IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15253 of 2007(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ZEENATH ABOO , W/O. ABOO AHMED PILLAI, AGED 50. H.NO. V/169, KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA. BY ADVS. MR.G.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.M.M.FATHIMA JALEENA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KALAMASSERY. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALUVA. R1 & R2 BY MR.M.DINESH, SC, KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15253/2007-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 2/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. IN THE NAME OF ABOO AHMED PILLAI. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/03/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/03/2007 ISSUED TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF K.W.A. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/03/2007 ISSUED TO THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE WATER METER CARD ISSUED BY THE WATER AUTHORITY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE METER READING AND ADJUSTMENT BILL. EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE SIGNED COPY OF THE ADALATH DECISION. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- WPC. No.15253 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 14th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a consumer with consumer No.TKA/5580/D of the Kerala Water Authority, approached this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P1 bill and to stay all further steps pursuant to the same. Ext.P1 is the bill issued by the Kerala Water Authority demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.64,414/- being the arrears towards the water charge for the period from 26.11.2003 to 01/2007. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the residential house to which the water connection is taken, there are only three inmates. But the bill amount is calculated on the basis of presumption that the monthly consumption of the water will come to the tune of 127 KL which is quite strange and no nexus with the actual quantity of water consumed by the petitioner/consumer. Aggrieved by the bill, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 to P4 representations before the various authorities. Finally, the matter was referred to the Adalath which held on 17.3.2007 and in the said Adalath the amount was reduced from Rs.64414/- to WPC 15253/07 -:2:- Rs.27376/-. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as a pardanashin Muslim lady, she did not appear in the Adalath, but her 16 year old son appeared and he was forced to put his signature under threat and coercion, in spite of the fact that her son demanded the respondents to furnish the break-up details of the bill. Therefore, the petitioner approached this court with the above writ petition. 4. The Ist respondent has produced a statement along with counter affidavit filed which would show the details regarding the consumption of water and also the details as to how the amount was quantified and shown the balance upto 30.6.2007. In para 8 of the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that during the Adalath, after a discussion with a view to settle the issue, the average consumption of the petitioner had been decided to take as the long average of the meter readings 6763 KL taken on 18.5.2006 and to avoid the readings of 6502 KL recorded on 26.11.2003 and 431 KL taken on 7.12.1999. Thus according to the respondents, as per the said calculation, the average consumption is reduced to 65 KL per month. In this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in Ext.R1, the average monthly consumption is taken as WPC 15253/07 -:3:- 127.4 KL which is now reduced to 65 KL per month. The above calculation appears to be reasonable. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that though the respondents in their counter affidavit, particularly in para 16, it is stated that the meter readings are recorded on various days and the same are entered in the meter reading cards issued to the petitioner at the time of connection. The above statement is absolutely false in the light of Ext.P5 produced by the petitioner along with her reply affidavit. Though a counter affidavit is filed, there is no factual assertion as to when the periodical meter readings were taken and what are the steps taken by the authority when it is found that the meter was faulty. From the above, it appears that there is laches on the part of the officers or the staff of the water authority in taking meter reading periodically and initiating regular steps for replacing the faulty meter etc. Had the meter readings were taken periodically and the same were brought to the notice of the consumer, the consumer could have taken appropriate steps at the appropriate time if there was any grievance. But by issuing Ext.P1 bill all of a sudden, the consumer was put in stress to pay a huge amount. However, as per the decision of the Adalath, the amount has been substantially reduced and fixed as Rs.27376/- and, that too, on the WPC 15253/07 -:4:- basis of the average monthly consumption fixed as 65 KL per month. The above decision appears to be correct. 5. In this juncture, it is also relevant to note that though the meter was faulty, no step was taken by the consumer to replace the faulty meter. Therefore, on the part of the petitioner also, there is negligence. Since the amount fixed as per the decision of the Adalath appears to be reasonable, normally, this Court will not interfere with such decision. But in the present case as pointed out earlier, there was fault on the part of the staff and officers of the authority in discharging their duty effectively and the whole dispute arose because of the laches on their part in taking meter reading at appropriate time and initiating steps for replacing the faulty meter. Therefore, I am of the view that the consumer can be compensated by reducing some amount. 6. At the time of admission of this writ petition and as directed by this Court, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-. So, the remaining amount to be paid is Rs.12,376/- out of the amount fixed by the Adalath. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8000/-(Rs.Eight thousand only) which, according to me, will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. This writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit a WPC 15253/07 -:5:- sum of Rs.8000/- towards the final settlement of the entire arrears covered by Ext.P1 and Ext.R1(a), within one month from today. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount as directed, the respondents can take steps to realise the amount as fixed by the Adalath after adjusting the amount deposited by the petitioner as per the interim order of this Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- WPC 15253/07 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..