IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 11/2019 (filed on 24/01/2019)
Petitioner : V.K. Anilkumar,
S/o. Subhadrakkuttiyamma,
Lalitha sadanam,
Manikunnam, Veloor P.O.
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Assistant Executive Engineer,
Water Authority,
Kottayam – 686 002.
2) Executive Engineer,
Water Authority,
Kottayam – 686 002.
(For op1 and 2, Adv. K.M. George)
3) Superintending Engineer,
Water Authority,
Kottayam – 686 002.
4) Managing Director,
Water Authority,
Vellayambalam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
5) Principal Secretary,
Water Authority,
Kerala Government,
Thiruvananthapuram.
6) Chief Secretary,
Kerala Government,
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed a domestic water connection to his house from the opposite parties. His consumer number is M31/194/D. On 05-04-18 the opposite parties issued a bill to the complainant through the third opposite party. In that bill the second opposite party demanded the complainant to pay Rs.1,06,868/- as water charges. On enquiry after the receipt of the said bill by the complainant it is revealed that the said bill includes the water charge and the interest and penal interest along with the surcharge on the reason that the water meter was faulty. The complainant had never consumed the water for such a huge bill. The opposite party had disconnected the water connection of the complainant alleging the non payment of the said illegal bill. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Thus the complainant filed this complainant prying for an order for reconnection of his water connection and installation of new wart meter to his water connation and the review of the bill issued to him.
Upon notice form the forum opposite parties appeared before the
forum and filed joint version as contending as follows:
Opposite parties admitted that the consumer number M31/194/D is in the name of Subhadrakuutiyamma and the connection was given during 1991. Neither the complainant nor the consumer ever paid the water charges till the date. As per the meter reading their monthly water consumption is more than 50 kilo litre. As per the last meter reading which was taken on 31-3-2015 the monthly water consumption is 55 kilo litre. The bill was issued only for the charges for the water consumed as per the meter reading including the surcharge for the period from 2 /2008 to 3/2013. The disconnection was not only due to the reason of faulty meter but also due to the non payment of the water charges from 1991 onwards. As the connection is a domestic connection one time settlement cannot be allowed. The connection to the complainant was reinstated in compliance with the order of this forum. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibit A1 was marked. One N.K. Philip who is the Assistant Chief Engineer of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of the other opposite parties and exhibit B1 was marked from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of the complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the
opposite parties.
2)If so what are the Reliefs and cost?
Point No.1 and 2
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point number 1 and 2 together.
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant availed a domestic water connection from first opposite party vide consumer no.M31/194/d/. The connection was availed in the name of Smt. Subhadrakkuttiyamma, who is the mother of the complainant. Complainant further deposed that he and other members of his family are using the water from the water connection availed in the name of his mother and he is the beneficiary of the service availed by his mother from the opposite parties. The first opposite party has issued the exhibit A1bill for Rs. 1,06,868/- on 5-11-2018. The complainant pleaded that Exhibit A1 bill for such an exorbitant amount was issued by the first opposite party stating that the meter was faulty. On the other hand the opposite party has contended that neither the complainant nor the consumer ever paid the water charges till the date. As per the meter reading their monthly water consumption is more than 50 kilo litre. As per the last meter reading which was taken on 31-3-2015 the monthly water consumption is 55 kilo litter. Opposite party further stated that the bill was issued only for the charges for the water consumed as per the meter reading and the surcharge for the period from 2 /2008 to 3/2013. On perusal of the Exhibit A1 we can see that it was a disconnection notice demanding the payment of Rs. 1,06,868/- from the complainant on or before 17-11-2018. It is further stated in the exhibit A1 that if the consumer fails to pay the bill amount within the stipulated period the connection would be disconnected. It is further recorded in the exhibit A1 that the opposite parties found malpractices in the connection as the meter was not working. On a mere reading of Exhibit A1 we can see that it was issued due to the reason that the meter is not working. In order to substantiate their case opposite parties produced the consumer personal ledger of the complainant and marked as exhibit B1. On perusal of Exhibit B1 we can see that the consumption of the complainant is for the period from 11-2-2007 to 30-3-2013 was 1389 and from 30-3-2013 to 17-3-2014 is 783 and 7-7-2014 to 31-3-2015 is 501. It is further stated in Exhibit B1 that from 14-7- 2015 to 14-2-2019 the water meter was faulty.
