CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:16/06/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/84/2016
R.Narayanan,
(Retd.Army), Puzhakkal Veedu,
Ariyakkodu, : Complainant
Nenmara NSS College.P.O,
Pin-678 508,
Palakkad.
(Rep.by Adv.M.Raveendran)
Vs
- The Executive Engineer(KWA),
Water Authority Divisional Office,
Kalmandapam,
Palakkad-Pin-678 001.
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
: Opposite parties
- The Asst.Executive Engineer(KWA),
Water Authority Sub Divisional Office,
Chittur P.O, Pin-678 101.
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
- The Asst.Engineer(KWA),
P.H.Section Office,
Nenmara P.O,
Pin-678 508.
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
The complainant is a Rtd.Army Officer. In 2006 he took a water connection from Kerala Water Authority in the Nenmara Section Office and his consumer Number was 3167. He paid water charge upto October 2015. When he went to Nenmara Office of the Kerala Water Authority to remit the amount for 5 months from 11/2015 to 3/2016, he was orally asked to pay arrear amount of Rs. 30697/- also. The complainant told them that since the meter worked, when the water was not coming. The complainant also told the 3rd opposite party that the arrear amount was not due from him because this reading occurred when the water was not coming and the meter worked . On 10/02/2012 the complainant complained about this in the office of the 1st opposite party. The opposite party did not agree with the complainant who was told that without paying arrears, water charge from 11/2015 to 03/2016 would not be accepted; if arrears were not paid, legal action would be taken against the complainant-this was also told by the opposite party to the complainant. On the complaint given by the complainant on 10/02/2012, no action was taken by the opposite party till 17/02/2016. After getting water connection in August 2006, readings were taken on 07/12/2007, 15/09/2009, 17/02/2010, 26/08/2012, 05/02/2013, 07/02/2013 and 05/03/2016 and the complainant paid water charge from 08/2006 to 10/2015. Reading not seen upto 10/2015. That reading no seen up to 2015 was seen on 03/2016 was wrong. Even though all these were told by the complainant in the 3rd opposite party’s office, they did not listen to the complainant’s appeal. When the complainant was told to pay a big amount for the water not obtained and if not paid the big amount, legal action would be taken by the opposite party against the complainant. It caused him the mental agony which made the complainant take the help of Forum For Consumer Justice of Alathur. After examining the facts and explaining the organizational matters, this organization sent registered notices to all the three opposite parties on 19/04/2016. The three opposite parties received the letters sent by the Forum For Consumer Justice. To this letter in their reply sent by 2nd opposite party on 29/04/2016 that all matters were admitted and Rs.29862/-was to be paid, was mentioned. At first, in the 3rd opposite party’s office Rs.30697/-was mentioned. That in the reply letter given by 2nd opposite party the matters mentioned were false and that on 10/02/2012 in the complaint given by the complainant to 3rd opposite party’s office mentioning that water was not available but meter worked, but that mentioned in 2nd opposite party’s reply letter that upto 04/02/2016 “not inspected” was considered as a deficiency on the part of opposite parties. The aforesaid Consumer Organization again sent a letter on 10/05/2016 to 2nd opposite party stating that without examining the fact and on the basis that reading being seen, demanding money is not correct to which 2nd opposite party in their reply on 11/05/2016 stated that excess amount as per the reading has to be remitted . That on the basis of the meter reading which was false or caused by entering of air in the tap and in the pipe, demanding money is not a correct step is appealed by the complainant . From the date of taking water connection in 08/2006 upto 7th February 2013, there was no mistake or dispute. The mistake occurred between 2/2013 and 05/03/2016. The complainant appeals that, according to the 2nd opposite party, between 02/2013 and 03/2016, 2nd opposite party took meter reading three times only. If that is so, the complainant appeals that why the opposite party did not give him additional amount bill then and during dispute occurrence at the time of enquiry additional amount was demanded to be paid. According to the complainant because of the changes in the billing system in the opposite party’s office, there occurred delay in giving bill but three years delay occurrence although justified by the opposite party cannot be accepted. Because of the inadvertent delay in acting upon his complaint dated 10/02/2012, which stated that without getting water, meter working, their occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in order to cover up which, justification was found, when dispute occurred-this was appealed by the complainant.
