KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:27/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:13..12..2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Asst. Ex. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, : APPELLANT P.H.Section, Kollam. (By Adv: Sri.C.Sasidharan Pillai) V. V.Christyamma, W/o P.Francis, Nankiyarthottam Veedu, : RESPONDENT Velomon West, Kollam (PN/347). JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:20th October 2003 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP:251/02 which was filed by the respondent as complainant against the appellant as opposite party seeking the relief for cancellation of the water bill issued in the month of June 2002 for a sum of Rs.26,030/- and also for compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party disputed the case pleaded by the complainant and thereby contended that the water charge bill was issued on the basis of the meter readings taken in June 1997; that the said bill amount is demanded towards the water charges for the water actually consumed by the complainant. But the lower forum did not accept the case of the opposite party and thereby the complaint is allowed quashing the P1 demand notice dated:16..7..2002 issued by the opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.26,030/- towards the additional charges for the period from 1990 up to June 2002 at the rate of Rs.182/- per month with the penal interest/surcharge. The lower forum has also awarded a compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments on the basis of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal. It is further submitted that the disputed bill was issued towards the water charges based on the meter readings taken and also for the water actually consumed by the respondent/complainant. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP:251/02. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in issuing Ext.P1 demand notice for Rs.26,030/- to the respondent/complainant? 2. Whether the lower forum can be justified in holding that water charges for more than six months in a bill is prohibited under the provisions of the Kerala water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:20..10..2003 passed by the lower forum in OP:251/02. POINTS 1 TO 3:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of the appellant/opposite party (Kerala Water Authority). There is also no dispute that provisional invoice card was issued to the complainant as the consumer as provided under Regulation-13(b) of water supply regulations. As per the aforesaid provisional invoice card (PIC) the complainant as a consumer of the Kerala Water Authority was bound to pay the water charges at the rate of Rs.19/- from the year 1990 onwards. The definite case of the appellant/opposite party is that the complainant neglected to make any payment towards the water charges from the year 1990 onwards. The aforesaid contention of the opposite party/Kerala water Authority has not been disproved by the complainant by producing the necessary provisional invoice card or the necessary receipts for payment of the water charges due to Kerala Water Authority under the provisional invoice card. In the absence of any such evidence it can very safely be concluded that the respondent/complainant as a consumer was a defaulter in making payment towards the water charges due to Kerala Water Authority under the provisional invoice card, from the year 1990 onwards. It is also to be noted that as per the subsequent revision noted by the Kerala Water Authority the monthly charge of Rs.19/- has been revised to Rs.22/-, with effect from 1..4..99. Thus, it is made clear that the respondent/complainant as a consumer under Kerala Water Authority is bound to pay the charges at the rate of Rs.19/- from the year 1990 up to and inclusive of March 1999 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.22/- per month from April 1999 till this date. It is also to be borne in mind that as per the provisional invoice card and the provisions contained in clause (b) of Regulation-13 of Water Supply regulations, the consumer of water under the Kerala Water Authority is bound to remit the minimum charge fixed by virtue of the provisional invoice card, without any demand. It is also to be noted that there is no period of limitation for the amount due to water authority under the aforesaid provisional invoice card issued, by virtue of the provisions contained in regulation 13(b) of Water Supply regulations. The witness examined from the side of the appellant/opposite party namely DW1 has the spoken to about Ext.D1 copy of the meter reading register maintained by the Kerala Water Authority. She has also deposed about the meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer in the year 1990 and the issuance of the provisional invoice card and the failure on the part of the complainant to remit the water charges from the year 1990 onwards. She has also spoken to about the meter reading taken on 11..10..1995, when the faulty meter was replaced and that the subsequent meter reading taken in June 1997 and the quantity of the water consumed by the complainant was noted as 999.kilo litres of water during the period between 11..10..1995 and June 1997. The aforesaid evidence adduced from the side of the appellant/opposite party would make it clear that the average consumption of water would come to 50.kilo litres per month. If that be so, the monthly rate of water charge would come to Rs.182/-, according to the revised rate which came into force on 1..4..1999 and prior to that the monthly rate would come to Rs.134/-. But as per regulation-13 of water supply regulations the appellant/opposite party cannot revise or vary the water charges without taking the meter readings at an interval of six months. In the present case the revision is effected for the period from the year 1999 up to June 2002. A reading of Regulation 13 would make it clear that the aforesaid method or procedure adopted by the appellant/opposite party in revising the provisional invoice card or in demanding the arrears of water charges for a long period that is, from 1999 to June 