O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner is a domestic consumer of opposite party water authority. Petitioner is regularly paying water charges as per professional assessment made by the opposite party. Petitioner from 3/98 to 3/99 had remitted Rs. 17/- monthly as his provisional water charges. From 3/99 to 4/06 the petitioner was remitting Rs. 22/- as provisional water charges.Opposite party after lapse of 8 years issued an additional bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 4381/-. According to the petitioner the assesment of water charges at the rate of Rs. 70 /- from 3/98 is illegal. The petitioner states that issuing exhorbitant additional bill after 8 years is a clear deficiency of service so he prays for setting aside additional bill issued to him and he claims Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- as cost of the proceedings.<br /> -2-<br /> Opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. They contented that there is an agreement between water authority and the consumer as per the said agreement if the petitioner consumed additional water he is liable to pay additional water charge. The opposite party contended that said Rs. 22/- collect from the petitioner is minimum charge. The opposite party stated that on 9..9..2005 meter reading was taken and it was found that the consumption of the petitioner is 2357 kl. and consumption of the petitioner per month is 26.1 kl. So he is liable to pay Rs. 70/- as monthly water charges. The opposite party further contented that the bills are issued as per law and petitioner is legally bound to pay amounts as per the additional bill issued to him acc. They contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part so, petition is to be dismissed with their costs.<br /> Points for determination 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 both parties. Ext. A1 to A4 documents, on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. <br /> Point No. 1<br /> As per 13 (b) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation 1991 the opposite party has to fix the monthly rate of charges based on the previous six months consumption. Further more the opposite party, as per water supply regulation shall revise the consumption of water based on the meter reading taken in subsequent six month to the last period. The opposite party produced a computer print of the consumer ledger the <br /> -3-<br /> said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be infered that no reading at regular intervel of six month is taken and no monthly rate of charge as per 13 (b) of the regulation is fixed in this case. So the petitioner cannot be penalised for the lapse or latches on the side of the opposite party. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that even fine in tune of Rs. 5/- is levied against the petitioner. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the additional bill was issued for recovering amounts beyond 3 years. The Hon'ble National Commission in Hariyana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Aggarwal Ice Factory, reported in 2007 CTJ 927 had stated that recovery beyond 3 years was time barred. So we are of the opinion that issuance of bill after 8 years according to the whims and wilfullness of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service so point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. II<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1 petition is allowed in part. In the result the opposite parties claim of additional bill for an amount of Rs. 4381/- is cancelled. The opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill as per Regulation 13 of Keraa Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation 1991, without levying penal charges and the opposite party is not allowed to claim bills for recovering amounts for a period upto which the limitation of 3 years will apply and the opposite party is ordered to fix the slab of the petitioner as per Regulation 13 of water supply regulation for future assessment. The opposite party is ordered to comply the order with within 30 days of receipt of this order 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<br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008