Including the additional bill amount to be paid by the complainant as water charge will come to below Rs.100/-per month. It is not a correct step to ask the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/-or more as water charge. For 78 months from 08/2006 to 2/2013, reading was 1540 kls. As per that , per month water consumption was 19743 ltrs and the water charge for the same was remitted. The mistake in the meter reading between 02/2013 to 02/2016 and the reading was marked as 3823kls. From this, if reading of 1540 kls upto 02/2013 was deducted, balance comes to 2283 kls. As per that per month water consumption comes to 63.416 kls. Here the mistake occurred when the connection to the houses was given through ½ inch pipes. That the water supplied through these pipes to a house in a fixed time was told to have exceeded 2100 kls a day is not correct. That during this period when water was not available in the tap through entering of air, meter would have worked as considered by the complainant. That should be examined as demanded by the complainant vide his letter of request dated 10/02/2012 which was not examined in time. For the deficiency on the part of opposite parties recovering fine from the complainant who is a senior citizen is questioned by him-as appealed by the complainant.
After considering examination of meter and repairing it, reading mistake was not seen. From 05/03/2016 to 23/4/2016, the water consumption as per meter reading was 3846 klr. From this when 3823 kls on 05/03/2016 is deducted, the balance comes to 23000 lrs and as per that monthly consumption is 15000 lts.
According to the complainant when dispute arises in meter reading, only on water consumption seen before the dispute and after the dispute water charge can be calculated. But this practical step was not prepared to be taken by the opposite parties and the complainant (a Senior citizen) after working in Army and rendering service to the country, was made to suffer for which he was sad.
Hence its is prayed to the Hon’ble Forum to pass an order to cancel bill for Rs.29862/-which was on the basis of meter reading between 07/02/2013 and 05/03/2016 which was asked to be paid by the complainant and to calculate the correct water consumption during this period and after adjusting already paid amount if there is any excess, that may be determined, which the complainant is prepared to remit, to give compensation of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant for mental agony caused to him and to pay the cost of proceeding of Rs,2500/-.
In their version opposite parties contend that except those facts admitted here under, all other averments in the complaint are here by denied by these opposite parties.
It is admitted that the petitioner is a domestic consumer of KWA with consumer No.NMA/3167/D since 2006. It is incorrect to state that, after getting water connection in the year 2006 meter reading was taken only on 07/12/2007, 15/09/2009, 17/02/2010, 26/8/2012, 5/2/2013, 5/3/2016. Petitioner has not remitted water charges for the water consumed by the petitioner for the period from 08/2006 to 10/2015. Complainant has only remitted minimum water charges.
Opposite party has issued bill only for the quantity of water used by the consumer. Bill issued by opposite party is not excessive or wrong. So far consumer has not made any representation to this opposite party showing defect in bill or stating the bill issued to be excessive. Complainant has only remitted water charge for average consumption of 15 KL water.
Consumption of water as per meter reading taken after 07/02/2013 is as follows 7/2/2013-1540KL, 16/09/2014-Door locked(hence meter reading could not be taken), 18/02/2015-3083 KL, 23/01/2016-3814 KL, 05/03/2016-3823 KL, 23/04/2016-3846 KL. As per the meter reading taken for this period, petitioner’s average consumption of water from 07/02/2013 is 62 KL. Since the consumption of water by the petitioner was reported more, as per the request of petitioner, the opposite party inspected the water connection and found there is no defect in meter reading and the reading shown was only for the water consumed by the petitioner for that period. This fact was reported to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to remit the arrears of water charge. On 16.04.2016 Bill No.9859 was issued to the petitioner for arrears of water bill for Rs.29862/-. Petitioner’s water consumption was increased. Hence the complainant has to remit Rs.29862/-towards arrears of water charge. Water charge is not fixed on permanent basis but fixed on the quantity of water consumed by the complainant.
