ORDER                                                                                        Dated:  08-08-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. This complaint was filed on 2-8-2013 wherein complainant alleged that he has water connection bearing K. No. 3269041000 ,category I and regularly paying the water charges. His average water consumption was 50-60 units for 4 months.  OP started to send inflated bills from 31-3-2012 to 12-6-2012 for Rs 1795/-. Again OP1 has sent a highly inflated bill  for the period 3-10-2012 to 2-1-2013 for Rs. 15,116/-  to the complainant  showing the water consumption of  100 units for the period of about 107 days. OP again sent inflated bill for the period 18.1.2013 to 31.3.2013 for Rs 4537/- showing the water consumption of 134 units.    Complainant filed representation against these inflated bills on 3-6-2013 but no action was taken by the OP.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.   Therefore, it is prayed that average water consumption charges should be taken from complainant removing  the alleged arrears and Rs. 1,00,000/- be given to the complainant with litigation charges.

2. In reply, OP did not deny the facts regarding water connection and denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and clarified that the bills raised against the complainant are based on the consumption of water but complainant has not paid the bill amounts.  It is further stated that meter was stolen by RC (Registered Consumer) and had replaced on 25.02.2013 by complainant himself.  The revised bill of Rs. 7,065/- dated 8.1.2014 was supplied to the complainant.Therefore, thereis no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complaint be dismissed with cost.

3. The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his complaint the complainant filed his own affidavit along with document EX. CW-1/A to Ex CW-1/D..In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Sriram ZRO.Both the parties filed their written arguments.

4.  We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered areas under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

( c) Relief?

5.  As OP has not denied the use of water connection by the complainant, therefore, therefore, it is evident and proved that complainant is a “consumer” of the OP. The substance of the complaint is that the complainant is seeking relief of the average bill as per the previous of the billing year 2011. OP has raised the bill against complainant on the basis of actual consumption. It is further stated by the OP that OP has claimed that water meter of the complainant was stolen by the RC (Registered Consumer), this fact and affidavit in this regard has not been denied by the complainant. Bills raised against complainant filed by the complainant Ex. Annexure C clarify that bill raised by the OP against complainant dated 12.03.2014 has been revised from 15116/- to Rs 7,065/- as per the bill dated 08-01-2014.
6. Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service against OP. Hence this complaint is liable to be rejected.
7. Hence this complaint is dismissed accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own cost.

8. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law.  File be consigned to record room. 

Announced on this ……………..