The dispute involved in the present case is regarding eight supplementary bills amounting to Rs.5,89,953/- raised by the petitioner on 24.12.2004 retrospectively relating to the period from 22.3.1994 to 12.4.2001. The ground for the same was that the water connection of the complainant was increased from 22 mm to 40 mm from 30.5.1994. The bills earlier raised were on the basis of average consumption whereas the bills in -2- question were raised on the basis of actual consumption. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to amend the said 8 bills amounting to Rs.5,89,953/- @ 3.50/- per kilo ltr. Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. Petitioner was also directed to issue water charge bills from 3.1.2005 at the permanent domestic rate and while issuing such bills not to charge interest or 2% additional charges. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner as well as the respondent filed the appeals before the State Commission. State Commission upheld the finding of the District Forum quashing the 8 bills. Other reliefs granted by the District Forum were set aside. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed this revision petition. State Commission in its order pointed out the contradiction and -3- discrepancy in the stand taken by the petitioner. The finding recorded by the State Commission reads as under: - “The Corporation answered the said allegation of deficiency in service in (para 16 of the complaint) in the written version as under: - With reference to Para No.16 of the complaint, the opposite party submits that as per the meter reading recorded by the meter supplementary bills were sent to the complainant as per average consumption recorded by the meter sent to the complainant for the period of 22.3.1994 to 12.4.2001. As per water charges Rules for 5,89,953/- which are as per Rule. In the written version itself, particularly, statements made in para 22 & 25, it was asserted that the bills were sent on the actual consumption recorded by meter which was found OK and, therefore, billing was proper. It is not disputed that the bills submitted at the relevant time were paid by respondent/org. complainant (hereinafter referred as “Society”). Therefore, in this context the statement with reference to para 16 in the written version, supra, is quite vague and contrary to what has been submitted earlier. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the Corporation to show that once the bills were sent properly on earlier occasions as per actual meter -4- reading or on some occasions as per RNR status, there is no reason to raise the supplementary bills in question. The corporation did not justify their such action and, therefore, it must be presumed that their action to raise the supplementary bills in question is arbitrary and without any basis. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of corporation is well established as far as these supplementary bills dated 24/12/2004, supra, is concerned.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Petitioner had raised the bills after a lapse of 10 years. Audit objection by itself is no ground to raise the bill after lapse of 10 years. In the written version petitioner has taken contradictory and irreconcilable stands. In para 16 it had stated that the bills were raised on average basis and in para 22 & 25 it was stated that the b ills were raised on the basis of actual consumption. Dismissed. | 
