KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:695/2005 JUDGMENT DATED:27..5..2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H. Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. : APPELLANTS 2.Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv: Sri.V.S.Hareendranath) V. K.Gopalakrishna Reddiar, Narakathummoottil House, : RESPONDENT (Sree Sakthi)Chittoor, Pathanamthitta. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP:96/03 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The Forum has setaside the bill issued for a sum of Rs.13,045/- and directed the opposite parties to refund the above amount with interest at 12% from 13..5..2003 till the date of judgment and there after at 6% interest till the refund of the whole amount. The complainant is also allowed to realize Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of the opposite party/Water Authority and was paying the water charge in advance and has paid the water charges up to April 2003. The opposite parties have issued additional bill demanding Rs.13,045/- for the period from 5..6..1998 to 4..6..2002 vide bill dated:17..1..2003. The genuineness of the above bill was challenged. It is also contended that the bill is barred by limitation. 3. The opposite parties/appellants had contended that the additional bill reflected the excess of the water consumed during the above period ie, above 10 ltrs which is fixed vide the provisional invoice card. There was defect in the meter and the meter was replaced on 15..12..1997. The meter reading was taken on 5..6..1998 and it showed 358 kl and on 13..11..99 which showed 1466 kl and on 13..10..2000 which showed 2253 kl and on 6..2..2001 which showed 3659 kl. The average consumption for the above period is 67 kl per month. The complainant had paid only the minimum water charges of Rs.22/- per month for 10 kl of water. Hence the excess bill issued. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant and Exts.A1 and A2. 5. We find that Ext.A1 is the detailed bill wherein the rate and excess water consumed and number of months are noted. The ground on which the Forum cancelled the bill is due to the lapse of the opposite party in producing the meter reading register. The counsel for the appellant has produced the copy of the meter reading register before this commission. The same tallies with the billing in Ext.A1 disputed bill. The readings are also seen noted in the meter reading register. Of course there is delay in taking the meter readings. Hence there is deficiency in this regard. All the same the complainant is liable to pay for the water consumed. No penalty or interest has been claimed vide Ext.A1 bill. The amount has been remitted also. The contention of limitation cannot be sustained as the complainant is continuing to consume water supplied by the appellants. 6. In the circumstances the direction to refund Rs.13,045/- and pay interest on the above amount is set aside. The direction of the Forum to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- is sustained. The appeal is allowed in part as above. The order of the Commission will be communicated to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
