KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:257/2002 JUDGMENT DATED:18..12..2008. PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Desaposhini Community Hall & Charitable Trust, (Regn. No:1308/85) P.O.Kuthiravattom, Kozhikkodu-673 016. : APPELLANT Repd. by its President Sri.A.P.Krishna Kumar. (By Adv: Sri.Shyam Padman) V. 1.The Kerala Water Authority, Repd. by its Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum. : RESPONDENT 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution Sub Division, No:1, Kerala Water Authority, Kozhikode-763 005. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:18th January 2002 passed by CDRF, Kozhikkodu in OP:348/01. The complaint in the said Original Petition was filed by the appellant against the respondents/opposite parties to get the arrear bill for a sum of Rs.49,992/- cancelled, and also to get restoration of the water supply connection which was disconnected by the opposite parties due to non payment of the aforesaid arrear bill amount. It was alleged that the disputed arrear bill for Rs.49,992/- was issued without any details and that the complainant/consumer had not consumed so much of water for effecting payment of the said sum of Rs.49,992/- as arrears for the period up to 2/01. The opposite parties filed written version contending that the arrear bill was issued based on the consumption of water by the complainant/consumer and that there was no deficiency of service in issuing the arrear bill and also in disconnecting supply of water connection due to non payment of the arrear bill. 2. Before the Forum below, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 documents were marked. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties other than marking of Ext.R1 notice dated:27..2..2001 issued by the Assistant Engineer of Kerala Water Authority to the complainant. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order thereby Ext.P8(1) arrear bill was cancelled with liberty to issue fresh bill. The complainant/consumer is directed to pay a sum of Rs.29,832/- being the monthly water charges payable by the complainant at the rate of Rs.1356/- for the period of 22 months ranging from 4/2000 to 1/2002 both inclusive. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the complainant in the said OP:348/01. 3. We heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that there was no materials available on record for the Forum below in coming to the conclusion that the complainant was liable to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.1356/- per month and in calculating the amount of Rs.29,832/- to be paid by the complainant for getting the water connection restored. He pointed out that the complainant/consumer was only liable to remit the minimum amount of Rs.127/- per month as the water charges and the Forum below has gone wrong in making the complainant liable to pay monthly water charges at the rate of Rs.1356/-. It is also pointed out that, according to the opposite party/KWA, water meter was faulty. If that be so, there is no basis for calculating the arrears of water charges at Rs.49,992/-. Thus, the appellant requested to cancel the conditional order passed by the Forum below and to confirm the order passed by the Forum below regarding cancellation of P8(1) arrear bill. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below to some extent. He argued for the position that the arrear bill for Rs.49,992/- was issued by the opposite party for the water actually consumed by the complainant and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the said arrear bill. He also justified the action of the opposite parties in disconnecting the supply of water to the premises of the complainant due to the failure to pay the amount covered by the arrear bill. Thus, the respondents/opposite parties requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P8(1) arrear bill for Rs.49,992/- with respect to the period from April 2000 up to February 2001 and in disconnecting the supply of water to the premises of the complainant for its failure to pay the amount covered by the said arrear bill? 2. Whether the complainant/consumer was regular and prompt in making the payment towards the water charges for the water consumed by the complainant? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP:348/01? 5. Point Nos:1 to 3:- The respondent/complainant is a consumer under the Kerala Water Authority and the complainant would come within the jurisdiction of the 2nd opposite party, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division No:1, Kozhikkode. Admittedly the complainant/consumer was provided with a Provisional Invoice Card (PIC). According to the complainant the monthly rate fixed by the PIC towards the minimum water charge was Rs.127/-. But the complainant has not produced the PIC issued to him. On the other hand, the opposite parties would contend that the monthly water charges would come to Rs.1356/-. But the opposite parties have also failed to substantiate their case that the monthly minimum water charge would come to Rs.1356/-. But it is the definite case of the opposite parties that the complainant neglected to pay the minimum water charges from April 2000 onwards, even though the complainant has been consuming huge quantity of water. It is for the complainant/consumer to establish the fact regarding payment of the minimum water charges covered by the PIC. The complainant has not produced any receipts for payment of the minimum water charges. So this circumstance would make it clear that the complainant was a defaulter in making payments covered by the Provisional Invoice Card. It is to be borne in mind that as per the Provisional Invoice Card the consumer is legally bound to make the payments without any demand from the side of the Kerala Water Authority. It is also stipulated in Regulation 14 of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations, 1991 that a consumer will be liable to pay penalty or fine for their failure in making the payments due to water authority. The facts and circumstance of the case would make it clear that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in making monthly payments due to Water Authority under the Provisional Invoice Card. Therefore the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority can very well proceed against the complainant for non payment of minimum water charges fixed by the PIC. If that be so, the opposite parties can be justified