O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Petitioner's case is as follows:<br /> The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Water Authority with vide consumer No. 1516. On 29..11..2005 the water connection of the petitioner was disconnected by the staff of the opposite party without any notice. According to the petitioner he is paying regular water charges demanded by the opposite party and there was no dues pending. So, act of the opposite party in disconnecting the water connection of a person having no dues without prior notice is clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for reconnection of the water supply and getting compensation and costs.<br /> Opposite party entered appearance filed version and contended that there is no bonafides in the complaint and no reliefs sought by the petitioner is allowable. According to them in July, 2003 an additional bill of Rs. 1264/- was given to the petitioner for his consumption. The average consumption of water of the petitioner is 28 kl. per month. The payment whatever done by the petitioner is without remitting the additional bill. On <br /> -2-<br /> 28..9..2004 an arrear notice for an amount of Rs. 2042/- was issued to the petitioner under certificate of positng so the case of petitioner of disconnection without prior notice is false. In October 2005 an arrear notice amounting Rs. 2702/- was issued to the petitioner under certificate of posting. Inspite of demand the petitioner has not remitted the arrears. So the water connection was disconnected. On 18..6..2004 meter reader inspected the petitioners residence and found that meter is not working. A notice was served to the consumer on 16..6..2004. Later on 30..8..2005 another notice was served to the petitioner but not replaced the meter. So according to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part . So the petition is to be dismissed with their costs.<br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A1(e) documents on the side of the petitioner. Opposite parties evidence consists of their affidavit and B1 to B7 documents.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> According to the petitioner he was regularly paying the water charges and there was no amounts due to the opposite party. So, he states the disconnection is illegal. In order to prove that petiitioner is regularly paying water charges for the year 2001 to 2005 he had produced 6 receipts showing remittance of water charges the said documents were marked as Ext. A1 to A1 (e). The opposite party produced the consumer personal ledger the said document is marked as Ext. B6. In Ext. B6 the average quantity of water consumed per month for 12/01 to 21/7/2003 is shown as 27.84 K.L. The average<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> consumption is arrived by taking the average consumption of 10 months for the said period. We are of the opinion that the said calculation is not legal because as per regulation 13 (b) of the Kerala Water Authority (water supply) Regulation 1991. The authority may fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any provious six months and the charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption is increased or decreased based on observation of meter reading of subsequent six months. Here without taking any meter reading regularly exorbitant bills are issued. But on perusal of Ext. B6 we are of the opinion that even though the assesment is not in accordance with S-13 of the K.W.A (water authority) <br /> Regulation 1991. The bill issued is genuine and reasonable. The other question to be decided is whether the petitioner had knowledge about the issuance of the additional bill. According to the opposite party the additional bills were issued U.C.P the petitioner states that it has a less evidentary value in, proving despatch of communication, in order to relay on his contention he placed reliance on decision of the hon'ble Sate Commission reprted in 2006 AIR SCW 162. We are also of the opinion that the certificate of posting is of little assistance to prove that bills were issued properly Ext. A1 to A1(e) documents prove that the petitioner had remitted his water charges. It is pertenent to note that no where in Ext. A1 to A1(e) the arrear is mentioned so, the case of the petitioner with regard to non issuance of the bill in much probable. So, we are of the opinion that the act of opposite party is deficiency in service so point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> Point No. 2.<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1 petition is allowed in part.<br /> In the result the following order is passed. Opposite party is ordered to retain the water connection of the petitioner. The petitioner is ordered to. Provide a meter to the opposite party and the opposite party complying with all legal formality instal a defect free water meter in the petitioner's premises, assess the water charges and fix monthly rate of water charges and fix the slab of the petitioner as per regulation 13 of the K.W A (water supply) regulation 1991 for future water charges. The petitioner is also ordered to remit the additional bills Claimed by the opposite party in 10 equal instalments by paying it along with future bills. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2008.<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-<br /> Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-