authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for nay 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 IX indicating there in 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.
c) The Authority may also introduce a slab system for connection 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 be, based on observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. The initial average rate of six months shall be fixed on the average consumption or metered average consumption of any six months preceeding the date of coming into force of the slab system.
d) If the water charges as provided under clauses (b) and (c) of this regulation, already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess or short based on the meter readings taken subsequently, the consumer shall pay to the authority the amount short remitted and the authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments. An adjustment bill in From No. IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer.”
The decision rendered by the Hon'ble State Commission of Kerala in Kerala Water Authority vs. Mery Stella [31 July, 2008,Appeal (A) No.459/2005]. In which observed that the adjustment bill has been issued by the water authority without considering the stipulation of clause 13(a)&(b) of the Regulation. Hence it was, found that the consumer is not liable to remit the amount covered under the adjustment bill. .
The said decision is squarely applicable in this case. The very same aspect was pointed out in the argument notes filed by the counsel appearing for the complainant. It is to be noted that the additional bill has been issued without taking the reading as stipulated under clause (b) of Regulation 13. It is also stipulated that the adjustment bill Form.No .lX shall be issued once every six months to the consumer. In the present case, no such adjustment bills have been issued to the complainant. The issuance of the first arrear bill dtd. 22/5/2020 in Ext. A6 series bills, claiming a sum of Rs.19059/-(Rupees Nineteen thousand and fifty nine)as additional amount which shows the failure on the part of the opposite parties in taking the reading in time. Consequently issued disconnection Notice dtd. 24.3.2021 claimed Rs.24,323/- (in Ext.A6 series). As per the records the complainant promptly paid water charges Ext.A3 series and A4 series are water bills from 2010 onwards. Moreover, he deposited his water charges in advance. On perusal of the evidence on records, it is found that upto 21/12/2017 the meter reading was collected at the intervals of 6 months. It is evident from their version that the arrear bill was calculated as per the consumption of the complainant during the period from 14.3.2018 to 15.11.2019. Seemingly said period opposite parties did not record meter reading. According to the opposite party e-abacus billing system was implemented on 4/2019 and regular collection of reading was started. So before that the reading recorded as the wishes of the water authority and not as per the regulation In view of the above we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not liable to pay the additional amount shown in the disconnection notice dtd. 24/3/2021 and subsequent bills in Ext.A6 series.
We have already found that the opposite parties are negligent in issuing arrear bill. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties and they are also liable to pay litigation cost to the complainant, since they put the complainant into an unnecessary litigation.
7. Point. No.3:-
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows:-
1. The demand cum disconnection notice No.269 dt.24.3.2021 and other subsequent bills in Ext.A6 series are hereby set aside and ops are restrained by an order of injunction from disconnecting the water connection in consumer no. RKY/1034/D belongs to the complainant
2. The complainant is directed to take necessary steps to replace the water meter as per the law. Thereafter, opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bill as per actual consumption of water from 15/11/2019 onwards.
3. opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 8000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand) towards litigation costs to the complainant. It shall either be paid to the complainant or deducted from the subsequent bills.
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 19th day of March, 2022.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.J.Joseph (complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Petition Dtd. 30/5/2020
Ext.A2 - Copy of Letter dtd. 24/8/2020
Ext.A3 - Reply dtd. 11/9/2020
Ext.A4 - Copies of Water Connection Order, Meter reading Card,
Provisional Invoice Card
Regarding transaction details.
Ext. A5 - Receipts dtd. 24/1/2011 to 24/4/2019
Ext.A6 - Demand &Disconnection Notices 15.11.2019 to 7/1/2022
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Alen Leon (witness)
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Comp.by:
