Sree Swathi Thirunal Sangeetha Sabha vs Kwa, Ho.Thiruvananthapuram

THE appellant was the complainant in CC.319/05 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant approached the forum when the opposite parties enhanced the water tariff payable by the complainant. The complainant alleged that it is a registered charitable society and was a consumer of water supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant had been remitting all the dues to the opposite parties without default though the bills were excessive exaggerated and not in proportion to the actual consumption. Consumption of water in the premises of the complainant was minimal as they have got independent bore-well connection. The opposite parties had been receiving amounts for consumption of water under the non domestic tariff at the rate of Rs.363/- per month. This was enhanced to Rs.665/- though the meter was not functioning. At last the amount was enhanced to Rs.3,539/-. The claims made by the opposite parties are all incorrect. But the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was not functioning even before 1992 and it was not replaced by the opposite parties till February 2003. The opposite parties issued bill dated 30.11.2001 without any basis. However in order to avoid disconnection, the complainant remitted Rs.30,000/-. Again the complainant remitted Rs.25,000/- on 5.2.03. Though meter was replaced in February 2003, it became non functional and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite parties in October 2004. The opposite parties issued letter dated 20.10.04 demanding the arrears and threatening that in case of failure, water connection would be disconnected. Despite the complainant had replaced the water meter on 16.10.04, opposite parties had deliberately disconnected the water connection on 10.12.04. As part of their pressure tactics opposite parties insisted the complainant to remit Rs.36,116/- on or before 13.12.04. The complainant was constrained to deposit the amount under protest, but the opposite parties did not choose to enlighten the complainant the manner and mode of calculation of the arrears. They issued bill dated 6.12.04 claiming Rs.3,61,164/- deliberately mentioning that the working condition of the meter was not clear and claiming that average consumption in the premises was 349 kilo liters. The complainant submitted memorandum to the 1st opposite party on 8.2.05 complaining that under no circumstance the monthly water consumption would exceed 50 kilo liters and requested them to adjust the excess amount already collected from the complainant. The opposite parties disconnected the water supply on 17.12.05 despite the pendency of the complaint with the opposite parties. Finding no alternative to redress the grievance the complainant approached the Minister for Water Resources who directed the opposite parties to reconnect the supply on deposit of Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount in 20 equal instalments. The 1st opposite party gave reconnection of water supply immediately but issued a fanciful and imaginary bill on 28.3.05. The opposite party has never issued a detailed bill and the complainant had already paid more than Rs.4 lakhs on different occasions for the period from 1990 till date under protest. The opposite parties have by their deliberate action caused severe mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant sought a direction to the opposite parties to issue detailed bill showing the quantity of water consumed, status of the meter, and meter reading and the rate at which the opposite parties had charged the complainant for the period commencing from 1992 till date and seeking refund of the excess amount paid by the complainant together with a compensation of Rs.1 lakh.

THE opposite parties filed version and contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer. Huge quantity of water was being used from the connection provided to the complainant for domestic purposes. The PIC rate fixed from 4/99 was Rs.3,599/- and up to /99 the PIC rate fixed was Rs.2,295/-. In September an amount of Rs.27,011/- was remitted by the complainant. On 7.3.2000 consumer remitted Rs.10,000/- as part payment. Thereafter, the consumer failed to pay the monthly water charges. The arrears up to 12/01 was calculated at Rs,1,55,728. The bill issued to the consumer was as per Rules and Regulations. In February 2003, the arrears came to Rs.1,93,137/-. The water meter was replaced on 18.10.04 at the request of the complainant. The complainant approached the Chief Engineer and obtained order permitting him to remit the total amount of Rs.3,02,863/- in 10 instalments. He remitted the 1st instalment of Rs.36,116/- on 13.12.04 and the 2nd instalment on 14.01.05. As per the order of the Minister for Water Resources, complainant was permitted to remit Rs.10,000/- and the remaining arrears in 20 instalments. The opposite parties have informed the details regarding the consumption at the premises of the complainant. He is furnished with calculation of arrears through bills and other means. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 3. Before the forum, the complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts. P1 to P22 were marked on the side of the complainant. No document was marked on the side of the opposite parties. They have produced copy of the consumer ledger from 2.12.05 and 22.7.06.

THE Forum relying on the settlement arrived at, during the pendency of the dispute, in the adalath on 15.1.07, evidenced by Exts.P21 and P22 concluded that the excess amount collected from the complainant was Rs.91578/- up to April 2008. The arrears at the time of reassessment was Rs.2,76,367/-. The Forum further held that the complainant was bound to pay water charges from April 2008 at the rate of Rs.375/- per month as per Ext.P22 decision. The forum noted that in fact exaggerated bills for arrears was issued and infact the water supplied was disconnected on 2 occasions and on that basis held that the complainant was entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Accordingly, the forum allowed the complaint and held that he was entitled to an amount of Rs.91,578/- up to April 2008 from the opposite party as per the decision in the adalath evidenced by Ext.P22. The forum further held that the opposite parties shall deduct water charges due from the complainant at the rate of Rs.375/- per month for the period from May 2008 to February 2012 from the excess amount of Rs.91,578/- collected from the complainant. The opposite parties were directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant has challenged the order of the forum mainly seeking remand of the case for fresh trial.

IT is pertinent to notice that the decision of the forum was based on the mutual settlement arrived at in a Revenue Adalath held by the opposite parties in which it was conceded that excess amount by way of water charges were collected by the opposite parties. The amount was also clearly fixed. The rate at which water charges was to be collected in future was also fixed. Apparently, the complainant has no ground to challenge the mutually arrived at settlement. It is an admitted case that the complainant has consumed the water supplied by the opposite parties. The quantity of the water consumed is disputed. It is pertinent to notice that if as a matter of fact the meter was not working for so long a time, the complainant also had an obligation to insist for replacement of the water meter. It is true that the opposite parties have also failed in their duty to replace the faulty water meter. But whatever may be the water consumed by the complainant he has the obligation to pay the consideration for the services rendered. Actually, there is no evidence to show the exact amount of water consumed. The forum cannot go for settlement of accounts or to speculate and fix the consideration payable by the complainant. In the above background the best course open was to accept the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties. If remand is made no better evidence would be available. Hence, I am inclined to hold that there is no merit in the appeal. Hence the appeal is liable to dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.