IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 17th day of May, 2018
Present:Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President (I/c)
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt..Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No. 18/2017(Filed on 16/01/17)
Between:
T.N. Joshy,
S/o Narayanan,
Puthenparambil House,
Moolavattom PO,
Panachikadu, Kottayam-686 012
(By Adv.Akash K.R) …..Complainant
And:
Kerala Water Authority
Repted by its Assistant Executive
Engineer, P.H.Sub-Division,
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, (Member)
The case of the complainant presented on 16/01/17is as follows: He is the son-in-law and the beneficiary of the water connection provided by the opposite party vide consumer No.PAN/867/D(ID 2355100078) to the premises Mrs. Sri. Late P.S. Santhakumary. Thus the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. He had remitted the water charges in advance without any default. On
19-11-2016 the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.5053/- showing the bi-monthly consumption of the complainant at 33 KL. The complainant never consumed so much of water as the complainant is having a well in his court yard and is drawing water from the well. The water supplied by the opposite party is used only in summer season when there is scarcity of water. On 29-11-2016 complainant filed a complaint to the opposite party with regard to the said bill. The opposite party replied to the same stating the meter reading of the complainant on 2-7-2016 is 2479 KL as per the said reading the monthly consumption of the complainant is fixed at 16.53KL and thus the disputed bill is issued to the complainant. The opposite party has not taken the meter reading in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Act and has not issued bills based on the slab fixed. The complainant never consumed any water to the said amount nor there a supply of water to the said limit. The bill dtd 3-11-2016 is not legal and proper. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service from their side.
The notices were served with opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties and the consumer No. PAN/867/D is in the name of Smt. P.S. Santhakumary. The water charges to the above connection was remitted @ Rs.24/- upto 8/2008 and Rs.32/- p.m from 9/2008. It was based on the previous average consumption of 7.6 KL.per month. The bill dtd 2/7/2016 was also issued at the monthly rate. But the reading dated on 2/7/2016(2479 KL) was adjusted and an additional amount of Rs.4608/- was imposed in the bill dated 5/9/2016. As per this reading the consumption was ascertained as 16.53KL per month and the water charge became 101/- per month. The water charge bill recovered to the consumer was provisional and it may vary according to the subsequent readings taken. Hence the amount remitted by the consumer in advance is provisional and the consumer is bound to pay the actual water charges based on the meter readings taken after the advance payment. The opposite party had given detailed reply to the complainant on the basis of the complaint dtd 21-12-16. On the basis of the reply it was clarified that the reading on 3/3/2011 and 16/6/2013 were kept in observation due to the high rate of consumption. It was also clarified that the reading on 2/7/2016 was adjusted and a long time average has been taken to confer the advantage to the consumer. The consumer was also directed to replace the faulty meter. But consumer has not replaced the meter so far. The opposite party has taken the meter readings as per the regulations. As per the readings on 2/7/16(2479 KL)the monthly consumption was increased to 16.53 KL per month. Then only an additional bill was imposed for an amount of Rs.4608/- for the actual water consumption. There was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
Points for considerations:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Point No.1 and 2
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A3. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext.B1. From the available documents and evidences in this case it can be seen that the water meter of the complainant was faulty. Moreover from the evidence it can be seen that the complainant had remitted only the PIC amount. The specific case of the opposite party that the complainant’s consumption was increased and on the basis of the consumption and meter readings the opposite party issued the bill to the consumer for actual consumed water. However the opposite party has the amble power to issue bill to the consumer on the basis of taking proper meter readings. In this case there was no evidence adduced by the opposite parties that they had issued the bill on the basis of taking proper meter readings of the complainant. Ext.B1 copy of meter reading statement and details for the calculations and meter reading and the status of the water meter. From Ext.B1 the status of water meter of the complainant was recorded as faulty. So the calculation arrived from the recordings from the faulty meter was not sustainable. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. Thus point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
From the finding in Point No.1 and 2, the case of the complainant is allowed as follows.
We set aside the bill dtd 3-11-2016 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant(Ext.A1) as illegal.
The opposite party can very well issue additional bill if any to the complainant on the basis of after taking proper meter readings from the proper working meter after replace the faulty meter. Both parties will suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of May, 2018.
Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President (I/c) Sd/-
Smt..Renu.P.Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1-Bill dated 3-11-16 for Rs.5053/-
A2-Copy of letter dated 29/11/16
A3-Reply letter dtd 21/12/16 of Asst.Exe.Engineer
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
B1-Consumer details
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
