THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.402/2017
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2019
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Hon’ble Sri. Joseph Mathew, Member
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Petitioner’s case is that, she is a domestic consumer of the opposite parties having Consumer No. KVY/69/D. Since the supply of water by the opposite parties was not sufficient and irregular she had taken another connection from Jalanidhi for the domestic usage. Though she had approached the opposite parties several times for rectifying the defects in the connection line they were not attended her complaints. While so, she had let out the house to a neighbour but they also cannot use the water due to the non-supply of water. It is stated that earlier the opposite parties have issued regular bills and she had paid the bill amounts without fault also.
On 16/03/2016 the opposite parties had issued a demand cum disconnection notice for Rs.36,853/- as arrears. Subsequently on 08/04/2016 the 2nd opposite party had issued another notice to her admitting that the meter connected to the water supply line was not functioning and demanding her to replace the faulty meter with a new one. Thereupon she had filed an objection before the 2nd opposite party against the illegal bill dated 16/03/2016 and the 2nd opposite party’s office orally informed her that the disputed bill amount will be settled shortly. Thereafter an officer of the opposite parties visited the site and inspected the water supply line and meter but no positive action from their side. On 22/07/2016 she had filed another complaint before the 1st opposite party requesting to check the meter reading and to allow her to install a new meter and Air Control Valve on the supply line. She was waiting for a favourable reply with permission for installing a new water meter but to her surprise she received another demand cum disconnection notice dated 25/11/2016 for an amount of Rs.37,054/- as arrears. In addition to that notice she received another threatening letter dated 25/11/2016 wherein the 1st opposite party demanded Rs.36,838/- as arrears stating that the connection will be disconnected if the amount is not paid within 5 days without further notice. Immediately she had sent a reply to that notice stating her grievances.
The petitioner further stated that, the amount showed as arrears in the demand notice was not based on the actual consumption of water but due to the technical problem of the meter connected to the water supply line. The records maintained by the opposite parties also shows that technical issues are persists with the meter and that is the reason for the excessive reading of the meter. Had the opposite parties being diligent enough, they ought to have given permission to replace the defective meter with Air Control System on receipt of the complaint complaint from her. But the opposite parties have not take any steps to replace the faulty meter which itself is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. If the opposite parties disconnect her water connection due to the non-payment of the amount generated based on the reading of a faulty meter it will cause much loss and injury to her. She is also not liable to remit the amount illegally demanded. Even after many complaints the opposite parties are not ready to revise the wrong bill amount. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to gross negligence and also deficiency in service on their part which caused much mental agony, and other hardships to her. Hence this petition is filed to set aside the illegal and baseless demand cum disconnection notice issued by the opposite parties dated 25/11/2016 for Rs.37,054/-, to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect her water connection for the non-payment of the said illegal bill amount and not to take any coercive steps against her in this regard, to pay Rs.25000/- with interest as compensation for her mental agony and other hardships suffered, to direct the opposite parties not to continue the unfair trade practice of demanding exorbitant amount based on faulty meter reading and threatening the consumer with the disconnection notice if that amount is not paid and also cost of the proceedings.
The petitioner also submitted that, she had filed a complaint as C.C. No. 32/2017 before this Forum for the same cause of action along with an interim application as I.A. No. 33/2017. The I./A was allowed by the Forum and as per the direction in that I.A. she had remitted Rs.12,000/- before the opposite parties towards that bill amount but thereafter the said complaint was dismissed for default. She is having serious contentions against the opposite parties and hence this petition.
