Complainant is having a water supply connection, in the name of his father, P.A.Abraham as Consumer No.1491T. Complainant is promptly paying the bill of the same to the opposite party. On 6^th of April, 2009 when the complainant approached opposite party's office for the payment of the water supply charge for the period 2009-2010, the opposite

party issued an additional bill of Rs.6,178/- to the complainant. Complainant is regularly paying the bill for Rs.28/- of each month and never made any dues at any time. In the period specified in the additional bill, the petitioner never made any construction work or any other misuse of water. So the petition is filed for cancelling the additional bill issued and such other reliefs.

2. As per the written version of the opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. Consumer No.1491 is in the name of P.A.Abraham, Perumbrayil House, Kolani. There is a due of Rs.6,178/- in that consumer number upto 6.04.2009. The complainant never made any payments in the opposite party's office. The meter fitted to the water connection of the said consumer number is functioning perfectly and the readings were taking regularly. Bill also issued as per the law. The additional bill was issued for the period 2/08 to 4/09. The consumer has consumed 161 Kilolitre water in the period 2/08 to 8/08. So the water charge for 2/08 to 7/08 is Rs.998/- per month and in 8/08 it was Rs.43/-. The consumption in the period 9/08 to 3/09 was seen for Rs.77/-. But the complainant was paying only Rs.28/- per month. So the additional bill issued as Rs.6,178/-. So the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The point of consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. No oral evidence adduced by both parties. Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.R1 marked on the side of opposite party.

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for cancelling the additional bill issued by the opposite party. The main dispute of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The consumer No.1491T is in the name of P.A.Abraham. As per the complainant, he is residing with family in the address given here and the consumer No.1491T is availed in the name of P.A.Abraham who is the father of the complainant. The residence certificate from the Secretary, Thodupuzha Municipality is also produced. The opposite party issued the additional bill only because there was due in the water bill. The complainant was paying only Rs.28/- per month, but the consumption from 2/08 to 7/08 was very high, which amounts to Rs.998/- per month. The ledger copy of the meter reading is marked as Ext.R1. The complainant submitted that there was no construction or misuse of water was done by the complainant in the period from 2/08 to 7/08, he was consuming water only as normal, as he was using before. The copies of the earlier bills were produced as Ext.P2(series). In considering the evidence, the regular bill issued to the complainant for his water connection was only Rs.28/-, which is admitted by opposite party. But as per the opposite party, Ext.P1 bill for Rs.6,178/- was issued for the consumption in the period 2/08 to 7/08. The complainant was promptly paying the bills at opposite party's office. There was no due for any earlier bills. As per the opposite party, they were regularly recording the meter readings. Then what prevented the opposite party to issue the additional bill in the month of March 2008 itself, if there was some additional consumption not even a single bill issued for additional charges from February to July 2008.

The opposite party issued an additional bill only on 6.04.2009, which is after an expiry period of one year and two months. It means that they never intended to supply an additional bill even after 6 months. It clearly makes us a conclusion that the opposite party was not taking the meter reading regularly even within one year, which is gross deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. So we cannot faith in the meter reading ledger produced by the opposite party which is Ext.R1 which was in the custody of opposite party, and there is no explanation for the same. The complainant was a prompt consumer of opposite party and if there was any additional consumption, the opposite party ought to have issued the bill for that consumption in the end of that month itself. Then the consumer would have get a chance to regularize the use of water and avoid the excess consumption, if there was excess consumption. Even without giving any notice to the complainant, to get a chance for giving explanation if there was any misuse, the opposite party punished with an extra bill. So we think that the version of the opposite party is not believable because the consumption charge for Rs.28/- is suddenly increased to Rs.998/- within one month, which was a connection for residential purpose and the excess consumption is seen in the month of June, July also, that is in heavy rainy season.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel the additional bill issued on 6.04.2009 which is for Rs.6,178/- as per Ext.P1. The opposite party can issue additional bill and change the tariff only after taking true and correct meter reading, and after giving an opportunity to hear the complainant, if needed. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/-  for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - True copy of Additional Bill dated 6.04.2009 for Rs.6,178/-

Ext.P2(series) - True copy of earlier water bills(7 Nos)

Ext.P3 - Residence Certificate dated 14.08.2009 issued by the Secretary,

Municipality, Thodupuzha

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - True copy of Consumer Personal Ledger

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.85/2009

Between

Complainant : Maju Abraham, Perumbrayil House,

Kolani P.O,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party : The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: G.Premnath)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)