KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.306/09 JUDGMENT DATED 31/5/2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. Asst.Executive Engineer, P.H.Division Kerala Water Authority, Kannur – 12. 2. The managing Director, -- APPELLANTS Jala Bhavan Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv.C.Sudheeshkumar) Vs. C.Subaida, Kanakkara, P.O.Thana, -- RESPONDENT Kannur – 12. (By Adv.Rajesh Sukumaran) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN,MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 7.4.09 in CC.204/06 of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties seeking for cancellation of Ext.A2 bill for Rs.19772/- with compensation and costs. The Lower forum thereby allowed the complaint and cancelled the disputed bill and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.250/- as costs to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant is that she is a consumer of the opposite parties and was paying water charges as per provisional invoice card. But the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.19772/- as arrears due from 26.6.03 to 10.4.06. According to the complainant, the bill was issued without any basis and without taking the meter reading in time. More over, an adjustment has to be issued in every 6 months and this was not done by the opposite parties. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties she filed complaint before the forum seeking for cancellation of the bill issued by the opposite parties. 3. The first opposite party filed version and contended that the arrear bill was issued based on the consumption of excess water by the complainant in addition to the charges paid by her as per Provisional Invoice Card at the rate of 152 per month. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the bill was issued for the water actually consumed by the complainant and on the basis of the readings recorded in the meter and the complainant is bound to pay for the water actually consumed. There is no deficiency in service on their part and requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. 5. The main point to be considered is whether there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in issuing the disputed bill. The appellants have to take the meter reading as stipulated in Clause (a) of Regulation 13. In this case the arrear bill has been issued without taking meter reading as stipulated under Clause (b) of Regulation 13. As per Clause (b) of Regulation 13 the adjustment bill in Form IX shall be issued once in every 6 months to the consumer. In the present case no such adjustment has been issued to the consumer. The Appellants claimed a sum of Rs.19772/- as arrears and there is failure on the part of the appellants in taking meter reading in time. The case of the appellants is that the complainant has been paying only minimum charges as per provisional invoice card. 6. As per the provisions mentioned in Clause (b) Regulation 13 of Kerala Water Authority (water supply) Regulations 1991 the consumer is bound to remit the minimum charges fixed by virtue of the provisional invoice card without any demand. In this case the additional bill has been issued by the appellants without taking meter reading as stipulated under Clause (b) of Regulation 13. But the complainant being a consumer is bound to pay the water charges for the water actually consumed. The complainant is not a defaulter in making payment of the water charges due under the provisional invoice card. Even though there occurred omission on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the adjustment bills on an interval of six months, that failure will not absolve the complainant to pay water charges for the water actually consumed. The appellants will be at liberty to claim water charges actually consumed by the complainant without claiming any penal charges. However the complainant was forced to approach the Forum below for redressing her grievances consequent to the issuance of the impugned bill and had to meet the expenses in connection with the same. The Forum below had awarded only a nominal amount of Rs.250/- towards costs and we find that the same is only to be sustained. Thus, the order of the Forum canceling Ext.A2 bill for Rs.19,772/- is upheld and the opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bill for the actual consumption without claiming any penal charges. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and thereby the order passed by the forum below is modified to the effect that the appellants/opposite parties will be at liberty to issue fresh bill based on the actual consumption of water without claiming any penal charges from the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to give suitable instalments to the complainant for the payment of the revised bill amount. The direction to pay Rs.250/- as costs to the complainant is sustained. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there shall be no order as to costs. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER s/L | 
