CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
Filed on: 26/10/2015
PRESENT:
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C.No. 710/2015
Complainants :
1. Joy M.P., S/o.M.U.Pathrose, Mangarathil House, House No.3/898A
(KKRRA No.115), K.K.Road, Chembumukku, Kakkanadu, Kochi-21.
2. Melinda P., Francis, W/o.Joy M.P., Mangarathil House, House No.3/898A
(KKRRA No.115), K.K.Road, Chembumukku, Kakkanadu, Kochi-21
Vs.
Opposite parties :
1) The Kerala Water Authority, represented by its Managing Director, Head Office, ‘Jalabhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram,
Pin-695 033
2) The Assistant Executive Engineer, the Kerala Water Authority, Water Supply Sub Division, Kalamassery (Section Thrikkakara), Pin682 030
O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainants in this case are husband and wife. They were jointly owned 1.115 Ares of land in Re-Sy.No.200/7 of Vazhakkala Village, Ernakulam District by virtue of Settlement Deed No.2256/2004. The above said property was purchased from Mr.George T.L., S/o. Lonan, Thirunilathu Veedu, Vazhakkala Villae, Thrikkakara Post, Ernakulam District. The predecessor – in – title of the complainants had availed domestic water connection, (Consumer No.TKA/3795/D, Meter Number:493364) from the 1st opposite party. The water connection was in the name of the previous owner of the property, Sri.George T.L. The complainants, however, continued using the said domestic connection without changing the name of the owner. The complainants are still using the service of the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party is responsible for the design, construction, execution, operation and maintenance of the water supply schemes and also for the collection and disposal of the waste water in the State of Kerala. The water charges are collected by the 2nd opposite party, who is the Assistant Executive Engineer in the 1st opposite party, Water Supply Sub Division, Kalamassery, Thrikkakara Section. The complainant states that there is only 3 persons lives in a small house having an extend of 1200 sq. feet in the said property. There is only a small ground level storage tank in the compound. Two Sintex tanks with a capacity of 500 Litres each are placed on the terrace which is connected to the outlets. Water is used only for the household purposes as they do not even have any space or necessity to use it for any other purposes. The complainants, or their predecessor in interest were availing the service of the opposite party without any hassle since the start of the usage of the said connection was in 1994. The charges towards the service provided by the opposite parties were settled yearly without fail, after meter reading was taken by the officials of the 1st respondent. The average amount charged for the service was around Rs.50 monthly. The adjustment bill (Bill No.KWA/TKA/Jan/2005/542) issued by the 2nd opposite party on 11.01.2005 stating the charges from the period 11.01.1995 to 31.12.2004 shows that the average consumption of water by the complainant with consumer No.TKA/3795/D is 16.9 Kilo Litres. The shortfall due to the opposite parties as per the G.O.)Ms.) No.44/2008/WRD dated 25th September, 2008 (Order for Revision of Water Tariff w.e.f01/04/1999) stated in the said bill was Rs.2265.00. The complainants were paying the water charges regularly as and when the bills were issued by the opposite party. When the complainants went to the second opposite party’s office for paying the bill in January, 2015, it was informed that an amount of Rs.1,68,810/ is due to the authority till then. That was a shock to the complainants in every sense as there was no such information prior to the date, not even a single notice or letter was issued to them stating the same. The complainants were regularly paying the bill amounts yearly and no due was outstanding till January 2014. The complainants made payments of Rs.921.00/-, Rs.2025/- and Rs.2849.00/- in the office of the opposite party thrice on 09.08.2008, 19.05.2011 and 18.01.2014 respectively as per their demands but they never cared to intimate the complainants about the shortfall of Rs.1,68,000.00, which is the due amount stated by them since 2008. The failure of intimation of the said information itself shows the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The acts of the opposite party are tantamount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The action of the opposite party has caused great mental agony and hardships to the complainants.
