5DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.102/2007

V.P.Haridas,

S/o.Late Smt.Chinnammu Amma,

Baby House,

Poduval Junction, Shoranur,

Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.Lakshminarayanan)

Vs

The Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Shoranur, Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad. - Opposite party

(By Adv.K.Raghu)

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Mother of the complainant (Smt.Chinnammu Amma) was the owner of the building having water meter connection vide consumer Nos.845, 846, 847 and 848. After her death the properties were inherited by her legal heirs and the complainant is managing the same for the co-owners also. For the above said connections the monthly water charges levied by the Kerala Water Authority was Rs.37/- each. There was no delay or default on the side of the complainant in making payment of the water charges to the opposite party. On 6/1/07 and 8/6/07 the opposite party served notices on the complainant stating huge arrears in the bill provided for the said connections. It is stated that for consumer No.845 the arrear is Rs.1725/- for consumer No.846 Rs.3080/- and for consumer No.847 Rs.22447/-. In consumer No.848 it is stated that the meter is not functioning and they have issued a notice to replace the same. On receipt of the bills the complainant contacted the opposite party and requested to verify the same as there was no possibility for such huge arrears. According to the complainant, not taking meter reading for more than 5 years and issuing arrear bills saying that average consumption is more than the permitted and demanding water charges from the date of last bill is without any basis and is unjust and against natural justice.

2. After issuing the bills, without any notice and without verifying the oral complaint made by the complainant, opposite party has disconnected the water connections. Later complainant caused a registered lawyer notice to the opposite party. When there was no reply, complainant filed a complaint to the opposite party on 6/6/07 and on receipt of this the opposite party made a reply admitting that the meter reading was taken on 7/12/06 i.e after 5 years. The complainant has no liability to pay water charges as claimed by the opposite party. In reply the opposite party stated that if the complainant demands they are ready to give monthly bills. From this, it is clear that the opposite party has willfully omitted to take readings within time and to inform the complainant. Further the opposite party has not sent any notice intimating that there was leakage on the supply line of the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays for set-asiding the excess bill issued by the opposite party and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as damages for the deficiency in service and to pay the cost.

3. Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. In the consumer numbers 845, 846 and 847, complainant paid average 15 kl water charges as Rs.37/-. In fact complainant's actual water consumption is 25 kl, 32 kl and 82 kl respectively as per the reading. The complainant consumed water above 15 kl limit. The additional bills issued by the opposite party is only to the excess consumption of water. As per the reading additional bills issued to the consumer No.845 Rs.1580/-(Bill No.2205), Consumer No.846 Rs.3080/- (Bill No.2206) and Consumer No.847 is Rs.22800/- (Bill No.2207). In the version opposite party has produced the detailed meter reading and calculation statements of the complainant's connection. According to opposite party Smt.Chinnammu Amma was the domestic consumer having water connection vide consumer Nos.845, 846, 847 and 848. Now the complaint is filed by one Sri.V.P.Haridas regarding the meter reading and water charges of consumer Nos.845, 846 and 847. The ownership of the connection has not been changed and no action is taken so far for the same. Opposite party has admitted that the complainant has already remitted monthly rate upto 5/07 at minimum rate. Regarding the consumer No.848 the meter is found to be faulty and not functioning. The complainant has to replace the meter. All the additional bills are prepared based on the actual meter reading and water consumption of the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the same. The allegation of repair works done without intimations to the complainant is not correct. There was leakage in the connection point of the complainant's water connection.

In order to prevent water wastage and traffic block in the narrow road, opposite party initiated and completed the repair work. After the repair work opposite party restored the connection of the complainant. The repair charges is to be met by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party and hence the opposite party is not liable for any claim made by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A9 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite party. Matter was heard.

5. Issues to be considered are;

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

3. If so what is the relief and cost

6. Issues No.1:

According to the opposite party the complainant is not a consumer because the connection is in the name of his mother who is no more. The complainant being the beneficiary can be treated as a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. So the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

7. Issues Nos 2 & 3:

The facts and available records would show that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party in taking meter reading towards the water charges. It is to be noted that the additional bills are issued on the basis of meter reading. No doubt about the fact that the complainant is bound to pay minimum water charges. But here in the disputed bills the rate is shown as Rs.67 X 56 (as per Ext.A1), Rs.92 X 56(as per Ext.A2) and Rs.417 X 60 (as per Ext.A3). But the opposite party failed to give reasonable explanation or calculation as to how they arrived at the said amounts. The case of the opposite party is that the aforesaid amount represents the price of the water actually consumed by the complainant as consumer under Kerala Water Authority. No explanation is forthcoming from the side of the opposite party for enhancing the original amount. Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations stipulates the procedure and method to be adopted in

revising the minimum water charge fixed in the provisional invoice card and also regarding issuance of additional bills based on meter readings taken at intervals of six months. There can be no doubt about the fact that the officials of Kerala Water Authority are bound to take meter readings every six months and issue the additional or revised bills every six months. In Appeal No.762/2004, The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority Vs. P.G.Sarada, Hon'ble State Commission of Kerala held that the officials of Water Authority are bound to follow the Regulation 13 of Kerala Water Supply Regulations. In the present case, opposite party failed to follow the same. So the disputed bills dated 4/1/07 and 8/6/07 for a period stated in Ext.A1 – Ext.A5 can only be treated as the bills issued against the provisions of Water Supply Regulations. Hence the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and the bill is liable to be set-aside.

8. In the result complaint allowed. Ext.A1, Ext.A2 and Ext.A3 bills dtd.04.01.2007 and Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 bills dtd.08.06.2007 shall stand cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to compensation and costs.

9. Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of September, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Bill No.2205 dtd.4/1/07 issued by opposite party

Ext.A2 - Bill No.2206 dtd.4/1/07 issued by opposite party

Ext.A3 - Bill No.2207 dtd.4/1/07 issued by opposite party

Ext.A4 - Bill No.2896dtd.8/6/07 issued by opposite party

Ext.A5 - Bill No.2897 dtd.8/6/07 issued by opposite party

Ext.A6 – Notice dtd.14/6/07 issued by opposite party to complainant

Ext.A7 – Copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant to opposite party

Ext.A8 – Acknowledgement card

Ext.A9 – Lawyer notice sent by opposite party to complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 (Series) – Calculation statement

Ext.B2 (Series) – Copy of personal ledger – 4 in Nos.

Costs (Not allowed)