BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 21^st day of December 2013

Filed on : 31-12-2012

PRESENT:

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No. 822/2012

Between

K.V. George, : Complainant

Kulappurathu house, (By adv. Tom Joseph, Court road,

Velloorkunnam, Market P.O., Muvattupuzha)

Muvattupuzha-686 673.

Vs

1. The Managing Director, : Opposite parties

Kerala Water Authority, (By Adv. P. A. Augustine,

Thiruvananthapuram-1. Standing counsel for Kerala Water

Authority 91, D.D. Tex World,

Market road, Kochi-11)

2. The asst. Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

P.H.Sub Division,

Muvattupuzha-686 661.

O R D E R

A Rajesh, President.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is a non domestic category consumer under the 2^nd opposite party bearing consumer No. MPA/2703/N. The average monthly consumption is below 20 KL. While so, the 2^nd opposite party served an exorbitant bill dated 11-09-2012 for Rs. 47,159/- to the complainant for the period from 20-06-2012 to 01-09-2012. In the said bill, the PIC was fixed as 196 KL as against the average PIC 20 KL. The complainant had not consumed water as shown in the bill. The complainant is running an automobile workshop and there was no occasion to increase the consumption more than the average consumption during the disputed bill period. The recording of exorbitant consumption is either due to meter fault or due to air pressure entry to the water line. After receiving the exorbitant bill, the complainant installed an air safety valve and subsequently the consumption came down to the earlier average level. That would show that the excess consumption recorded for the period from 20-06-2012 to 01-09-2012 is due to air pressure entry or meter fault. The demand raised in the consumer bill is not correct and liable to be set aside. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to withdraw the demand raised in the bill No. 1334 dated 11-09-2012 and to issue a fresh demand by taking the monthly average consumption prior and subsequent to the disputed bill period. This complaint hence.

2. The version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The complainant obtained a water connection under non domestic category from the 2^nd opposite party on 04-08-1989. The average consumption of the water by the complainant up to December 2011 was 10 KL to 30 KL. The meter reading after December 2011 is as follows:

21-12-2011 - 111 KL

20-06-2012 - 2115 KL

01-09-2012 - 2159 KL

29-11-2012 - 2205 KL

The water charge bill was issued on the basis of the consumption of water by the complainant. The complainant had raised objection regarding the working of the meter, it was tested and found that the same is working properly. The complainant has consumed the water as shown in the meter reading and the complainant is liable to pay the amount.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on the part of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the

disputed bill?

ii. Whether the opposite party is to issue a fresh demand taking the

monthly average consumption prior and subsequent to the

disputed bill.

5. Ext. A1 the disputed bill was being issued by the opposite party for the period from 20-06-2012 to 31-08-2012 treating the average consumption as 196 KL. According to the complainant the opposite party arrived at 196 KL on the basis of the reading on 20-06-2012 which was a sudden spurt in the reading. The meter reading of the complainant as per Ext. A2 Consumer Ledger is as follows:

6. Ext. A2 goes to show that there is a sudden spurt in the reading on 20-06-2012 that is from 111 to 2115. The complainant does not have a case that the meter remained faulty thereafter, admittedly at present the same meter is working properly. The opposite party has no explanation for the sudden increase in the consumption of water that is from 177 KL on 19-04-2012 to 2115 on 20-06-2012. However the subsequent bills issued have been taking into account the last charged meter reading thereby the mistake being prolonged issued without an application of mind. Admittedly having suspected the excess reading due to air pressure he fitted a valve to prevent air pressure whereby the problem was solved and the meter reading brought to normal reading.

7. The learned counsel for the complainant expressed his willingness to pay the water charges from 28-01-2011 the date of replacement of the meter till date provided the opposite party excludes the period to which there is a sudden increase in the meter reading. The above suggestion appears to be reasonable and the fear of the opposite party of monitory loss has been put to rest.

8. Accordingly we allow the complaint and direct as follows:

i. We set aside Ext. A1

ii. The opposite party shall issue a revised bill for the period from

28-01-2011 till date taking long average consumption of water by

the complainant from 28-01-2011 to 19-04-2012

iii. The opposite party shall adjust the remittance made by the

complainant with the above bill.

The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix                                                                               

            Complainant’s exhibits :

Ext. A1 : Copy of consumer bill dt. 11-09-2012

A2 : Copy of consumer ledger

          Opposite party’s exhibits: Nil