PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 24/08/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 461/2011
Between
Dr. R. Rekha, : Complainant
W/o. Dr. Sunil, (By Adv. George Cherian
Sree Bhavan, Karippaparambil, H.B.48,
Brahmamangalam P.O., Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682 036)
Thalayolaparambu via,
Pin- 686 614.
And
The Asst. Executive Engineer, : Opposite parties
Water Works Sub Division, (By Adv. Jeemon John, MDV
Kerala Water Authority, Complex, Opp. LF Hospital,
Kochi-682 016. Angamaly)
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complaint is with regard to excessive charge demanded from the complainant in the impugned bill issued by opposite party. Complainant is the owner of a building which has been rented out to an advertising agency to which the opposite party supplies water under non-domestic category. The crux of the complaint is that the water meter was not recording correct consumption. Despite his request for replacement of the water meter, it was not considered positively until March 2011 when the original meter was repaired and reinstalled. Even though it is stated in the complaint that the calculation of 102.5 KL as average consumption was illegal, strangely enough there is prayer to issue fresh bill on the basis of the readings recorded in the reinstalled meter. Instead, compensation for loss, severe mental agony etc. has been demanded in the prayer portion of the complaint.
2. The opposite party has denied the allegations made in the complaint in the version filed by him. His first contention is that there is adequate alternate effective remedy provided in the Kerala Water Supply and Sewarage Act, 1986. Secondly on merits, the levy of the amount in the impugned bill is not excessive since the calculations were made as per actual consumption. There was a sudden spurt in the consumption since February 2007. Later, on inspection, it came out that there was leakage in the water tank. Moreover, opposite party has made concessions permissible under the Regulations and reduced the amount in the bill to Rs. 42,849/- from the original figure of Rs. 57,658/-. Hence it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. No oral evidence for opposite party. Ext. B1 and B2 were marked for him. Parties were heard.
4. The following points deserve consideration for settlement.
i. Whether the impugned bill amount is excessive?
ii. What are the reliefs, if any.
5. Points No.(i) & (ii). As mentioned earlier, there is no prayer in the complaint for fresh bill based on real consumption, Even then, we formulate such a relief for the sake of justice. We would like to direct ourselves accordingly to address such a relief.
We shall commence our discussion with Ext. A1 bill dated 26-04-2011 issued by opposite party to complainant. In the said bill Rs. 42,849/- was demanded to be remitted by the complainant. Whereas the parties have no real dispute regarding to whom the bill was issued, we need not delve on such issues now, especially there is no dispute regarding the consumer Number. The average consumption over the period from 13/11/2007 to 08/08/2010 is stated as 102.5 kl and the total consumption is stated to be 3366 KL. According to complainant these figures do not reflect the actual consumption, Ext. B2 consumer ledger would lend some support in removing doubts regarding readings recorded during this period. Unfortunately no reading is seen recorded since 18-03-2008 till 08-08-2010. It is worthwhile to notice that in Ext. B2, the reading on 18-03-2008 was 1052, which will show that consumption was reasonable. Thereafter the ledger is blank till the date of 08/08/2010 where the reading was stated to be 4339. No explanation has been made by the opposite party in not recording water consumption over this period. In this context, the deposition of PW1 that they have been making complaints regarding the defective meter is relevant. Of course Ext. B1 complaint has been produced by opposite party and they have invited our attention to the endorsement on the reverse side stating that there was leaks before connection. Presumably he was referring to the installation of the new meter. That would show that the meter was defective and it was replaced at request. We can not give much credence to the endorsement regarding leak because it was only statement based on hearsay. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that the calculation of average consumption of 102.5 KL was a mistake and it should be corrected. Accordingly, Ext. A1 bill stands quashed and opposite party will issue fresh bill covering the bill period based on the calculation of average consumption calculated for the period of six months from 31-05-2011. In the facts and circumstances of the case no other reliefs are granted to complainant.
6. In short, complaint stands allowed as follows:
Ext. A1 bill stands quashed and fresh bill will be issued as above.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
APPENDIX
Complainant’s exhibits
Ext. A1 : Consumer bill dt. 26/04/2011
A2 Copy of letter dt. 31/05/2011
A3 : Receipt dt. 16/06/2011
A4 : Receipt
A5 : Authorization letter dt. 20-01-2012
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 31/05/2011 .
B2 : Copy of consumer ledger
Depositions:
PW1 : P.A. Raghavan
