IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 13th day of October, 2020

Filed on 20..09..2019

Present

1.  Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)

2.  Smt. Sholy,P.R. LLB(Member)

In

CC/No.239/2019

Between

Complainant:-                                                 Opposite parties:-

Sri.Reny Antony                              1.      The Managing Director

Vadakkeyattam House                              Kerala Water Authority,

Thottappally.P.O                                       Jalabhavan                            

Alappuzha  -688561                                            Thiruvananthapuram

( Party in person)                                                

                                                                    2.     The Asst. Executive Engineer

                                                                              Kerala Water Authority

                                                                              Haripad Sub Division

                                                                              Haripad.P.O,

                                                                               Alappuzha-690514                                                                                                                                            (Adv. Joseph Mathew for Ops)                                  

O R D E R

SMT. SHOLY.P.R(MEMBER)

          This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

        The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

        The complainant is an ex-serviceman and a consumer of the opposite party, Water Authority having Consumer No. KRU/684/D.  He stayed his house for a maximum period of 70 days in a year when he came during leave.  The water connection was provided to the complainant during September.2006 and he was remitting the bills in time.

        The complainant has remitted the monthly charges as per the then prevailing tariffs and the details of remittance in provisional invoice card is explained as follows:-

        Afterwards, the complainant had remitted an advance amount of Rs.588/- as per receipt No.HC0004228/30.3.17 and also amount as per all the bills subsequently issued. 

        After the slab system and remittance on the basis of provisional invoice card, computerized bills were issued to the customers on the basis of spot billing.  However nine bills issued to the complainants on the basis of spot billing (Computerized bills) contained several mistakes.  The bills were illegal, wrong and against Act and Rules.  On 7/12/17 the opposite party had issued to the complainant a demand cum disconnection notice for Rs.2442/- after taking meter reading on 7/12/2017(Bill No. 31422534 dtd. 6/12/2017).  The complainant narrated the details of  8 bills with its remittance in the complaint dtd.12/6/2017, 6/12/2017, 28/2/2018, 22/10/2018, 19/12/2018, 20/2/2019, 17/4/2019 and 19/6/2019.

        The complainant challenged the legality of the computerized spot billing after discontinuing the provisional invoice cards on the grounds that the said bill does not contain the contents of information regarding the amount arrived at and the said bills were prepared without complying the standing instructions.  In certain bills the previous meter reading was not seen mentioned and thus the calculation of bi-monthly consumption is incorrect.  Moreover the meter reading and its date were written in ink whereas the other details were computer figures which prove that even the bi-monthly consumptions figures were inserted in the bills.

        The details in respect of the above mentioned illegal and wrong bills were explained by the complainant through each demand-cum-Disconnection notice.    Opposite party had prepared the bi-month consumption bill without mention of previous meter reading and the same was prepared before taking meter reading.   Certain bills were prepared for  6 months instead of b-month consumption against standing instructions.  In one of the bills for a period of 6 months denoted water consumptions 42K.L instead of 7K.L.  According to the  complainant considering the said 7.K.L consumption of 6 months, actual consumption being 1/6 of 7K.L, the complainant is not bound to pay water charges for a high consumptions and he has lost the benefit of the slab system and causes financial loss to the complainant due to change in tariff.  Accordingly the opposite parties had collected excess amount as dues from the complainant without mentioned the details.  In the above circumstances the complainant has sought clarification about some of the bills as per RTI Act, but the reply was not satisfactory. 

        But the complainant had been remitted each and every bill promptly, to avoid disconnection and thereby the allegation of pending dues is wrong.

        In the above circumstances the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for cancellation of the bill issued to the complainant and to refund the amount mentioned in the said bills with interest at the rate of 15% and for cost of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty five thousand only) also for compensation Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand only).  Also for directing the opposite parties to issue the bills as followed by KSEB and such other directions.

2.     Opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing a written version by 2^nd opposite party raising the following contentions.

        The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  However the opposite parties would admit the water connection taken by the complainant.   The remittance detail of the complainant as per e-abacus portal is attached as Ext.R1 and the remittance details as per manual ledger (Consumer Personnel Ledger CPL) are attached as Ext.R2.

        The previous available readings of this connection as per e-abacus portal (Billing and collection portal) are as follows.

