THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No. 234/2006 Saturday, the 26th day of July, 2008. Petitioner : Kerala Plaantation Corporation Employees Union (CITU) reptd by General Secretary, P.A Ebrahimkutty, Navas Villa, Kottiam P.O Kollam. (By Adv. Sooraj M. Kartha) Vs. Opposite parties : Kerala Water Authority reptd. By Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kottayam. (By Adv. K.C Ajithkumar) O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party . Petitioner is the owner of a premise which is used as Union Office of Kerala Plantation Corporation employees Union (CITU). According to the pettioner as per invoice card issued by the opposite party the monthly amount to be remitted by the petitioner is Rs. 142/- and as per provisional invoice card water charges can be remitted once in a year. The petitioner was paying water charges without any default. On 19..1..2006 the petitioner paid the water charges from 4/05 to 12/05. On 8..10..2006 the petitioner received a bill for an amount of Rs. 45,225/-. The petitioner states that there was no such consumption of water and bill issued is without any basis. T he above act of the opposite party according to the petitioner is a clear deficiency in service so, he prays for directing the opposite party to -2- give correct monthly calculation of the bill and to cancel the bill, he also claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. They admitted that the petitioner is the consumer of the opposite party. According to the opposiste party there was a causal connection taken for building construction. Now there is a multistoried building functioning for a commercial purpose. On enquiry the opposite party found that there was a Hotel on the ground floor up to 3/2006 and now there is a bakery cum cool bar. According to the opposite party the actual consumption of the petitioner was 154 k.lts. of water per month for that an adjustment bill for an amount of Rs. 23,312/- was given to the petitioner on 27..4..2002 and petitioner admitted the same and remitted the amount on 25..2..2002. The opposite party contented that due to computerisation of the billing unit, opposite party was not in a position to issue the adjustment bill up to 10/05. They contented that the water charges of the petitioner based on the latest monthly charges is Rs. 1,472/- but the petitioner is remitting Rs. 142/- only. From 5/02 onwards the petitioner is liable for remiting Rs. 1472/- per month as per consumption. So, the opposite party issued bill amounting Rs. 45225/- after deducting amounts already paid by the petitioner. So the opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the petition is to be dismissed with their costs. Points for determination are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs. -3- Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the both parties Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1. The contention of the opposite party that the petitioner had given the premises of the petitioner for rent to bakery and other offices is not proved. The petitioner has produced a notice issued by the opposite party on 28..9..2006 showing that meter of the petitioner’s consumer number is not working. The opposite party produced the consumer ledger and same is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 the date in which the meter reading was taken is shown. The opposite party has also produced the demand details. In the said demand details the claim of the opposite party is also shown. The petitioner produced the demand notice dtd: 8..11..2008. The said document is marked as Ext. A3. From Ext. A3 it can be seen that the demand is for a period from 14..1..2000 to 30..9..2008. As per regulation 13 of the water supply regulations 1991 the authority has to fix the monthly water charges of the consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that no assessment of water charges as per regulation 13 is done in the case of the petitioner. Further, more meter reading has not taken in every six months. FromExt. B2 document it can be seen that even fine imposed to the petitioner for the fault on the side of the opposite party.From Ext. B1, B2 and B3 document and from Ext. A3 document it can be seen that the claim amount of the bill is for a period morethan3 years. In Hariyana Vidyt Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Aggarval Ice Factory (reported in 2007 CTJ 927) The Hon’ble National Commission has stated that -4- no amount of arrear can be claimed for a period otherthan 3 years in which law of general limitation shall apply. So act of the opposite party in issuing bills without following rule 13 of the regulation is a clear deficiency of service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the bill for an amount of Rs. 45,225/- dated 14..1..2000 is cancelled. The opposite party is directed to issued revised bill as per assessment made under rule 13 of water supply regulation and that to be for a period within limitation without any penal charges. Considering facts and circumstances and no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of July, 2008.