By Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member :
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party, having a water connection, the consumer no being 50.The complainant uses only a tap and is remitting the water charges promptly. The case of the complainant is that they have been issued with a bill dated 19-08-13 directing to remit Rs.8070/- being the charges for the consumption of 410 units from 4/13 to 6/13 ; next bill dated 22-10-13, directing to remit Rs.16950/- and next bill dated 13-12-13, directing the complainant to remit Rs.46310/being the water charges for the period from 4/13 to 10/13-, the monthly consumption recorded as 600 units. According to the complainant, he has not used the quantity of water mentioned in the bill. The complainant had filed complaint against this bill and on 14-01-14, air valve has been fitted. After this, the consumption as per the bill on 14-02-14 is only 14 units per month. This proves that the opposite parties have been mistaken in their calculation in respect of the previous bills. The opposite parties have intimated disconnection, if the bill amount is not remitted. Hence the complaint filed with prayers to cancel the bill for Rs.46310/- dated 13-12-13, to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the water connection and also sanction compensation and cost.
2.The 1st opposite party, in the version filed, states that the 2nd opposite party is having the same contentions of the 1stopposite party and has filed adoption statement in the matter. The opposite parties have issued bill only for the consumption of water from the connection. The meter reading, consumption of water and water charges can be proved by the consumer personal ledger maintained by the office of the opposite parties. The averment in the petition about water charges for non-consumption of water, value of air and mistake in accounts are false and hence denied by the opposite party. The opposite party further states that upon the complaint from the complainant on 3-10-13, site inspection has been conducted. It is reported that the water meter is functioning properly. But when the said pipeline, which was lying almost one feet down in the mud ,was brought outside with the help of the authorized plumber Shine, it was found that there was leakage in the pipeline. The office of the opposite parties is not responsible for the leakage. It is to be maintained by the consumer with the help of an authorized plumber. The air-valve has been fitted before the water meter as per the requirement of the complainant. The meter reading of the complainant from 30-10-12 to 23-03-13 clearly reveals the consumption of water and it can be proved by the consumer personal ledger maintained by the office of the opposite parties. The petition has been filed only with the intention of not making payment of water charges for the water consumed. Considering all the above, the complaint may be dismissed with cost. .
3.The points for consideration are
1. Is there any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, compensation and cost.
4.Evidence consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and counter proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties. The complainant has filed evidences marked as Ext. P1 to P8 whereas the opposite party has filed affidavit marked as Ext.R1 , being the copy of customer personal ledger. Ext. P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card; Ext. P2 is the copy of bill dated 19-08-13; Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 22-10-13; Ext. P4 is the copy of the bill dated 13-12-13; Ext. P5 is the copy of the bill dated 14-12-14; Ext. P6 is the copy of the receipt dated 14-01-14 /Rs.150/-, being the amount incurred for fitting the air valve; Ext. P7 is the copy of the Bye-law; Ext. P8 is the copy of the receipt dated 21-04-14/Rs.15538/- , being the remittance of one-third of the disputed bill amount.
5.The argument of the complainant is that ‘’ഇപ്രകാരം ഹര്ജിക്കാരന്വെള്ളംഉപയോഗിച്ചിട്ടില്ലാത്തതാകുന്നു.........വെള്ളം.ഉപയോഗിക്കാതെയാണ്ഇപ്രകാരം ബില് വന്നത് എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയ ഹര്ജിക്കാരന് പരാതിപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളതും, 14-01-14 ന് എയര്വാല്വ് ഫിറ്റ് ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ളതാകുന്നു. തുടര്ന്ന് 14-2-14 തിയതിയിലേ ബില് പ്രകാരമുള്ള പ്രതിമാസ ഉപായോഗം 14 യുണിറ്റ് മാത്രമാണ്.യഥാര്ത്ഥത്തില് എയറിന്റെ സംഖ്യയോ കണക്കുകളില് തെറ്റുപറ്റിയോ ആണ് എതിര്കക്ഷികള് സംഖ്യ ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നത് ........ഇപ്രകാരം ബില് നല്കിയ എതിര്കക്ഷികളുടെ പ്രവര്ത്തി തെറ്റും കുറ്റകരവുമാകുന്നു.’’ In this respect, the complainant has filed I.A-115/15 to direct the complainant to produce the consumer personal ledger and meter reading register for the period from January 2010 to December 2014.Even though the opposite party has produced the copy of the consumer personal register, they have not produced the meter reading register stating that they have been dumped in the store room and hence it is difficult to trace them.