Meter reading on 11/2/2014 – 602KL

Meter reading on 15/6/2017- 1446KL

Computerised billing software (e-abacus) implemented in this office on 11/2017 and from December 2017 computerised bills were issued to the consumers.  The complainant’s first bill generated in billing software was on 6/12/2017(Bill No.31422534) and this bill is purely a system generated bill based on the previously fixed tariff ie by assuming  monthly consumption as 16 kiloliter(as per PIC).  This bill was issued to consumer on 7/12/2017 and normally, while issuing this bill to consumer, the current water meter reading was taken by the Meter Reader of the Kerala Water Authority.  The meter reading of this connection on 7/12/2017 was 1453KL.  And after this, the next reading was taken on 24/2/2018.  While recording the meter reading on February 2018, meter reader understood that the meter is not working and thus, the water meter status was marked as “faulty”.

        The water consumption from 11/2/2014 to 15/6/2017 is 844KL and the average monthly consumption during this period was reckoned on 21.04KL.  The next available reading of this connection is the reading dtd. 7/12/2017 and it is 1453KL.  As per this reading, the average monthly consumption of this connection is 1.22 KL.  The consumer has no other source for meeting the drinking water demand.  The complainant purely depend water supply by the  opposite parties Kerala Water Authority, Hence 1.22 KL per months consumption is negligibly small and this is actually the reading of water meter suspected to be faulty in previous date.  Benefit of this also gone in favour of complainant.  After that the complainant replaced his faulty water meter on 28/2/2018. 

After replacement of faulty water meter with new water meter, the readings recorded are as follows:-

While analyzing the water consumption pattern, it is clearly understood that the average monthly consumption of this consumer is in between 25 to 30 KL.  Consumer is comparing his average consumption in the new water meter with the averages obtained in the period 15/6/2017 to 7/12/2017 and that is the reason for getting a negligibly small average in this period.  The complainant is comparing this negligibly small average with the consumption after fixation of new water meter to his connection and thereby criticizing implementation of bimonthly spot billing.

        The meter reading recorded in e-abacus portal is attached as Ext.R3.  After implementation of computerized billing and bimonthly spot billing the water meter reading of this consumer is regularly taken on a bimonthly basis and serving bimonthly bills.  The details of demand cum disconnection notices generated and served are as follows:-

 The above demand cum disconnection notices are generated through e-abacus portal and system generated bill details in e-abacus portal is attached as Ext.R4.

        The format of demand cum disconnection notice of Kerala Water Authority all over Kerala is a common format and is being followed in all offices. This demand notice is prepared as per regulation 13(d) of (Water Supply) Regulation of Kerala Water Authority, 1991.  All offices under Kerala Water Authority is preparing bill (demand cum disconnection notice) in this common format.  After implementation of computerization, billing is purely done through the online billing portal of KWA called – e-abacus-“Enhanced Advanced Billing Accounting and Collection utility System.  By inputting the meter reading date and water meter reading, the system will automatically generate the demand against the consumer.  By imputing date and reading, the system automatically arrive the monthly average by considering the total days in between the readings and accordingly, the tariff is arrived based on the average and category of water connection.  Normally this portal is error free advanced software.

        All bills served to the complainant/consumer are the system generated spot bills.  The meter reading dtd. 26/2/2019 cancelled because, the consumer alleges the delay in taking meter reading.  The previous reading took on 22/12/2018.  The next bill generated on 20/2/2019 and while serving this to complainant by Meter Reader, complainant complained that the date is wrongly recorded against meter reading and it will cause him additional financial burden.  Hence, the meter reading dtd. 26/02/2019 is cancelled. So the next bill (Bill No. 46943266) generated was “full print bill.” i.e The bill generated based on the previous monthly average.  In this type of bill, it is possible for meter reader to record the present reading and date, but not possible to record the consumption and the amount based on the consumption. 

        One more reading dtd. 22/6/2019 cancelled due to clerical error.  So this occasion also, the next bill (Bill No. 51223838) generated was “full print bill”.  Since the water consumption of the complainant is stable and the average monthly consumption is always in between 25 to 30 KL, no excess amount is charged in this account.