Clause 12 (e) of water supply regulations reads as follows;-
It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupier of the premises to keep the meter, meter box and its surrounding clean and easily accessible for taking meter readings, inspection and servicing by the Assistant Executive Engineer or any one authorised by him to do so. The responsibility for the safe custody and sound condition of the meter shall also vest with the consumer. When a meter provided by the owner / occupier of the premises, goes out of order, the same shall within 30 days of report of the damage by the Assistant Executive Engineer, be repaired or replaced by the owner or occupier of the premises at his own cost. In case of default a surcharge at the rate of 25% on the monthly water charges, as fixed in accordance with clause (b) of regulation 13, for the first month after the expiry of the period of notice, 50% for the next 2 months and 100% beyond that period shall also be levied. In case of continued default the Assistant Executive Engineer shall have the power to disconnect the water supply to the premises without further notice. The owner or occupier of the premises shall also inform the Assistant Executive Engineer as soon as any defect is noticed in the meter or its recording.
Provided that the condition laid down in clause (b) above shall apply to cases mentioned in this clause where replacement of a meter damaged beyond repair has to be made.
Thus as per clause 12 (e) water supply regulations the owner or occupier or owner of the premises are bound to repair or replace the water meter within 30 days from the receipt of the Assistant Executive Engineer that the meter was defective. In the case in hand the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to prove that they issued any report as the meter was out of order to the complainant in compliance with the regulation 12( e) of water supply regulations.
Regulation 13 of the water authority (water supply) Regulations,1991 says “Assessment of water charges –
- 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,
- 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 the case of existing connections and based on the estimated 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. Duplicate copy of Provisional Invoice Card/Meter Card or such records may be issued by the Authority for purposes of recording meter readings, billing and collection on request by the consumer, after charging a fee of Rs.10. Such duplicate copies shall be issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned.
- 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 preceding the date of coming into force of the slab system.
Admittedly the opposite party issued the A1 bill only on 05-11-18.There can be no doubt about the fact that as per the provisions of regulation 13, of the water authority (water supply) regulations, the Kerala water authority is bound to record the meter reading at an interval of 6 months. Though the opposite parties contended that they had issued the bill for the consumption of the complainant in accordance with the provision of the law in force, they did not adduce any evidence to prove their contention on this regard except Exhibit B1.
Clause 17 (d) of water supply regulations reads as follows;-
- “If on examination, any meter is found to be out of order and not registering correctly, the consumption dating from the reading previous to the last reading, till the repair, or replacement of the meter be calculated at the average consumption registered for any previous period during which in the opinion of the Assistant Executive Engineer the meter installed at the premises was registering correctly and the consumption of water was not abnormal. The Assistant Executive Engineer shall arrange to correct the bill and also slab card with corresponding corrections in the ledger sheets, accordingly. If the owner or occupier of the premises has any objection regarding the rate of consumption of water fixed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, he has a right to prefer an appeal to the Executive Engineer within 20 days of the date of receipt of the bill prepared as above. The consumer shall deposit 50% of the demand amount before filing the appeal. This shall be adjusted in future water charges, if the water charges so paid are found to be in excess. Such appeals shall be in writing and accompanied by a fee of Rs.5.00. In all such cases the decision of the Executive Engineer shall be final.”
As per clause 17 (d) of water supply regulations the Assistant executive Engineer is bound to issue the bill calculating the average consumption of the previous period in which the meter was recorded correctly, when the meter was found faulty or not recording the correct reading. In the case in hand as per exhibit B1 the meter was faulty and not recording correctly from the period 14-7-2015 to 14-12-2019. . Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that they had issued any bills for the consumption during the period on which the meter was faulty.
Opposite party issued the Exhibit A1 bill in contravention to the provisions of the clause 17 (d) of water supply regulations. Thus in our view the opposite parties has failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the law.
On evaluation of exhibit B1 we can see that the amount demanded by the opposite party includes that the surcharge from 28-9-2009 to 31-12-2012. It is very shocking to see that the opposite parties has not taken any action to recover the water charge for 27 years from the complainant by invoking the ample power vested upon the opposite parties by law in force .We do agree that the complainant is legally bound to pay the water charge which is due from him to the opposite parties. However without discharging their duties, for which they are bound to as a public servant and the watch dog of the public exchequer the opposite parties cannot levy any penal charge or surcharge from the complainant. Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot be penalized for the dereliction of duty by the authorities of the opposite parties for which they were bound to take timely action in accordance with law.
On a thought full evaluation of the evidence and above discussion we are in the opinion that the act of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had consumed the water from 1991 and he is liable to pay for the same. In the circumstances we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.
Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
(1)We hereby set aside the bill no. 32396047 dated 08-01-18 and opposite party is directed to issue the water bill in accordance with the law without levying any penal or surcharge.
(2) Considering the nature of the litigation compensation and cost is not allowed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2020.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Document from the side of complainant.
A1 : Notice dtd.05/04/18 by opposite party
Document from the side of opposite party
B1 : Consumer No. M31/194/D details issued by opposite party
By Order
Senior Superintendent