Owing to the careless attitude and the deficiency of the service provided by the opposite party, the complainants had lodged a complaint (No.WSD/TKA/18/2015) addressed to the 2nd opposite party on 13.01.2015 stating all the above facts and requesting to enquire and to take necessary actions upon the same. According to the information received from the 2nd opposite party the complainants had attended the Adalath which conducted by Kerala Water Authority Revenue on 03.03.2015. The complainants thought that the irregularity in the huge demand made by the 1st opposite party could be rectified. On the contrary, the opposite party demanded the complainants to remit Rs.73,000/- towards the water charge in order to settle the matter. It was denied by the complainants. The allegation of the complainants that there was no leak in the tanks or pipes as well and yet the opposite party charged an exorbitant amount from the complainants. Therefore, the complainants opted to complain about the same to the higher authorities. As result, the file was taken up by the Executive Engineer and he ordered to check the water meter in order to find out the discrepancy. The water meter was checked on 04.03.2015 by the 2nd opposite party and a test certificate was issued stating that the meter was found to record +7% excess reading. Based on the test certificate, the complainants had approached the Executive Engineer on 13.03.2015 in order to settle the matter. The complainants were informed that it was mandatory to remit some amount before the final settlement concerning to avoid disconnection. It was also informed the complainants to furnish a security deposit of Rs.35,000/- as an installment prior to the final settlement.
After that, the complainants approached the 2nd opposite party and enquired the reason for paying huge amount towards water charges. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainants that such a huge arrears of water charges could occur only due to wastage of water. But the complainants repudiate the statement of the 2nd opposite party and they again told that they were never put on notice of any wastage of water or any defect in the water supply equipment. It is submitted that if there had been wastage of water, the complainants would have been put on notice as per the Act. The huge variations in the meter reading is not within the control of the complainants and its plausible reasons are only within the knowledge of the opposite parties. Thus, it could be seen that the exorbitant demand made for water charges is illegal and unreasonable. The opposite parties could not have made an unjust demand for Rs.1,68,810/- from the complainants and the complainants are not liable to pay the said amount. Hence the complainants filed this petition to get an order to declare that the complainants are not liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,810/- being the amount for water charges and that the same is only a mistake on the part of the opposite parties, and to get a sum of Rs.35,000/- with 12% interest from 17/03/2015, the amount which the complaints were forced to remit in the Adalath for fear of disconnection, and to get a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and cost of proceedings from the opposite parties.
Notice
Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Forum/Commission on 17/11/2015. The opposite parties appeared and filed version.
Version
The opposite party stated that the above complaint is not maintainable either in Law or on facts. There is no merit in the contentions of the complainants. The averments contained in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the complaint are not fully correct and the complainants have to prove those averments. It is submitted that the complainants have not transferred the water connection to their name and it still exists in the name of the previous owner. It is submitted that Provisional Invoice Card was given to the consumer at the time of giving the water connection to facilitate payment of the water charges for the average consumption calculated at that time. In the PIC it is clearly stated that the water charge is to be remitted bimonthly. Moreover bills have been issued to the complainants bimonthly. However the complainants failed to remit the water charge regularly.
It is submitted that the water connection was issued to the consumer on 11/01/1995. The first meter reading was taken on 04/11/1998 and the next reading was taken on 29/05/1999. On 04/11/1998 the reading was 775 KL and the average monthly consumption recorded was 16.9 KL. The meter was found faulty on 29/05/1999 with reading of 876 KL. Hence bill was issued on 11/01/2005 based on the reading dated 04/11/1998 as 775 KL for the period from January, 1995 to December, 2004. As per the said bill the monthly tariff was revised to Rs.43/-. This average consumption was taken into account for the period from 11/01/1995 to 04/11/1998 only.
Since the water meter was found faulty from 29/05/1999 onwards, a new meter was fitted on 17/10/2007. The first meter reading was taken on 20/06/2008 with meter reading of 213 KL. Next reading was taken on 06/02/2012 with reading of 6247 KL. As per the reading the average monthly consumption was found increased abnormally. Hence the said reading was kept unbilled to verify the genuineness of that reading. However, before taking the next reading, a Section Office at Kakkanad was formed and the consumer was included in that Section Office. There was shortage of meter readers and billing clerks in the newly opened office. Hence further delay was occurred in issuing bills to the consumer. Up to date bill was issued to the consumer on 05/02/2015 with all the pending readings. The bills are issued based on the meter reading recorded and hence the complaints are liable to pay the amount. It is submitted that the Water Authority is entitled to introduce Provisional Invoice Card for collecting water charges based on the estimated average monthly consumption. The said tariff is revisable based on the meter reading taken subsequently. If the consumption is found excess than the actual water charge collected, the Authority will issue additional bill. On the basis of the meter reading for the period from 11/01/1995 to 04/11/1998, the average monthly consumption was 16.9 KL. After that a new meter was fitted on 17/10/2007. As per the readings taken from the new meter the average monthly consumption was increased to 26.2 KL as on October, 2007, 138.4 KL as on July, 2008 and 98.3 KL as on March 2012. The calculation given by the complaints is not based on the actual reading recorded in the water meter. Hence the same has no relevancy at all.
