IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

                     Tuesday the 7^th    day of September, 2021

                               Filed on 19.07.2019

Present

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

2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.LLB(Member)       

                                                  In

                                      CC/No.183/2019

                                                     Between

Complainant:-                                                       Opposite parties:-

Smt. Sulfath                                                1.       The Managing Director

W/o Muhammad Kunju                                        Kerala Water Authority

Fathima Manzil                                                    Jala Bhavan 

Cheruthana.P.O                                                     Thiruvananthapuram                                                        

Alappuzha                                                            

(Adv. Azeem Mohammed)                            2.      The Executive Engineer

                                                                              Kerala Water Authority

                                                                               Harippad, Harippad.P.O

                                                                              Alappuzha District

                                                                             (Adv. Joseph Mathew for Ops)

O R D E R

SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

1. Brief facts of complainant’s case are as follows:-

 Complainant is a consumer having consumer No.CRN638/D of opposite parties and he availed water connection during 2015.  1^st opposite party is the authority to distribute public water supply system throughout Kerala.  2^nd opposite party is the subordinate authority of 1^st opposite party.   The complainant was included in the slab of Rs.54/- bimonthly and she used to remit amount in advance and in lumsum for the water used by her.

        2)  On 8/2/2019 for the first time the complainant received a bill from 2^nd opposite party showing the payment of rupees minus twenty six (-26) vide bill number 44706467. In that bill the bimonthly usage of complainant was shown as 22KL. Thereafter on 10/6/2019 received a bill vide 48590368 did. 7-6-2019 from the 2^nd opposite party demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.41,379/- (Forty one thousand three hundred and seventy nine only). The bimonthly charges have raised from Rs.54/-(Fifty Four) to Rs.8080/-(Rupees eight thousand and eighty only).  The bi- monthly usages were also raised to 267 KL from 22KL. The connection availed from the 2^nd opposite party is having only one

tap and not connected to water tank. Hardly two hours daily is the duration of the water supply in the area of complainant.  At any calculation the usage will never come to 267KL bimonthly. After received the disputed bill the complainant preferred a complaint on 11/6/2019 before the 2^nd opposite party he came to house of complainant and told the meter is defective. Eventhough the complainant demanded it in writing the person came was not willing to do so.  The 2^nd opposite party has not stated the status of the meter in both bills.  Even after the notice dated 11/6/2019 of complainant no proper enquiry from the opposite parties done with regarding the allegation of complainant which comes under the “Deficiency in service” and not giving any reply for the notice given to 2^nd opposite party comes under “Dereliction of duties”. Hence complainant approached this Commission for following reliefs sought against the opposite parties.  To declare the  bill  No.48590368 dated 7/6/2019 for Rs.41,379/-(Forty one thousand three hundred and seventy nine only) issued by 2^nd opposite party is null and void, compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

2. Version of the opposite parties in short are as follows:-

1)   The complaint is not maintainable as per Sec. 13(b) of Water Supply Regulation Act, Opposite parties fixed water charges of consumer and issued provisional invoice card.   As per said regulation 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 observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period.  The complainant admits that she is effecting the payment of water charges purely based on tariff fixed. The slab fixed to the complainant as per existing tariff is R.47/- and it is the tariff for 11 KL per month.

2)  Computerised billing software (e-abacus) implemented in the opposite parties office on 11/2017 and from February 2018, computerized bimonthly bills are issued to the consumer.  The 1^st bill generated in billing software is on 15/2/2018(Bill No.33520804)  and this bill is purely a system generated bill based on the  previously fixed tariff, ie, assuming monthly consumption as 11 Kilo Litre  (as per PIC). This bill issued to consumer on 16/2/2018, while issuing this bill to consumer, the present water reading was taken by Meter Reader. But the reading reported by Meter Reader is ‘Door Locked/Gate Locked’.   The meter reading of this consumer was not recorded till 20/10/2018 due to difficulty in accessing the

water meter for taking meter reading. The water meter is inside the premises of complainant and due to “Gate Locked” condition, it was difficult for meter reader to record the meter reading.  The meter readings recorded are as follows:-

  Hence all this bimonthly bills generated and issued as per PIC tariff ie, Rs.47/- per month.  The actual water meter reading of this consumer obtained on 12/2/2019 and the reading was 2127 KL. While posting this reading in e-abacus portal the monthly average consumption is revised as 43.43 KL.  The additional bill based on water consumption is automatically generated in next bill.  The next bill of this complainant generated on 4/4/2019(Bill No. 46493136) and served on 8/4/2019 by taking the current meter reading.( Meter reading on 8/8/2019- 2335KL) and served the spot bill ( by adding water charge as per present water meter reading)

3) After implementation of computerized billing and bimonthly spot billing, the water meter reading of this complainant is regularly taken on bimonthly basis and the bimonthly bills also served regularly.  The details of bills served are as follows:-

