By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party to restore the water connection and to cancel the bill of excess amount demanded towards the charge of water supply.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a consumer of water provided by the Opposite Party having consumer No.455 under the scheme of non domestic. The Opposite Party demanded from the Complainant Rs.6,780/- towards the excess quantity of water consumed. The Complainant was not provided with water by the Opposite Party in its absence local labourers were engaged to carry water in to the premises for which the Complainant had to spent around an expense of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The Complainant used to remit the routine bill amount while using water How ever even in the absence of water supply the meter installed found to be running, the defect of meter was in time reported to the Opposite Party. But there was no response from the Opposite Party to rectify and to maintain the supply of water properly. The 1^st Opposite Party disconnected the supply of water during February 2010. Even after the disconnection of water supply the meter showed reading of consuming water. The Opposite Parties are responsible to restore the water connection. The Complainant is to be compensated with cost for the defective service of Opposite Parties.

4. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Opposite Parties did not demand any amount from the Complainant for the water which was not used by the Complainant. The bill issued was strictly in compliance of the reading of the meter. In 2010 February the Complainant used 179 Kilo Liter and in March 51 Kilo liter of water. The bill amount liable to be paid by the Complainant was remitted only up to October 2009. In the absence of any remittance of the bill amount, the supply of water was disconnected in pursuance of an advance notice of disconnection that was on 20.11.2010. The allegation of the Complainant that the meter was faulty and it was inspected by the Assistant Engineer and reported that the meter was not faulty and the same was also intimated to the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Party. The meter installed in the premises of the Complainant was free from any defect till 15.6.2011.

5. The agreement executed in between the Complainant and Opposite Party strictly confers that if the bill amount of 2 months not remitted the supply would be disconnected and after disconnection if supply is to be reconnected the Complainant has to comply the procedure. This Opposite Party reconnected the disconnected supply of water on receiving Rs.2,260/- by the order of this Forum. The Complainant is liable to remit the reconnection charges up to 23.09.2011. The Complainant is any way liable to remit Rs.10,491/- and the complaint filed is not maintainable. Hence it is to be dismissed with cost.

6. Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant Ext.A1 to A7 and B1 to B15 are the documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also brought out in this case.

8. The dispute in issue is in respect of the excess bill amount demanded by the Opposite Party and the non payment of the arrear bill amount. The Opposite Party disconnected supply of water. According to the Complainant the meter installed in the premises is defective and Ext.A1 is the request informed the Opposite Party that the water supply was no more for 3 months prior to the date of request which was on 16.3.2010.

9. The notice dated 9.7.2010 also informed that the consumer, used to remit Rs.127/- as monthly bill. Ext. A6 series is the amount to be remitted by the Complainant which shows that the Complainant is demanded to remit Rs.7,863/- up to 8/2010. The invoice card and the periodical notice towards the excess consumption of water are not produced in this case. The Complainant is examined as PW1 and it is evidenced by this witness that the amount towards the consumption of water up to September 2009 was remitted. On 26.11.2010 the supply of water was disconnected. The meter reading was not taken monthly according to this witness. The Opposite Party was given request to rectify the defective meter and there was no response from the Opposite parties on the allegation of the faulty meter.

10. The Opposite Party has not produced detail bill nothing is brought out in evidence by the Opposite Party that if any enhancement in the consumption of water from the normal use was effected. The Kerala Water Authority (water supply) Regulation 1991 section 30 authorise the Opposite Party to fix the water consumption charge upon inspection within a period of 6 months. The excess consumption or short consumption of water to be ascertained by a period of inspection in 6 months. In this case it is not evidenced by the documents produced that the excess consumption of water as claimed by the Opposite Party is ascertained by periodical inspection.

In the result, the bill dated 11.06.2010 demands Rs.6,780/- assessing on the consumption of water is not proper and it is canceled. The Opposite Party has to issue fresh bill upon actual consumption of water procedurally complied. The Opposite Party is also liable to receive from the Complainant reconnection and other charges. The remittance of Rs.2,260/- in pursuance of order in I.A 152/11 shall be treated as the amount remitted towards the actual consumption of water. Upon assessment of the water charges if any excess amount to be remitted by the Complainant, the Complainant Opposite Party is liable to receive that amount, on the other hand if the amount remitted found to be excess, the excess amount remitted is to be treated as advance amount for the future charges. This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th March 2012.

Date of filing:15.09.2011.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. M.O. Mathew. Manager, Sulthan Bathery Service Co-operative Bank.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:16.03.2010.

A2. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:01.02.2011.

A3 series. (3 Nos) Copy of Receipts.

A4. Copy of Letter. dt:09.07.2010.

A5. Copy of Bill No.5900. dt:08.11.2011.

A6 series. Bills.

A7. Resolution No.1.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Notice. dt:01.02.2011.

B2. Copy of Letter. dt:18.02.2011.

B3. Copy of Letter. dt:15.06.2011.

B4. Copy of Letter. dt:08.07.2011.

B5. Copy Letter. dt:29.06.2010.

B6. Copy of application for Sever/Water connection. dt:17.03.2001.

B7. Copy of Plan.

B8. Copy of Application for Motor Testing.

B9. Copy of Water/Sever Connection Work Order.

B10. Copy of Residential/Ownership Certificate. dt:13.03.2001.

B11. Copy of Water/Sever Connection Completion Advice.

B12. Copy of Connection Order. dt:07.11.2001.

B13. Copy of Agreement for the supply of water. dt:07.11.2001.

B14. Copy of Ledger ( Page No.205).

B15. Abstract of monthly bill.