6.The argument of the opposite party is that ‘’ upon the complaint from the complainant on 3-10-13, to the office of the opposite parties, site inspection have been conducted and it is reported that water meter is working properly. But ……………………….there was a leakage in the said pipeline…………………it was brought outside with the help of an authorized plumber……………………………..The office of the opposite parties is not at all responsible for the leakage in the pipeline from the water meter to the concerned pipe.’’
7.The Forum has gone through all records relating to the case and has the following observations.
1. Since the complainant is of the argument that he has not used the water mentioned in the bill, it was for the opposite party to prove that the complainant has used the units of water mentioned in the bill. It could have been proved by producing the meter reading register used by the meter readers to record the meter reading while visiting the home. However, in spite of filing I.A.115/15, the opposite party has not produced the register saying that the registers are not readily traceable, since they are dumped in the record room. Thus, the opposite parties have failed to convince the meter reading figures.
2. On going through Ext. P2, the rate used is Rs.2817/P.M; on going through Ext. P3 bill, the rate used is Rs.4567/- p.m; On going through Ext. P4 bill, the rate used is seen to be Rs.14392/-P.M. Since the amount has been challenged, it was for the opposite party to prove that such monthly rates were prevailing during the respective months, by producing the relevant records. Since no records to prove the same has been produced, the matter is not proved.
3. In the circumstances of filing the complaint, the complainant had filed a request to cross examine the opposite party, so as to prove the allegations raised by him. Accordingly the forum directed the opposite party to appear for the cross examination. However, the O.P has not turned up for cross examination ,even though posted for appearance on 1-09-16, 8-11-16,28-12-16, 16-02-17,18-03-17, 11-05-17 and 27-06-17. The Forum believes that this non-appearance may be due to the fact that the opposite parties may be convinced of the mistakes in the bill.
4. The argument of the opposite party is that ‘’ upon the complaint from the complainant on 3-10-13, to the office of the opposite parties, site inspection have been conducted and it is reported that water meter is working properly. But ……………………….there was a leakage in the said pipeline…………………it was brought outside with the help of an authorized plumber……………………………..The office of the opposite parties is not at all responsible for the leakage in the pipeline from the water meter to the concerned pipe.’’ The forum is of the view that the argument being as above, the opposite party should have produced the details/mahazar prepared on the spot/report in the matter with sufficient evidence, to prove the matter. This is highly important considering the argument of the complainant that he has not used the water as mentioned in the respective bill. However, this crucial evidence, prepared on the spot in the presence of witness has not been produced.
8.Considering all the above we are deemed to get convinced that the allegations raised by the complainant is true to facts. As such, we are bound to allow the complaint.
9.In the result, the complaint is allowed. Ext. P4 bill is cancelled. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and costs to the complainant, which should be adjusted in the subsequent bills.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of November 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar P.K.Sasi,
Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 copy of the provisional invoice card;
Ext. P2 copy of bill dated 19-08-13;
Ext. P3 copy of the bill dated 22-10-13;
Ext. P4 copy of the bill dated 13-12-13;
Ext. P5 copy of the bill dated 14-12-14;
Ext. P6 copy of the receipt dated 14-01-14 /Rs.150/-,
Ext. P7 copy of the Bye-law;
Ext. P8 copy of the receipt dated 21-04-14/Rs.15538/-
Opposite parties Exhibit
Ext.R1 copy of customer personal ledger
Id/-
Member