  Regarding water availability, the allegation made by the complainant is totally false.  After implementation of computerized billing, bimonthly reading and spot billing started to this connection from February 2018.  Complainant lodged a complaint on 11/6/2019 regarding the excess bill.  As per the complaint the accuracy of water meter was checked and report submitted by the Asst. Engineer. There is a slight error in functioning of water meter reported and based on this, the consumer is eligible for a slight deduction in water charge arrear bill.  The detailed calculation is submitted by the 2^nd opposite party.  As per calculation the complainant is eligible for a deduction in water charge of Rs.11,139/- (Rupees Eleven thousand one hundred and thirty nine only) and  this calculation is sanctioned by opposite party. The matter was intimated to the complainant.  As per regulation 13(d) of Water Supply Regulation Act the authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments.  All bills generated and served to the complainant is computerized generated bill.  The complainant paid last payment only on 20/6/2018.  In view of regulation 14(a) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991 defaulters in water charge payment is liable to pay a fine of Rs.5 (domestic Consumer).  Hence a monthly fine of Rs.5/- is imposed on every month of default by the opposite party.  In the above circumstances there is no deficiency of service    as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed for.

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

1. Whether the bill No.48590368 did. 7/6/2019 is null and void?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency of service committed by opposite parties?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

4. Relief and cost.

 4.    The complainant adduced oral evidence Ext. A1 to A4 were marked on her side.  RW1, the Asst. Executive Engineer was examined   Ext.B1 to B3 were marked. Therefore we have heard the counsel for both side.

5. Point Nos. 1   to   3:-

1)     For the sake of convenience these points are discussing together.  The complainant alleged that an exorbitant bill Ext.A2 dated. 7/6/2019 issued on the basis of false water meter reading.   Ext.A1 water bill dated. 8/2/2019  in which the bimonthly consumption of water shows as 22KL and also indicated that payment of rupees  minus twenty six(-26).  Ext.A3 is the copy of complaint dated 11/6/2019 by the complainant to  the 2^nd opposite party to request for check his water  meter since at any rate bimonthly usage of water bill never comes to 267KL. Comparison of Ext.A1 and A2 it seems that bimonthly usages were raised to 267KL from 22KL. Ext.A4 is the reply dated 4/11/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite party to  the complainant. In which they admitted that as per the inspection of water meter conducted by 2^nd opposite party it was found that the meter is faulty. In view of that the amount shown in Ext.A2 has been less and directed the complainant to pay the lesser amount of Rs.11,139/- (Rupees Eleven thousand one hundred and thirty nine) towards water charges.

2)     Admittedly opposite parties agreed as per Ext.A4 that the complainant’s meter is faulty accordingly they less the amount demanded as per in Ext.A2 and also directed the complainant to replace faulty meter. Matter is being so under which circumstances.  Opposite parties less the amount in Ext.A2 and directed to pay lesser amount Rs.11,139/- (Rupees Eleven thousand  one hundred and thirty nine ) toward water charges.

4)  Opposite party contented that during the period of 16/2/2018 the status mentioned by meter reader is door locked and reading was not recorded till 20/10/2018. It seems that said contention was not correct because as per Ext.B1 and B2 it was recorded by meter reader on 11/4/2018 and 13/6/2018 is  N/C and N/S respectively.  It can be presumed that the reading was not clear in 2018 itself. According to the opposite parties the actual reading was taken on 12/2/2019, as per the reading the bimonthly average consumption is 43.43.KL.  Accordingly additional bill issued. We have already discussed about Ext.A4 reply dated.4/11/2019.  In which opposite parties agreed that the meter is faulty and they pleaded that detailed calculation has been submitted by 2^nd opposite party.   But Ext.A2 bill is not supported with sufficient datas as to show how it was arrived the amount charged.  Further it is not clear as per Ext.A2 bill that whether opposite parties claimed water charges beyond 3years the period of limitation.  Hence assessing the evidence as a whole we are of the view that Ext.A2 bill No.48590368 dated 7/6/2019  is not valid in the eye of law since it was prepared on the basis of false water reading and is not supported by relevant datas regarding the usage of water.  Hence we set aside Ext.A2 bill No. 48590368 dated 7/6/2019.  However this order will not be a bar of issuing a proper demand cum disconnection notice and collect the amount legally entitled by the opposite parties.  In the above circumstances we found that opposite parties push the complainant into an unnecessary litigation.  Hence complainant is entitled to get cost of  the proceedings from the opposite parties.

6.     Point No.4:-

   In the result the complaint stands allowed in part as follows:-

1) Ext.A2 demand cum disconnection notice No.48590368 dtd. 7/6/2019 hereby set aside and opposite party shall issue fresh bill as per the law.

2) opposite parties shall pay Rs.3000/- towards litigation cost of the complainant.

The above order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  7^th       day of September, 2021. 

                                            Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

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

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Sulfath(Complainant)

Ext.A1                -        Demand and Disconnection Notice 8/2/2019.        

Ext.A2                -        Demand and Disconnection Notice dtd. 7/6/2019.

Ext.A3                -        Complaint copy dtd. 11/6/2019

Ext.A4                -        Reply dtd. 4/11/2019    

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

Rw1           -        Jayaprakash.V (Witness)

Ext.B1       -        Copy of Meter reading sheets

Ext.B2       -        Copy of Consumer Personal Ledger.

Ext.B3       -        Copy of Consumer Ledger –Reading details.

True Copy //

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-