As per the inspection report of opposite party, water connection was given by the complainant to a tank having more than 5000 liter capacity and from there water was pumping with motor. Because of that the consumption of water increased since water was used in excess. This fact was also informed by the opposite party to the petitioner. As on 04/2016 complainant is bound to remit Rs.29862/- towards arrears of water charge.
The amount shown in the bill is the actual amount to be paid by the complainant for the water consumed by the complainant. No excess amount is claimed by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.5000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.2,500/-towards cost of this litigation from the opposite parties.
Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint with cost to opposite parties.
Complainant and opposite party filed their chief affidavits. From the side of the complainant documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A11, from the side of opposite party no documents were marked.
The following issues are taken into consideration in this case.
- Whether there is any negligence and/or deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
In this case the complainant has filed a complaint to the Hon’ble Forum because the opposite parties have demanded from him a fabulous amount of Rs.29,859/- as per water meter reading, even though water was not coming from the water connection in the house of the complainant. The complainant took a water connection from Kerala water authority Nenmara Section Office and his consumer No. was 3167 as per Ext.A1, which is consumer’s meter card which showed readings were taken on 7/2/2007, 15/9/2009, 17/2/2010, 26/8/2012, 5/2/2013, 7/2/2013, and 5/3/2016 . Upto 2/2013, according to the complainant readings were regularly taken by the opposite parties and written in the provisional invoice card marked as Ext.A2. Then the complainant went to 3rd opposite party’s Nenmara Office to remit the water charge for 5 months from 11/2015 to 3/2016 and he was orally asked to pay arrear amount of Rs.30,697/- . When the complainant observed that the defects of the meter were not remedied by the opposite parties, the complainant made a complaint to opposite party 2 & 3 and requested them to remedy the defects of the meter vide Ext.A3. The complainant paid water charge of Rs.1,304 from 6/2014 to 10/2015 as per the bill issued by Kerala Water Authority vide Ext.A4. Opposite party No.3 issued a letter dated 17/2/2016 to the complainant marked as Ext.A5 stating that on 2/2/2016 and 4/2/2016, at the time of their visit to the complainant’s house to inspect the connection, the gate of the house of the complainant was locked and hence complainant’s connection could not be inspected. When the complainant was asked by the opposite parties to pay a big amount of Rs.29,862/- for the water not consumed by him and hinted at taking legal action against him, caused by the mental agony the complainant approached and sought the help of the Forum for Consumer Justice of Alathur. This organization sent registered notices to the 3 opposite parties on 19/4/2016 vide Ext.A6. All the 3 opposite parties received the notices which was clear from acknowledgement cards marked as Ext.A7 series. To this notice opposite party No.2 gave a reply marked as Ext.A8 stating that for additional water consumption water charge arrears upto 4/2016, Rs.29,862/- have to be paid by the complainant. This consumer organization again sent a letter on 10/5/2016 to second opposite party stating that after 7/2/2013 meter reading was taken only on 5/3/2016 and the complainant had given a complaint about the defective meter on 10/2/2012 vide Ext.A9. Second opposite party also issued to the complainant a demand notice for Rs.29,862/- for the period from 7/2/2013 to 23/4/2016 vide Ext.A10. The reply to this letter of demand notice dated 10/5/16 marked as Ext.A11, which was sent by opposite party No.2 mentioning that water charge arrears of Rs.29,862/- have to be remitted. The complainant further states that there was no dispute upto 7th February 2013. The mistake and dispute has occurred between 2/2013 and 5/3/2013 during which second opposite party took meter reading 3 times only. Hence the complainant appeals why the opposite party did not give him additional amount bill then and during dispute occurrence additional amount was demanded to be paid by him. According to the complainant, 3 years delay occurrence cannot be accept and therefore there occurred deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties by not acting upon his complaint dated 10/2/2012.
Hence the complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to order the opposite parties to cancel the bill for Rs.29,862/- to give him compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony caused to him and to pay him cost of proceedings of Rs.2,500/-.