The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed a joint version denying the allegations of the petitioner as false and baseless. It is contended that this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. Admittedly the petitioner is their consumer and the connection was given during the month of February, 1992 having consumer No. KVY/69/D. Since the water meter was not functioning, a new meter was installed on 09/02/2012. As per the reading in that replaced meter the petitioner had consumed water for Rs.3,292/- per month from 09/02/2012 to 14/07/2012 and for Rs.2,817/- per month from 15/07/2012 to 12/02/2013 respectively. When they inspected the meter reading on 10/01/2014 and 08/09/2014 it is found that the meter was not functioning and as such the Assistant Engineer Koduvally had inspected the site on 31/12/2014 and reported that the meter was faulty. It is submitted that, thereafter from 13/05/2015 onwards they had issued several notices to the petitioner demanding to replace the faulty meter since as per Kerala Water Authority Water Supply Regulation, it is the duty of the consumer either to replace or to repair the faulty meter at their cost but the petitioner has not complied their instruction.
It is contended that as per their Rules, in the case of faulty meters the arrears has been calculated based on the average readings showed during the immediately preceding months of meter fault. As such the water charges of the petitioner from 12/02/2013 was calculated based on the monthly consumption of Rs.2,817/- upto August 2016 as Rs76,059/-. But from the site inspection report of Assistant Engineer Koduvally it was found that from 10/01/2014 to 14/02/2016 the petitioner was not resided in that house and so from 12/02/2013 onwards instead of charging Rs.2,817/- they have charged only the minimum charge of Rs.22/- for this period. Thus they have adjusted the water charge of the petitioner from Rs.76,059/- to Rs.37,054/- after allowing a deduction of Rs.39,005/-. Though there was supply of water in the pipe line of the petitioner, the reason for not recording the reading in the meter was due to the fault of the meter.
It is also submitted that prior to this petition this petitioner had filed a complaint against them before this Forum and as per the order of this Forum the petitioner had remitted Rs.12,000/- before them towards the bill amount on 14/12/2017 as per receipt No. RD.3333649. It is stated that if the petitioner needs they are ready to grant instalments for the balance amount. Only by replacing the faulty meter the actual consumption of water can be calculated. So it is prayed to direct the petitioner to replace the faulty meter immediately after remitting the balance arrears for closing the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part as alleged and prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
The 2nd opposite party also filed version for and on behalf of the 3rd opposite party with the same contentions as that of 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The statement of the petitioner that by issuing such unjustified and illegal notices demanding payment of exorbitant bill amount the opposite parties had harassed and humiliated her is denied as not true or correct. There is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with a direction to the petitioner to replace the faulty meter with a new one after remitting the balance arrears.
The matters to be decided are:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs if any?
Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the opposite parties, Ext.s A1 to A11, B1 and depositions of PW1 and RW1.
Point No.1: Admittedly the water connection was taken in the month of February, 1992. According to the petitioner from the date of taking the connection the supply of water was insufficient and also irregular. Though she had approached the opposite parties several times demanding to rectify the problem that was not attended by the opposite parties. Moreover the water meter installed was not functioning and so once she had replaced the meter also. The opposite parties has also admitted that the faulty meter was replaced on 09/02/2012. The opposite parties also admitted that the replaced meter was also found not functioning while inspecting the meter reading on 10/01/2014 and 08/09/2014. Here it is to be noted that though the opposite parties found that the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner was not functioning on their inspection on 10/01/2014, as per their own version the Asst. Engineer, Koduvally had inspected the site only on 31/12/2014 and reported officially that the meter was faulty. Even then as per their version they have issued notices to the petitioner demanding replacement of the meter only on 13/05/2015 ie. after a long delay of more than 16 months. It is also to be considered that the opposite parties have acted so when they are bound to take meter reading and to issue bill to the consumers’ bimonthly based on the meter reading. If they had issued the replacement notice to the petitioner immediately on finding the meter faulty on 10/01/2014 then the petitioner can very well replace the meter without any difficulty and the opposite parties can avoid the issuance of Ext. A9 demand notice for such an exorbitant amount also. This kind of irresponsible and negligent activities on the part of the opposite parties is nothing but deficiency in service on their part causing much financial loss and other hardships to the consumers. Making the consumers prey to the negligent activities of the opposite parties is not allowable or acceptable.
