CHAIRMAN, B.W.S. vs HINDUSTAN DEALERS LTD.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the Parties and perusing the records, the Commission delivered the following:

THE Appellant was the Respondent and the Respondent herein was the Complainant in Complaint No. 10/1989-90 on the file of the District Forum, Bangalore and they will be hereinafter referred to by their position in the District Forum, Bangalore. The complainant is one of the tenants in Premises No. 9, K.G. Road, Bangalore. Vijaya Bank and Lokkur & Co., are the other two tenants. R.R. No. 23807-GND3-198 is the number of water connection for that premises. The complainant received excess water bills and was protesting against the same and even then no Engineer of the Respondent visited their premises to find out the cause for the excess reading of the meter. Only the Billing Clerk used to visit their premises and change the defective meter. As the complainant did not pay the arrears of Rs. 1,946.40 from 1.1.1989 to 30.9.1989, the water connection was disconnected on 19.9.1989. The Complainant gave a representation to the Governor of Karnataka. After he paid the said arrears the water connection was restored on 17.11.1989. In the mean time, on 17.10.1989 the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bangalore complaining about the disconnection. Later the complainant claimed refund of Rs. 901.75 on the ground that the average monthly supply would be only 27000 Ltrs. and the same should be adopted in determining the arrears to be paid from 1.1.1989 to 30.9.1989.

The B.W.S. & S.B. registered the said complaint by contending inter-alia that since the premises is occupied by two more offices namely Vijaya Bank and M/s. Lokkur & Co., it is natural that there would be wastage of water resulting in variations in consumption of water; that whenever complaints were made regarding excess billing, the meters were tested and due rebate was given and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

EXHIBIT C1 to C12 were produced on behalf of the Complainant. On behalf of the Respondent a statement showing the consumption from February 1988 to January 1990 was filed. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. On the said material, the District Forum, Bangalore held that the meter must be defective from 1.1.1989 to 30.9.1989 in view of the statement made on behalf of the Respondent that prior to October 1987, the average consumption of the Premises was 27700 Ltrs. per month and in view of exhibits C10 to C12 and directed the Respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 901.75 together with interest at 9% per annum from 17.11.1989 till date of payment by way of excess amount collected by it and also awarded Rs. 250/- as damages together with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. Hence this Appeal by the BWSSB against the said order of the District Forum.

ON 21.5.1990 the Appeal was heard in part and the Counsel for the Parties addressed their arguments. ON that day the Counsel for the Respondent admitted that there are other two tenants in the premises and prayed for some time to get the information regarding the sharing of the amount of the bill between the three tenants. Hence further hearing was adjourned to 25.5.1990. ON that day the Counsel for the Respondent as also the Respondent were absent. Hence we adjourned the appeal to this day. Today also the Counsel for the Respondent and the Respondent are absent. We heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant further. Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that as there are three tenants sharing the bill and as two other tenants have not filed the complaint, the District Forum, Bangalore could not have directed the refund of the full amount to the complainant alone. We see some force in the said contention of Mr. Vijayaraghavan. It is not in dispute that apart from the complainant, Vijaya Bank and M/s. Lokkur & Co., are using the water from the same connection. Vijaya Bank and M/s. Lokkur & Co., have not filed any complaint about the excess billing. It is only the complainant who is one of the Three tenants who has complained. It is not known how the amount of the Bill is being shared by the three tenants. In the absence of that material we cannot decide the amount that was paid in excess by the complainant. In the absence of the other two tenants, it would be difficult to determine whether there was excess consumption during the relevant period or not. The second contention of Mr. Vijayaraghavan is that the bills have been issued according to the water consumed as depicted by the meter readings and unless the complainant shows that the meter was defective during those months it cannot be said that there was excess billing. We see considerable force in the said contention of Mr. Vijayaraghavan. In January 1989, on the complaint of the complainant the meter was tested and rebate was given as stated in the statement filed on behalf of the Board. Thereafter the complainant complained about the meter in June 1989 and the meter was changed and the old meter was tested and it was found to be running fast by two percent. Hence no rebate was given. Apart from those two complaints, no complaint was filed by the Complainant about the meter during the period from 1.1.1989 to 30.9.1989. It is for the complainant to show that the meter was defective during the said period. He has not even entered the Witness Box. He is also not competent to speak about the water consumption by the other tenants. Merely because the consumption was about 27000 Ltrs. from December 1989 to February 1990 and also prior to September 1987, it cannot be said that the meter must be defective during the period from 1.1.1989 to 30.9.1989 unless the meter was tested and was found to be defective, it cannot be said that it was defective during the said period. Whenever the meter was found to be defective, it was changed by the Board and due rebate was given as provided by the Regulation No. 32 of the Board. Hence the District Forum was not justified in directing the refund of Rs. 901.75 to the Complainant. As the complainant had failed to pay the arrears the disconnection was there and so the complainant is not entitled to any damages also. On this score also the Order of the District Forum, Bangalore cannot be sustained.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the Order dated 27.2.1990 of the District Forum, Bangalore in complaint No. 10/1989-90 on its file is set aside and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed. _______________