O R D E R <br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Water Authority with vide Consumer No. 3/258. The water charges of the petitioner were collected by the Water Authority from 4/94 to 3/99. The petitioner is regularly paying the water charges. On 20..1..2007 the opposite party served a notice to the petitioner intimating him that the water meter installed in the petitioners premises is not working and the petitioner should change the meter within 7 days. The petitioner purchased a new meter and requested the opposite party to connect the new meter. The opposite party informed the petitioner that there is arrears of Rs. 641/- for a period from 4/06 to 3/07. Petitioner as directed by the opposite party had remitted Rs. 641/- on 6..2..2007. According to the petitioner there is no increase in the number of occupants and consumption of water for the petitioner and he is using water from the well for his domestic consumption. The opposite party on<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> verification in April 2000 and April 2006 found that they are collecting excess water charges from the petitioner so they reduced the water charges of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the opposite party has not stated any reason in the notice dtd: 20..1..2007 for the demand of Rs. 641/- as arrears of water charges for the period from 4/06 to 3/07. So, petitioner states that the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service so, he pray for a direction to refund the amount of Rs. 641/- collected by the opposite party from the petitioner and also he prayed for a cost of Rs. 2000/-. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted that the petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party. They contented that the water charges from 4/94 to 3/99 is Rs. 22 per month. On 4/99 on wards it was enhanced to Rs. 34/-. On 4/2000 the meter reading of the petitioner was below the prescribed slab so, the opposite party adjust excess amount collected from the petitioner in the subsequent bills. On 22..10..2005 the meter reading of the petitioner was taken and based on the meter reading the bimonthly charge of the petitioner was revised as Rs. 46/- per month. So, the adjustment bill for a period from 10/05 to 2/07 for Rs. 641/- was issued to the petitioner and it was remitted by the petitioner. Subsequently it was found that meter was faulty. The the faulty meter was changed on 6..2..2007. The opposite party taken the meter reading of the petitioner on 24..7..2007 and found that consumption was 53 kilo litter based on the said reading water charges of the petitioner was further revised, with effect from 2/04. The opposite party states that after the adjustment it is, found that there is an excess amount of Rs. 490 collected and that will be adjusted in future bill of the <br /> <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> petitioner so the opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and petition is to be dismissed with their cost.<br /> O R D E R<br /> Since the opposite party admitted in their version based on the adjustment bill the opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs. 490/- from the petitioner the said excess amount of 490/- is to be adjusted in the future bills of the petitioner.<br /> In the result we ordered the opposite party to adjust the excess amount of Rs. 490/- collected to be adjusted in 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 29th day of September, 2008.