The complainants appeared in the Adalath conducted by the opposite parties. The complaints settled the dispute for an amount of Rs.41,204/- on the basis of the revised calculation arrived by taking long average of the consumption. They remitted Rs.35,000/- on 17/03/2015. As per the test certificate the water meter was in working condition registering 7% of excess reading which is permissible. Since no open leakage was found, no notice was issued. Hence the allegation of the complainants regarding the non-issuance of notice for wastage of water is ill founded. If the water leakage was a hidden leakage, it could be noticed by the consumer himself.
The above said water connection was given to the consumer only after executing an agreement with the KWA, in accordance with the Kerala Water Supply Regulation 1991. In that agreement the consumer had agreed that he is liable to obey the KWA Regulations. The bills are issued in accordance with the Kerala Water Supply Regulations 1991. Hence the complainants are liable to remit the water charge as per the bills issued to them. There is no demand for exorbitant amount as alleged. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainants. There is no cause of action for the complainants against the opposite parties. There is no deficiency of service in order to attract the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. The complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for the complaint.
Evidence:
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A19 from the side of the complainant, Commission Report C1 also marked from the side of the complainant. Complainant is cross examined by the opposite party’s counsel as PW1.
Opposite party have no oral evidence. Exbt. B1 marked from the side of the opposite party. Evidence closed. Heard the matter on 03/06/2022.
The issues come up for consideration in this case are as follows:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?
Issue No. 1:
In the version the opposite party contented that the water connection is in the name of previous owner. The complainants have not transferred the water connection to their name and it still exists in the name of previous owner. At the time of hearing the opposite party argued that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party.
The complainant purchased the property from T.L. George. Exbt. A1 (page 7&8) clearly proves this fact that complainants had purchased the property along with No. 111/898A house with all connections including electric and water connections. In Exbt. C1, Commission Report also it is stated that “The building was identified with the help of petitioner. The building number issued by Thrikkakkara Municipality is seen on the residential building as 3/898A”. According to Kerala Water Supply and Sewage Act 14 of 1986 Amendments and other Regulations, Kerala Gazette Extra ordinary published by Authority dated 4th August, 1986, Consumer means ‘a person getting benefit of any water supply or waste water service from the Authority.’ There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the building and property and it is only in connection with the consumption of water from the opposite parties and the complainants are the beneficiaries of T.L. George. Hence the 1st issue is proved in favour of the complainant.
Issue No. 2:
Exbt. A1 produced by the complainant is a certified copy of title deed owned by the complainants M.P. Joy and Melinda P. Francis, who possess 1.5 acres of land in Re Survey No. 200/7 of Vazhakkala Village, Ernakulam District, Thrikkakara Post, Ernakulam, Exbt. A2 is the tax receipt No. 5203582 dated 14/02/2006 issued by the Village Officer, Vazhakkala for the above property owned by the couple having servey No. 200/7. Exbt. A3 is a copy of the water meter card issued by the opposite party to the consumer. T.L. George with Consumer No. T3795 and with meter No. 493364. Exbt. A4 is a copy of the provisional invoice card and payment schedule chart upto 12/2004 issued by the 1st opposite party. Exbt. A5 is also a copy of the provisional invoice card and payment schedule upto 02/2006 issued by the 1st opposite party. Exbt. A6 is a copy of the receipts issued by Kerala Water Authority to Mr. T.L. George, consumer No. T3795 for Rs.296/- for the period from 09/2002 to 10/2003. Exbt. A7 is also a copy of the receipt issued by Kerala Water Authority with receipt No. H177659 dated 11/01/2005 for Rs.2842/- to the consumer T.L. George for the period from 11/2004 to 02/2006. Exbt. A8 is a copy of the bill issued by the 1st opposite party to T.L George for Rs.961/- dated 06/08/2008 for the period from 11/2007 to 03/2009. Exbt. A9 is a copy of the bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 19/05/2011 for Rs.2150/- for the period from 03/2009 to 05/2011. Exbt. A10 