By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of respondent vide No.1571. The bill dated 26.3.05 demanding Rs.7485/- is baseless and illegal. Upon the issuance of this bill, the petitioner put an application before the first respondent on 22.4.05 stating that he is not using water supplied by the respondents and he is taking water from well. Only from the notice of respondents dated 11.4.05 the petitioner became aware that the meter is defective. Subsequently a bill dated 27.5.05 has issued demanding Rs.8381/-. That bill includes the amount stated in the bill 26.3.05 also. The bills are baseless. Hence this complaint. 2. The counter of the first respondent in brief is as follows: Petitioner was using 10,000 litres of water per month. The monthly charge was Rs.22/- only. When the meter was inspected on June 2002 it was found that the monthly consumption of water was 36,000 litres. On 2002 December it was found that the meter is not working. So the respondents demanded to repair, on 2003 June also it was in defective condition. On 10.7.03 notice was served asking to repair the meter. But on 2003 December also it was found defective. Subsequently on 5.1.04 notice served asking to repair, but the petitioner not to do so. As per the Regulations the respondent has right to impose the previous charge for the water used under the defective meter. Thus bills issued. The petitioner did not pay it. He not even paid the monthly charge. As per the G.O., the respondents issued bill for Rs.7485/- and after two months as per spot inspection a bill of Rs.8381/- has issued. Due to arrears the water connection was disconnected on 17.8.05. The bill is legal and has to be paid by the petitioner. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are:- (1) Whether the bill dated 27.5.05 is liable to be cancelled? (2) Reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. R1 to R9. No other evidence on either side. 5. Point No.1: The only point to be considered is whether the bill dated 27.5.05 is legal. According to the petitioner, the impugned bill is illegal and to be cancelled. There are no documents from the part of petitioner. The main argument put forward from the part of the petitioner is the absence of evidence showing the demand for correcting the defective meter. Ext. R4 is the copy of notice dated 10.7.03. As per Ext. R4 the Kerala Water Authority demanded to correct the defective meter on 10.7.03. Ext. R7 also affirms it. But the petitioner did not do it. On 5.1.04 the Kerala Water Authority demanded, but not done, but there is no evidence to it. The legality of the bill is disputed by the petitioner. Ext. R1 is the copy of agreement executed by the complainant with the respondents. As per Clause 6 of Ext. R1 the charges are calculated. Ext. R5 and R6 also shown the basis for the impugned bill. In every bill issued the details are stated. The documentary evidence established the case of respondents and the petitioner is found liable to remit the amount shown in the impugned bill. 6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to remit the bill amount within one month. No order as to costs and compensation. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 10th day of July 2008.