        As per Regulation 13(a) Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991, the water consumption shall be assessed based on meter reading taken from the meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer.

        (b) The authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of existing connection and  based on the estimated consumption in case of new connections and issue a provisional card in form No.VIII indicating there in ,  the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of  payment and the  institution  at which the  amount is to be remitted.  The charges so fixed shall be revised if the  consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observation of the meter readings  taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. 

(c) The Authority may also introduce a slab system for collection of water charges.  The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased as the case may, based on the observations of meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period.

(d)  If the water charges, as provided under clauses (b) and (c) of this regulation, already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess or short based on the meter readings taken subsequently, the consumer shall pay to the Authority the amount short remitted and Authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments.  Before implementation of bimonthly spot billing, the water charge was assessed as per Clause 13(b) of Water Supply Regulation Act.

        Complainant wrongly alleges that the present billing system of KWA is wrong.  Before implementing bimonthly spot bills, the consumers benefiting so many advantages like advantage of long average, advantage due to lapses in timely recording of  meter faulty status in CPL and thereby imposing surcharge etc.  Now, the meter readers and field officers  of KWA periodically monitoring the water meter and connection and thereby checking the status of water meter bimonthly, checking any unwanted activities, water theft, misuse of water, using subsidized tariff water(domestic tariff) for other purpose,  unauthorized sparing of water, using water without meter and like so many activities.  Now after implementation of spot bills, the NRW (Non Revenue Water) decreased considerably. 

        Regarding the complaint on the bills served, already the clarifications are as follows:-

        Before implementing bimonthly computerized billing,  consumer paid water charge purely based on PIC(Personal Invoice Card).  As per Personal Invoice Card, the slab fixed is of 16KL ie Rs.98/- per month.  But after implementation of bimonthly billing, the bill issued purely based on water meter reading.  In the absence of reading, the system will generate bills based on previous average.  On availability of reading next time, the system will automatically adjust in the next bill.  ie.  if the consumer remitted excess amount, this amount will be deducted in the next bill and vice versa.

        All the bills served are system generated bills.  After implementation of e-abacus, the bill generating is purely through e-abacus.

        The amount realized from the consumer is purely based on actual water meter readings.  There is no other source for meeting the drinking water demand of complainant.  Hence the complainant and his family purely depend piped water supply.  As a Government agency, KWA supplying water in subsidized rate.  The minimum charge of water to domestic category consumer is Rs.20/- and the tariff of water up to 10KL is only  Rs.4.00 per KL.  Also the water charge to BPL families who consumes water up to 15 KL per month is fully exempted from paying water charges.  KWA is not a profit motive organization. Opposite parties have not cheated the complainant as alleged.  No mental tension and difficulties created by the opposite parties to complainant.  The petition has no bonafides and merit.  The averments in the petition are mere allegation founded on peripheral knowledge of the complainant.  By repeating the same allegation one after another, the complainant is trying to create a smoke shield to evade from the process of law and the obligation mandated by the Regulation, 1991, so as to skate away from paying the water charge, towards the quantum of water used by him.  Nonpayment of water charges is against the public policy and interest which is in every sense a malfeasance against the State Exchequer and the common man. The opposite parties have implemented computerised billing system for better efficiency.  If the previous meter reading is available, it gets automatically recorded in the demand cum disconnection notice.  In respect of closed houses, opposite parties are generating bills based on the previous averages. Hence complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.  Therefore it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the petition with costs of these opposite parties.

3.     In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?

3. Reliefs and cost?

        Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1, Ext.A1 toA7 documents in which Ext.A2 to A4 are in series.  The opposite parties have adduced only documentary evidence of Ext,B1 to B4.  Heard the complainant.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has not filing any notes of argument and submitted that taken as heard. 

4.  Points No. 1 and 2:-

        For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these points are considered together.  The main grievance of the complainant is that the bills issued by the opposite party Water Authority  were illegal by violating the standing instructions of relevant Act and Rules.

