IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No 197/11
Monday the 8th day of June, 2015
Petitioner : Binoy. T.J.,
Muttambalam Police Quarters,
No.G-43/2
Collectorate PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. K.K. Venu Gopakumar)
Vs
Opposite parties : Kerala Water Authority,
Thiruvananthapuram,
Repted by its Secretary.
2) Asst. Exe.Engineer,
P.H. Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authoarity,
Kottayam-2
3) Asst. Exe.Engineer,
PWD Building Sub Division,
Kottayam-1
(Adv. K.M. George)
4)Kerala State represented by
District Collector, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 22/7/11 is as follows.
The complainant is residing with his family at the police quarters, Muttambalam and there is a water connection of the 1st opposite party as consumer No.K/10-229 D. The 2nd opposite party is the Assistant Executive Engineer of the 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD, who is conducted the maintenance of the police quarters. The 4th opposite party is the Kerala State represented by District Collector Kottayam. The complainant regularly remitted Rs.76/- per month as the water charge and from 2009 Rs.140, the increased charge for per month is also remitted with the 2nd opposite party. The water meter was replaced with a new one by the 2nd opposite party on18-8-2009. According to the complainant after the installation of the new meter, it shows excess reading. So he made complaint before the 2nd opposite party. But 2nd opposite party has not taken any steps on his complaint. And on 27-1-10 complainant remitted Rs.1000/-, the entire due amount. Then the complainant made before the 3rd opposite party for replace the meter and pipe. But 3rd opposite party has not taken any steps. So complainant on 16-9-10 made a complaint with the 2nd opposite party for replacing the water meter and pipe because the water reading was very high. The 2nd opposite party and meter inspector were conducted site inspection and understood that the water leakage and on 23-9-10 they issued a letter No.1/2010 stating that they will clear the water leak and they will issue bill on the average of 3 months. But without clearing the water leak, the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.31,161/-. According to the opposite party the act of opposite parties in issuing the bill for Rs.31,161/- as arrear, without clearing the water leak amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
The 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly filed version admitting the water connection at the police quarters No.G X 43/2 as consumer No.K-10/229 D. According to them they had collected water charges according to existing rules and regulations of Kerala Water Authority and the meter reading is taken according to prevailing norms. The monthly water charges levied was Rs.76/- upto August 2008. From September 2008 onwards the Government authories increased the water charges and it became Rs.140/- per month. But the complainant has not remitted the water charges properly. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties while inspection it was noted that water meter was fault and 2nd opposite party has given notice to the complainant to replace faulty meter on 13-5-2008. As per the office records of the 2nd opposite party the complainant submitted the new meter for testing only on 6-8-09. Due to delay in replacing faulty meter the complainant has to pay surcharge to the 1st and 2nd opposite party from December 2008 and that was added to the dues. Then the complainant filed complaint in the water authority adalath conducted on 5-1-10 for relaxation of the bill. The 2nd opposite party inspected the site and meter reading was taken. As per the meter reading on 11-1-10 is 667 Kilo liter, the average consumption of water is 128.4 Kilo liter per month and water charge is to be paid is 2392/-. Then, the complainant filed complaint against the said bill and end opposite party again inspected the site and found that there is leakage in the water connection after meter point. Considering all these facts, the adalath committee decided to reduce the bill amount as Rs.5920/- 50% of the bill amount of Rs.11840/- and to pay Rs.1000/-. The complainant agreed the condition to repair and rectify the leakage in water connection within 15 days and he signed it. The complainant remitted Rs.1000/- but he refused to fulfill the condition. The slab rate of the complainant is to be fixed after taking 3 consecutive meter reading as per the adalath committee decision. But the complainant failed to rectify the leakage. According to the opposite parties as per Kerala Water Authority (water supply) Regulations, duties 8(A) to 8(E) in domestic connections, the consumer has to rectify and cure the defects in the water connection with the sanction of the 2nd opposite party at his own cost. The complainant was reluctant to cure the leakage and it increase water consumption as well as meter reading. The complainant on 16-9-10 filed another complaint to replace pipeline and meter. As per K.W.A (Water Supply) Regulation 1991 Section 12©, it is the duty of the consumer to keep meter in safe custody and to replace faulty meter, at his own cost. The 2nd opposite parties’ officials on the basis of the complainant dated 16-9-10 inspected the site and reported that the leakage was not rectified by the consumer. So, on 23-9-10 the 2nd opposite party served notice to the consumer to rectify the leakage immediately and after that slab rate be fixed. And on 23-9-10 meter reading was taken and it shows less reading. So the consumer is liable to pay the dues after the adalath committee decision and upto July 2011, he has to pay Rs.31,689/-. The present arrear is generated from the meter reading taken and it is truly based on the water consumption. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
3rd opposite party filed version contenting that complainant has not made any complaint regarding the water connection, with them. The dispute in this case is between the 1st & 2nd opposite parties and 3rd opposite party is not a party in this dispute. Complainant has not sought any relief against the 3rd opposite party. According to the 3rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and 2nd opposite party. And Ext. A1 to A8 documents from the side of complainant.
Point No.1
According to the complainant, the demand notice issued to him on 12-4-11 is not legal and proper. So the same is to be setaside. The opposite party contented that the demand notice issued is legal and proper. The demand notice produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A7. In Ext.A7 is stated that as per the reading taken on 4/11 it was seen that the consumption is reduced. Based on the above average consumption an outstanding amount of Rs.31,161/- as water charges upto 31-3-11 is due to the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the opposite party conducted an adalath and complainant has remitted the entire due amount as per the decision of the adalath. The decision of the adalath is produced by the complainant and the same is marked as Ext.A3. In Ext.A3 the proceedings is stated as “Rs. 1000/-shall be remitted now. Average water reading should be taken successive 3 months. Based on this water charge calculated from 2/2009”. So what the conclusion of the adalath is to remit Rs.1000/- and subsequent bill with regard to the outstanding arrear is to be calculated based on the average consumption from 2/2009. From Ext.A3 it can be seen that the adalath officer was come to such a conclusion on the prescription that there was leak in the pipe after the meter. According to the complainant it is the bounden duty of the Water Authority to cure the leakage. As per Section 12© of Kerala Water Authority Water Supply Regulation 8(A) to 8 (E) it is the duty of the consumer to rectify and cure the defects in the water connection at his own cost. It is quite pitty, a policeman having duty to protect the interest of the public was reluctant to cure the leakage by spending meagre amount for curing defects. By the said act of not curing the leakage lacks of kilo liters of water was lost for long years. Based on an Ext.A3 adalath decision opposite party issued A7 demand notice for the monthly water charge due to the opposite party. So we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of June, 2015.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the petitioner
Ext.A1-Photocopy of Prodgs of the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottayam West.
Ext.A2-Photocopy of complaint dtd 5/1/10
Ext.A3-Kerala Water Authority Revenue Adalalth
Ext.A4-Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card
Ext.A5- Photocopy of complaint dtd 16/9/10
Ext.A6-Phoptocopy of notice dtd 23/9/10
Ext.A7-Photocopy of demand notice dtd 12/4/11
Ext.A8-Receipt
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