in disconnecting the supply of water to the premises of the complainant for the non payment of minimum water charges. We do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in disconnecting the water supply to the premises of the complainant because of the failure on the part of the complainant/consumer in making the payments due under the PIC. 6. The Forum below passed the conditional order directing the complainant to remit a sum of Rs.29,832/- so as to get the water supply connection restored to the premises of the complainant. In arriving at the said sum of Rs.29,832/- the Forum below has taken the minimum monthly water charges payable by the complainant at Rs.1356/-. But there is no acceptable evidence available on record in coming to such a conclusion regarding the minimum monthly water charge of Rs.1356/-. The mere fact that the opposite party has stated in their version that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1356/- by way of minimum monthly charges cannot be taken as a ground to hold that it was the minimum charge fixed by the Provisional Invoice Card. It is to be noted that the opposite parties have not produced any documents to substantiate the aforesaid case of minimum monthly water charge payable by the complainant at Rs.1356/-. The Forum below cannot be justified in passing such a conditional order. So, the aforesaid conditional order is to be modified. Thereby the appellant/complainant (consumer) is to be given the water connection restored on payment of the minimum water charges fixed by the Provisional Invoice Card for the period from April 2000 up to the date of remittance of the minimum water charges. On deposit of the said minimum water charges up to date, the opposite parties are bound to restore the water connection. 7. The Forum below has rightly analysed the disputed P8(1) bill and found that the opposite parties have failed to give the details as to how they arrived at the said sum of Rs.48.336/- and Rs.1356/-. So the Forum below is perfectly justified in cancelling Ext.P8(1) bill for Rs.49,992/-. Therefore, the aforesaid order is upheld. It is made clear that the respondents/opposite parties (KWA) will be at liberty to issue fresh arrear bills for the aforesaid period based on the actual meter readings. 8. The opposite parties have got a case that the water meter installed at the premises of the complainant is faulty and the same is to be replaced by a defect free meter. Ext.R1 notice dated:27..2..2001 would make it clear that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was faulty and thereby the complainant was directed to get the faulty meter replaced by a defect free water meter. It is also to be noted that R1 notice was issued even prior to the issuance of the disputed P8(1) arrear bill. But the complainant/consumer has not taken any steps to get the faulty meter replaced. The failure on the part of the complainant/consumer in getting the defective meter replaced by a new one would amount to negligence on the part of complainant in following Regulation 12(e) of the Water Supply Regulations, 1991. As per the aforesaid clause (e) of Regulation 12 the consumer is bound to keep the meter box and its surroundings clean and easily accessible for taking the meter readings, inspection and servicing by the Assistant Executive Engineer or any one authorized by him to do so. It is also the responsibility of the consumer to maintain the condition of the meter which is installed at the premises of the consumer. He has also got a duty to get the defective meter repaired or replaced as the case may be. It is made further clear that the consumer has got the duty to report the matter regarding the defective nature of the meter to the Assistant Executive Engineer. But in this case the appellant/complainant totally neglected the provisions contained in Regulation 12 (e) of the Water Supply Regulations, 1991. It is made clear that the appellant/complainant is bound to take immediate steps to get the faulty meter replaced by a defect free meter and thereby to afford facility to the opposite parties to take proper meter readings regarding consumption of water. 9. The opposite parties herein issued the arrear bill for Rs.49,992/- for the period from April 2000 to February 2001. Thus, the disputed arrear bill was issued for a long period of about 1 ½ years. The Forum below has found fault with the consumer for his failure to make the payment towards the water charges for the last 1 ½ years. But at the same time the opposite parties have also failed to comply with the provisions contained in Regulation 13 of the water supply Regulations, 1991. Regulation 13 prescribes the method of taking meter readings and the manner in which the arrear bills or adjustment bills are to be issued. The facts and circumstances of the case would make it abundantly clear that the opposite party/KWA and its officials totally failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 13 of the Water Supply Regulations, 1991. So, this Commission is very much pleased to direct the opposite parties to follow the procedures prescribed under Regulation 13 of the Water Supply Regulations, 1991. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated:18..1..2002 passed by CDRF, Kozhikkode in OP:348/01 is modified. Thereby the order passed by the Forum below cancelling Ext.P8(1) arrear bill for Rs.49,992/- is upheld. The conditional order passed by the Forum below directing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.29,832/- for getting the water supply connection restored is modified. Accordingly the complainant is directed to pay the minimum water charges prescribed by the PIC for the period ranging from April 2000 till the date of payment of the minimum water charges. In the event of making the said payment by the complainant, the opposite parties are directed to restore water connection to the premises of the complainant. The complainant is also directed to get the defective water meter replaced by a defect free one and to pay the arrears of water charges for the aforesaid period based on the meter readings. The opposite parties are bound to issue the arrear bills with all details and the same can be levied after providing the complainant an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The opposite parties are also directed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 13 of the Water Supply Regulations hereafter. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL. | 
