CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 69/11
Thursday the 31st day of May, 2012
Petitioner : K.G.Rajamma,
Koottunkalparambil House
(Puthenveedu,)
Near Taluk Office,
Thirunakkara, Kottayam-1
( Adv.Shyni Gopi)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Asst.Exe.Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Water Works Sub Division,
Kottayam-2.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party with consumer no.KW/XV/382 domestic. The complainant remitted water charges as per the meter reading. But later the iron pipe connected to the complainant’s house corroded and due to that stones and sand got accumulated in the meter and it became nonfunctioning. The complainant filed application for changing the meter in April 2008. But the opposite parties came and examined the meter only on 8-8-09 and the defective meter was replaced on that day. The opposite parties examined the new meter on 25-08-09 and issued a bill of Rs.12474/- as water charges for the period 2008 June to 2009 September without any basis. As the petitioner complained against the excess bill, the opposite parties promised to take the meter reading after 6 months and to make an adjustment on the future bill if on finding the aforementioned bill as an excess one. The complainant remitted the above mentioned bill amount fearing that the opposite parties will disconnect the water connection.
The opposite parties again issued another bill for Rs.2525/- which is also without any basis. The complainant contented that water is consumed only in a moderate rate as only two persons that is the complainant herself and her husband are residing in the said premises. According to the complainant, the act of opposite parties in issuing excessive bills without any basis to the sick and senior citizens is a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming to set aside the bills dtd
25-8-09 and 7-7-10, to issue fresh bills complying the legal formalities, compensation Rs.5000/- and litigation cost.
The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.
i) The consumer remitted water charges upto 7/09. Monthly amount given in invoice may change as per the actual consumption of the consumer. Advance payment received on condition that the petitioner has to pay the additional charges for the excess consumption. The petitioner has not remitted water charges properly. The opposite party collected water charges according to existing rules and regulations of KWA.
ii) On 25-08-09, a new meter was fixed in the premises water connection and at the time of fixation of new meter the arrears upto 7/2009 for Rs.12474/- generated according to the meter readings taken. It was remitted by the complainant.
iii) The complainant remitted water charges upto 7/09. After the said remittance monthly water charges of the complainant revised as per meter readings. As per the meter reading register, the consumption of water by the consumer increased. So the complainant is liable to pay the additional bill. The monthly water charge of the petitioner is Rs.98/- and the total arrear is Rs.3,598/- as on 31/3/11.
iv) The slab rate of the consumer is fixed on the basis of average consumption of the consumer based on meter reading. The consumption of the petitioner is too high as per the meter reading
v) The consumer has already remitted Rs.8855/- and that has been deducted from her bill. The present arrear amount is generated from meter readings taken.
The opposite party contented that it has the right to claim arrears of water charges. According to opposite party there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.
Points for considerations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Exts.A1 to A4 & B1 .
Point No.1
Heard the counsels for both the parties. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the faulty meter was replaced on 8-08-09 and issued an illegal bill of Rs.12,474/- for the period 2008 June to 2009 September. Where as the opposite party contented that the aforesaid bill amount of Rs.12,474/- was generated according to the meter readings taken. And the opposite party has given some meter readings prior to the fixation of new meter.
As per Water Supply Regulation 17(d) if on examination, any meter is found to be out of order and not registering correctly the consumption dating from the reading previous to the last reading, till the repair or replacement of the meter be calculated at the average consumption registered for any previous period during which in the opinion of the Assistant Executive Engineer the meter installed at the premises was registering correctly and the consumption of water was not abnormal. In this instant case the opposite parties have given some prior meter readings and averred that the bill amount of Rs.12,474/- was generated according to the meter readings taken. The complainant has no case that the prior meter readings shown by the opposite parties are not of the period during the meter was registering correctly.
The opposite parties further contented that the consumption of water by the consumer increased and the slab rate of the consumer is fixed by them on the basis of average consumption of the consumer based on meter readings. The meter was replaced on 8-8-09. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties issued another bill of Rs.2525/- for the period 25-8-10 to 30-06-10. The Ext.A4 bill dated 07/07/10 is of the period after the installation of the new meter. As the complainant has no dispute with regard to the correctness of the newly installed meter, the bill dtd 7/7/10 might be based on the actual water consumption of the complainant. After considering the entire evidence placed on record we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is dismissed. Both sides will bear their costs.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of provisional invoice card
Ext.A2-Original notice showing ‘meter fault’
Ext.A3-Original receipt dtd 25/8/09
Ext.A4-Original consumer bill dtd 7/8/10
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-Consumer ledger
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
