O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is the subscriber of Kerala Water Authority with vide Consumer No. 1164/K/ND. The connection was given on 6..2..2001 said water connection was availed by the petitioner for providing drinking water to the staff of the shop, conducted in the supervision of the complainant, for earning his livelihood. According to the petitioner he is remitting monthly amount as per provisional invoice card in advance. On 21..6..2001 petitioner paid water charges for the moths of 2/01 to 12/01 amounting Rs. 1162/-. On 21..3..2002 another bill for the month of 1/02 to 12/02 amounting Rs. 1244/- was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner paid the same. According to the petitioner he is

-2-

correct and prompt in paying all the bills which were issued to the petitioner by the opposite party in advance. On 29..9..2006 petitioner was served with a bill for an amount of Rs. 24514/- demanding the petitioner to pay the amount on or before 25..10..2006. The petitioner states that issuance of the said bill is without any bais and is liable to be set aside. Issuance of the bill for such an exhorbitant amount according to the petitioner is a clear deficiency of serv ice on the part of the opposite party. So, the petitioner prays for cancellation of additional bill issued to the petitioner and also he seek direction of the Forum to pass appropriate ordeer for a revised bill and also he prays to fix the tariff of the petitioner, petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, petitioner is only remitting the bill amount as per the provisional invoice card. The provisional charges will be reviewed based on the meter reading from time to time. According to the opposite party bill is issued as per the meter reading taken by the opposite party. The opposite party contented that there is no deficiency of service on their part. The opposite party contented that since the consumer has no dispute about the meter reading or the quanitty of water consumer by him, petitioner is legally liable to remit the amount claimed in the bill. The opposite party in their version admitted that there was delay in issuing the bills in proper time. So, according to the opposite party there is no deficiency of service on their part . So, he prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations 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 and Ext. A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner and even though the opposite party mentioned certain documents in their affidavit they have not produced any documents as stated.

Point No. 1

As per Regulation 13 (b) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991. The authority may fix monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of existing connection. The regulation also state that the charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observation of the meter readings taken in subsequent six months to the last period. From the case of the opposite party it can be seen that meter reading is taken not as per law. We are of the opinion that the said calculation of average consumption is not proper. As per Regulation 13 (b) of 1991 the authority ought to have taken the meter reading for the previous six month and fix the monthly charges for the existing connection. Here the authority had fixed the monthly charges without complying regulation 13 (b).

Issuing Addl. Bill after years according to the whims and willfullness of the opposite party is inadequecy in the quality, shortcoming or standard which is required to be maintained under the law for the time being in force in our opinion is clear deficiency in service .From Ext. A1 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 3 years according to the whim and willfullness of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. So point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-4-

Point No. 2

In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought for. In the result the opposite parties claim of additional bill amount is found unsustainable. So, the said bill is cancelled. The opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill as per Regulation 13 of water supply regulation without levying penal charges and the opposite party is not allowed to claim bills for recovering amounts for a period up to which limitation of 3 years will apply. The opposite party shall fix the monthly water charges of petitioner as per Regulation 13 (b) of water supply regulation for the petitioners future consumption. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. No cost and compensation is ordered. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2008.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-

Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-