The opposite parties contend that the complainant is their domestic consumer since 2006 with consumer No.NMA/3167/D and meter reading was taken periodically by the opposite parties but the complainant did not remit water charges for the water consumed by him for the period from 8/2006 to 10/2015. The complainant remitted only minimum water charges for that period and did not enquire with the opposite parties office about the payment of the balance amount due. Opposite parties have issued bill only for the quantity of water consumed by the complainant. According to the opposite parties, complainant has not made any representation to them showing defects in bill or stating that the bill issued was excessive. According to opposite parties, water meter readings were taken on 7/2/2013, 16/9/2014 – door locked and meter reading could not be taken, on 18/2/2015, 23/1/2016, 5/3/2016 and 23/4/2016 – All these bills were given to the complainant in time. But the complainant failed to remit the water charges in time. On 16/4/2016 bill No.9859 was issued to the complainant for payment of water bill arrears for Rs.29,862/-. On that date the opposite party also inspected the water connection and found no defects in water meter and the reading shown was only for the water consumed by the complainant for the period from 7/2/2013. According to opposite parties, since the complainant’s water consumption increased he has to remit Rs.29,862/- towards water charge arrears. As per the inspection reports of opposite party‘s staff an unauthorized water connection was given by the complainant to a tank having more than 5,000/- lrs capacity and from there water was pumped with motor which caused increase in water consumption and water was used in excess for other purpose; this fact was informed by the opposite parties to the complainant who did not give any explanation to this – contends the opposite parties.
Therefore the opposite parties contend that complainant should remit Rs.29,862/- towards water charge arrears which is the actual amount for the water consumed by the complainant as shown in the bill. Therefore the opposite parties pray to the Hon’ble Forum that the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,500/- by way of litigation expenses from opposite parties. Therefore his complaint should be dismissed by the Hon’ble Forum with cost to opposite parties.
From the above, we observe that the opposite parties have failed to take water meter reading in the complainant’s house promptly and regularly. We also view that opposite parties have not submitted their documentary evidences to support their contentions to the Hon’ble Forum that complainant was promptly informed about his excess water consumption. Although the complainant has given a complaint to opposite parties on 10/2/2012 informing them about the defects of the water meter installed in his house, no necessary action was seen to have been taken promptly by opposite parties till 17/2/2016.
In the light of the above negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties are proved and establish.
Therefore the complaint is allowed.
We order the opposite parties 1,2 & 3 to be jointly and severally liable to cancel the water consumption arrear bill for Rs.29,862/- already issued to the complainant and by taking actual average water consumption of the complainant for a period of 12 months prior to 7/2/2013, issue him a fresh bill on that basis for the period from 7/2/2013 to 23/4/2016. Further opposite parties 1,2 & 3 are also ordered to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) by way of litigation expenses incurred by the complainant.
This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of the order; otherwise 9% interest on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant from the date of the order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of March 2017.
Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1-Copy of Meter reading bill . (on 07/12/2007 to 05/03/2016)
Ext.A2 –Copy of Provisional Invoice Card
Ext.A3- meter was not remedied by the opposite parties, the complainant made
a complaint to opposite party 2 & 3
Ext.A4- The complainant paid water charge of Rs.1,304 from 6/2014 to 10/2015
as per the bill issued by Kerala Water Authority
Ext.A5- Opposite party No.3 issued a letter 17/2/2016 to the complainant.
Ext.A6- Forum for consumer justice of Alathur, sent registered notices to the 3 opposite parties
on 19/4/2016
Ext.A7 series- 3 opposite parties received the notice which clear from acknowledgement card
Ext.A8- additional water consumption water charge arrears upto 4/2016 Rs.29,862/-
have to be paid by the complainant.
Ext.A9- Forum for consumer justice of Alathur, sent letter on 10/5/2016 to
second opposite party
Ext.A10- Second opposite party also issued to the complainant a demand notice for Rs.29,862/-
for the period from 7/2/2013 to 23/4/2016.
Ext.A11- The reply to this letter of demand notice dated 10/5/16.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 2000/- as cost