        Admittedly the complainant has taken the water connection during September 2006.  It is also admitted that during that period the remittance of monthly water charges as per the then prevailing tariffs and incorporated Ext.A1, provisional invoice card.  The opposite parties had also been issued receipts in connection with the above remittance.  Ext.A2 series are the payment details of the water charge used by the complainant from September 2006 to February 2017.  It is submitted by the opposite parties that the computerized billing software(e-abacus) implemented  the opposite parties office on November 2017 and from December 2017 computerised bills were issued to the consumers including the complainant.  It is seen from the Ext.A3 series the computer bills issued to the complainant from 12/6/2017 onwards.  Of course it is seen from Ext.A4 series that the complainant had already been remitted the entire amount payable to the opposite parties for each and every bills.  On the allegation that in each bills the present consumption of water calculated by the meter reader and the date enter in the bill wrongly and without mentioned the previous readings we are evaluate the records before us mainly Ext.A3 series, the computer generated bills and Ext.B3, Consumer Ledger Reading  Details.  Even though it was written in Ext.A3  the date of inspection and present reading by ink, the Ext.B3 would shows that the reading details and PIC details are tally with  the dates manuscript by the  meter readers in most of the bills.  The allegation that the bimonth consumptions of the complainant in some bills were wrongly incorporated as a high rate is true for  eg:- in Bill No. 49158134 dtd. 19/6/2019 the reading noted on the sport is 417 where as the previous reading was 368.  The difference between these two figures is the present consumption is 49KL, despite this the bill denoted 57 KL as bimonth consumption.  However as admitted by the complainant in his complaint certain other bills denotes low consumption of water for eg:- in Bill No.45163183 dtd. 20/2/2019 though the difference between the two figures were 62 KL i.e,  bimonth consumption, it denotes in the bill is only 57KL.  In this circumstance we accept the opposite parties that the method of preparing the demand-cum-disconnection bill through e-abacus by in putting date and reading, the system automatically arrive the monthly average by considering the total days in between the readings and accordingly, the tariff is arrived based on the average and category of water connection.

        Regarding the averment of using  low consumption of water by the complainant, on scrutiny of the available records we understand that the meter was found fault during February 2018 and before that 2017 onwards the complainant with 3 other family members were consumed water for their daily needs from all purposes and normally water consumption was comparatively high.  Which was admitted by the complainant when he was cross examined by the counsel for opposite party.   In Ext.B2 on 7/7/2012 it was denoted that the reading was not legible and on 7/11/2013 it was written as meter not seen in columns of meter reading and quantity consumed.  Moreover the PW1, the complainant himself deposed that “11/02/2014 to 15/6/2017 hsc 847KL shffw D]tbmKn¨ncp¶p F¶v  ]dbp¶p. (Q)   icnbmWv.(A) Then he adds 2014 September 3apX Rm³ ho«n Xmakw XpS§nbXn\m shff¯nsâ Consumption IqSpXembn«p­v.”   PW1 also admitted that average monthly consumption was 21KL.  Normally it was increased when more members were resided permanently.  PW1 also admitted that they had consumed an average of 29KL water.  Further case of the complainant is that even though the bills issued by the opposite parties were illegal and against standing instructions of prevailing Act and Rules, he had remitted the amount for avoiding disconnection. But the complainant could not establish the above allegations against the opposite parties with strict proof.  On the contrary it is brought out in evidence that  during February 2018 meter was found default and after its replacement the average monthly consumption increased and the amount remitted as per the bills issued by the opposite parties are legally entitled one and there is no question arise for its cancellation and refund.  Therefore we found no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of  opposite parties. And the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint and the complaint is only to be dismissed.  Points answered accordingly.

5. Point No.3:-

        In the result the complaint stands dismissed.  Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the    13 ^th day of October, 2020.                   

                           Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R (Member)

                                 Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                      -        Reny Antony(Complainant)

Ext.A1                   -        Provisional Invoice Card

Ext.A2(Series)       -        Receipts  KWA

Ext.A3(Series)       -        Demand and Disconnection Notice.

Ext.A4 (Series)      -        Receipts. KWA

Ext.A5                   -        RTI  Letter dtd.5/09/2019

Ext.A6                   -        RTI  report from KWA dtd.6/1/2018.

Ext.A7                  -        Letter cum tariff details.  

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

Ext.B1        -        Payment Details

Ext.B2        -        Consumer Personal Ledger

Ext.B3        -        Reading Details

Ext.B4        -        Bill Details.

// True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-