The opposite parties also admitted that from 10/01/02014 to 14/02/2016 the petitioner was not residing in that house. Ext. A6 is the copy of letter issued by the Asst. Engineer, Koduvally to the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 31/05/2016. In that letter it is clearly stated that, there is Air Problem in the connection line of the petitioner and in the absence of water the meter is showing reading due to air problem. The reason for the same is stated as the house is situated in a hill top area. The complaint of the petitioner itself is that the water supply was not sufficient or regular and the meter is showing reading due to Air Problem and so Ext.s A3 and A9 bills issued demanding Rs.36838/- and Rs.37054/- respectively based on the reading of the faulty meter is not correct and hence unacceptable. The statement of the Asst. Engineer in Ext. A6 letter is also supporting the allegation of the petitioner as true. Ext. A7 is the copy of letter issued to the Asst. Engineer, Koduvally by the petitioner dated 22/07/2016 requesting to grant permission for installing a new water meter and to connect Air Control Valve to the pipe line but this request was not allowed by the opposite parties due to the non-remittance of the arrears. According to the opposite parties only after remitting the arrears towards the water charges they can allow the request of the petitioner. The opposite parties stated that as per the Rules of Kerala Water Authority, in cases of faulty meters the bill amounts are calculated on the basis of the average of the reading showed in the meter during the preceding months of the date of non-functioning of the meter. The bill amount of Rs.37,054/- as per Ext. A9 demand notice was prepared based on the average meter reading showed in the petitioner’s meter before the meter became faulty and so she is bound to remit the said amount. But it is acceptable only when the meter functioned properly and recorded the correct consumption of water. But in this case from the evidence it is found that the petitioner’s meter was faulty most of the time after its installation. Once it was replaced but that also became faulty and the reading showed in the meter was not actual consumption and was excessive due to Air Problem which was admitted by the Asst. Engineer in his letter Ext. A6 also. So the demand for the said amount based on the reading of a faulty meter is unfair and so we are of the view that the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount. The opposite parties are bound to issue bimonthly bills to the consumer based on the reading in the meter without fault then only the consumers can find out the defects if any with the meter and can rectify the same without delay. Here evidence shows that the opposite parties are issuing bills after many months which is against their rules and so amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Though the opposite parties contended that they have issued several notices to the petitioner demanding to replace the faulty meter from 13/05/2015 onwards, no evidence was adduced in support of the said contention. According to the petitioner she had received only one notice in this regard and that is Ext. A4. Point No. 1 found accordingly.
Point No. 2: In view of the finding in Point No. 1, we are of the view that the petitioner is not liable to pay the exorbitant bill amount of Rs.37054/- issued by the opposite parties based on the reading of a faulty meter. Since the petitioner had already remitted Rs.12,000/- towards that bill amount as per the order in I.A.33/2017, we are also of the view that the paid amount itself is sufficient to clear the dues of the petitioner.
In the result, the following order is passed.
The opposite parties are ordered to close the complaint of the petitioner towards the disputed bill amount of Rs.37,054/- with the received amount of Rs.12,000/-. They are also ordered to grant permission to the petitioner for installing a new water meter with Air Control Valve as per Rules. The opposite parties are also ordered to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation charge to the petitioner which they can adjust in the future bill amount.
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2019
Date of filing: 17/11/2017
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Special Power of Attorney
A2. Copy of Provisional Invoice Card
A3. Demand and disconnection notice dated 16/03/2016
A4. Notice dated 08/04/2016
A5. Copy of letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party
A7. Copy of complainant filed by the complainant before the 1st opposite party
A8. Copy of letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party
A9. Demand and disconnection notice dated 25/11/2016
A10. Disconnection notice issued by the 1st opposite party
A11. Copy of complainant filed by the complainant before the 2nd opposite party
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Counter ledger
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Muhammed Basheer (PoA)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. V.V. Kumaran Nair (Opposite party)
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