2002 is irregular and unauthorized. Regulation 13 of the Water Supply Regulations reads as follows:- 13. ASSESSMENT OF WATER CHARGES (a) The water consumed at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time, based on meter readings 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 in the case of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No:VIII indicating therein 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 observations 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 be, based on observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. The initial average rate for the first six months shall be fixed on the average consumption or metered average consumption of any six months proceeding the date of coming into force of the slab system. (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 the Authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments. An adjustment bill in Form No:IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer.” Clause (a) of regulation 13 stipulates that the water consumed at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time. It is an admitted fact that the water consumed is to be assessed by taking the water meter readings at the intervals of six months. In the present case, the appellant/opposite party has failed to take the readings as stipulated under clause (a) of Regulation-13. Clause (b) of regulation 13 prescribes the procedure to be adopted in case there is increase or decrease of consumption of water by a consumer. It is also made clear that the water charge fixed in the provisional invoice card can only be revised on the basis of meter readings taken with intervals of six months each. In the present case, the additional bill (P1 demand) has been issued by the appellant/opposite party without taking such readings as stipulated in clause (b) of Regulation 13. Clause (d) of regulation 13 has prescribed the mode or method to be adopted in case the water charges are revised under clause (b) and (c) of regulation 13. It is also stated that the adjustment Bills in form IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer. In the present case no such adjustment Bill has been issued at the intervals of six months to the complainant/consumer. In this case there occurred failure on the part of the officials of Kerala Water Authority in following the provisions contained in the regulations 13 of the Water Supply regulations issued under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. That being so, the issuance of P1 demand notice for Rs.26,030/- as arrears can be treated as a sort of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party. We have no hesitation to hold that there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party. The lower forum is justified in canceling Ext.P1 demand notice for Rs.26,030/-. We have already discussed the matter regarding the failure on the part of the respondent/complainant in making the payment towards the water charges due to Kerala Water Authority under the provisional invoice card and that the said default has been committed from the year 1990 onwards. The lower forum cannot be justified in prohibiting the appellant/opposite party in claiming water charges for more than six months in a bill. It is to be noted that the complainant/consumer is legally bound to pay the arrears of water charges as per the provisional invoice card from the year 1990 onwards. There is no provision in the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 or in the rules and regulations framed there under prohibiting collection of arrears of water charges due under the provisional invoice card. It is made abundantly clear that the respondent/complainant being the consumer under the Kerala Water authority is legally bound to pay the arrears of water charges (minimum charges) due under the provisional invoice card. The appellant/opposite party will be at liberty to issue proper bill to the respondent/complainant demanding arrears of water charges with the necessary penal interest/surcharge due to Kerala Water Authority, by virtue of the provisional invoice card issued to the complainant as a consumer. So, the finding of the lower forum that claiming of water charges for more than six months in a bill is prohibited under the provisions of the Act is legally unsustainable and the said finding is hereby quashed. We have already held that the appellant/opposite party cannot be justified in issuing the demand notice or bill demanding the sum of Rs.26,030/- based on the meter readings taken in June 1997. It is also come out in evidence that the respondent/complainant is a chronic defaulter in making payment of water charges due under the provisional invoice card. In such a situation it was not just or reasonable to award compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. So, the order directing the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant is setaside. It is also to be borne in mind that the readings taken in October 1995 and June 1997 would give an indication that the complainant as a consumer of water has increased her consumption of water and the consumption would come to 50.kilo litres of water per month. So, the appellant/opposite party can claim water charges at the rate of 50.kilo litres of water per month amounting to Rs.182/- per month from the complainant for a period of six months. Thus, the impugned order passed by the lower forum is modified to the extent as indicated above. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is disposed of. The impugned order dated: 20..10..2003 passed by the lower forum in OP:251/02 is modified to the extent as indicated above. Thereby the order passed by the lower forum quashing P1 demand notice/bill dated:16..7..2002 is upheld. But the order directing payment of Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant is setaside. The finding of the lower forum that “claiming water charges for more than six months in a bill is prohibited under the provisions of the Act” is also setaside. Parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective cost. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL. | 