is an adjustment bill issued by the opposite party to consumer No. TKA/3795/D on 11/01/205 to 31/12/2004. Exbt. A11 is a true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No. 44/2008/WRD dated 25/09/2005. Exbt. A12 is the Consumer ledger issued by the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thrikkakkara dated 01/10/2015. As per Exbt. C1 Report at the time of inspection nothing was seen like water is being used for any purpose other than house hold purpose. Water is mainly used to kitchen and bathroom uses. Only 3 small taps were seen on the other walls of the residential building. Nothing was seen like water is used for other than for household purposes. The adjustment bill issued by the 2nd opposite party on 11/01/2015 stating the charges from 11/01/1995 to 31/12/2000 shows that the average consumption of water by the complainant with Consumer No. TKA/3795/D is 16.9 Kilo litre. Exbt. A17 proves that the complainant’s meter No. G-10761 of Anand Class B with ISI make single jet meter has been tested and sealed in the Meter Testing Laboratory and found to record +7% excess reading and final reading as on 04/03/2015 is 9734.883 liters. Exbt. A18 shows that the complainants had deposited an amount of Rs.35,000/- on 17/03/2015 to the Kerala Water Authority, Water Supply sub Division, Kalamassery, Pin 683104 in order to settle the matter.
We have analyzed all the documents filed by the parties, version submitted by the opposite parties and the submissions made by the complainants.
1. As per Exbt. A17, the complainant’s meter has been tested and sealed in the Meter Testing Laboratory and found to record +7% excess reading.
2. There was an electronic water level controller is connected to the electric meter and the water tanks. The electronic water level controller also switches of the electric motor after the tanks are filled.
3. The Consumer No. was written on the meter as T 3795
4. Water is used for only household purposes. There was no wastage of water.
5. Complainant was mounted in box and he was cross-examined as PW1. At the time of the cross-examination, the complainant deposed that the meter test was conducted and had obtained a meter test certificate on 04/03/2015. No leak was noticed after the meter point.
6. The complainants were never put on notice on any wastage of water or any defect in the water supply equipment.
7. As per Exbt. B1, the water connection is a domestic one, the average chargeable quantity is shown as 14.5 and monthly amount is recorded as 63.
On the basis of these observations made by the Commission, it is proved that the calculation and ultimately the arrears derived by the opposite party as proved from Exbt. B1 is not just and fair to the interest of law.
In the result,
1. We direct the opposite parties to reassess the amount due from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to refund Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) to the complainant along with 9% interest from 17/03/2015, the amount which the complainant were forced to remit in the adalath conducted by the opposite parties on 17/03/2015
3. The opposite parties are also directed to give an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and for causing mental agony to the complainant.
All these directions shall be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 27th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Copy of Title deed
Exbt. A2: Copy of tax receipt No. 5203582 dated 14/02/2006 issued by the Village Officer, Vazhakkala
Exbt. A3: Copy of the water meter card issued by the opposite party
Exbt. A4: Copy of the provisional invoice card and payment schedule
Exbt. A5: Copy of the provisional invoice card and payment schedule
Exbt. A6: Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party dated 10/10/2012
Exbt. A7: Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party dated11/01/2005
Exbt. A8: Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party dated 06/08/2009
Exbt. A9: Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party dated 19/05/2011
Exbt. A10: Copy of adjustment bill dated 11/01/2005
Exbt. A11: Copy of G.O.(Ms.)44/2008/WRD dated 25/09/2008
Exbt. A12: Copy of Consumer Ledger
Exbt. A13: Copy of complaint lodged by the complainant
Exbt. A14: Copy of notice issued by the opposite party for adalath
Exbt. A15: copy of adalath order
Exbt. A16: Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party dated04/03/2015
Exbt. A17: Copy of Test Certificate
Exbt. A18: Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party dated 17/03/2015
Exbt. A19: Copy of Consumer bill
Opposite parties evidence:
Exbt. B1: Bill details issued by the opposite party
Depositions:
PW1: Joy M.P.
C1 Commission Report
Despatch date:
By hand: By post .
kp/
CC No.710/2015
Order Date: 27/07/2022
