By Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar,  Member :

                   The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties, having a domestic water connection no.2368.The complainant has paid all the bills issued by the opposite parties till date. The case of the complainant is that on 5-10-12, he has received a notice bearing bill no: 13857, demanding to remit Rs.10191/-..On receiving the bill, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and complaining about the bill, stated that he has not received water for years and the meter reading is the same for years. On receiving the complaint, the   opposite party promised to look in to the matter. But, on 12-02-13, the complainant received another notice stating that the meter of the complainant is defective and that the complainant should repair the meter for which he should remit Rs.20/- as fee. They further informed that the bill amount should be remitted. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties, directing to pay the bill amount is unfair trade practice.  Hence the CC filed with payers to cancel the Demand notice dated 5-10-12 , in addition to sanctioning compensation and costs.

                   2.In the version filed, the opposite parties, admitting the connection states that the opposite parties have issued bill only for the water used by the complainant from the water connection. The meter reading, the water consumption, the availability of water, the bills and notices issued to the complainant,   the remittance made by the complainant etc. can be proved by the entries in the consumer personal ledger maintained by the office of the opposite party .The complainant is liable to remit the bill issued from the office of the opposite party .It is the responsibility of the opposite party to issue notice to the complainant for changing the defective water meter. The complainant has not submitted any written complaints to the office of the opposite parties. There is no unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. Since the only intention of the complainant is to escape from the clutches of liability, the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

                   3.The points for consideration are

1. Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so, compensation and cost

                   4.Evidence consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and counter proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties. The complainant has filed evidence marked as Ext. P1 to P4   whereas the opposite parties have filed evidences marked as Ext. R1, being the copy of the consumer personal ledger. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill no; 13852 dated 5-10-12 for Rs.10191/- Ext. P2 is the copy of the bill no.8112/18-04-11 for Rs.8250/-; Ext. P3 is the notice issued dated 12-02-13; Ext. P4 is the copy of the provisional invoice card.

                   5.It can be seen, as per the proof affidavit that the main argument of the complainant is that ‘’ഞാന്‍ ഉപയോഗിച്ചിട്ടില്ലാത്ത വെള്ളത്തിന്‍റെ ചാര്‍ജ് ആണ്‌ എതിര്‍കക്ഷികള് ‍ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്. നോട്ടീസില്‍ കാണിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന മാസസംഖ്യകള്‍  ശരിയല്ലാത്തതാണ്.’’ The argument of the complainant being as above, it was for the opposite party to prove that  the bill amount is the actual cost of water used by the complainant. We are of opinion that it was for the  opposite party to provide before the forum , either in the version or in the counter proof affidavit ,the detailed explanation with all details  that the complainant has used the water as per the meter reading. The opposite party was bound to explain the reasons resulting in the issue of such a bill after a lapse of several years and thus prove that the bill amount is the cost of water actually used by the complainant .However, instead of this, the version / affidavit of the opposite party merely informs the forum that the notice has been issued as per the provisions of the act and that all the details are available in the consumer personal ledger produced as Ext. R1. Thus the opposite party has advised the Forum to go through Ext. R1 and understand the details. Accordingly, the Forum has gone through Ext. R1 consumer personal ledger copy and also Ext. P1 bill. But, we are not in a position to get a clear-cut picture of the factors leading to the bill amount and also, how the amount has been arrived at. Our observations are as follows.

1. The quantity of water used by the complainant should be intimated to him on the basis of meter reading , by providing details of the same on the bill. However, there is no mention of meter reading in the Ext.P1 bill.

2. On going through the consumer personal ledger, it is seen that the meter has been replaced by a new one on 17-03-08. It is also mentioned that the meter reading during 3/08 is shown as 1052, whereas the reading during 4/09 is shown as only 704.The Forum feels that something wrong has occurred in respect of this meter reading.

3. The consumer personal ledger shows that the meter reading has been taken during 5/11 as 1326, after 3/10, being 1123. As such, the Forum believes that the electricity charges should be worked out from 4/10 to 5/11.However, the electricity charges are seen worked out from 4/10 to 10/10 and from 11/10 to 5/11.How this break-up has been worked out has not been explained.

4. Since the meter reading as on 5/11, 9/12 & 2/13 are the same, the forum believes that the meter was not working and hence has been replaced on 4-09-13. As such, the opposite parties should have explained how the water charges during this period have been calculated. But, no explanation has been provided.

5. Considering the argument of the complainant the most important document to be produced by the opposite party was the meter reading register, which shows the meter reading taken by the meter reader by visiting the water meter of the consumer. This is the important evidence to prove the quantum of water used by the consumer. However, this important document has not been produced before the Forum.

                   6.Considering the observations above, we are inclined to come to the conclusion that the arguments of the complainant are true to facts and hence needs consideration.

                   7. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Ext. P1 bill is cancelled. An amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) is sanctioned as compensation and costs to the complainant, to be adjusted in the future bills.

                        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 29^th day  of   September     2018.

        Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

M.P.Chandrakumar                                                       P.K.Sasi,                         

Member                                                                         President.                                                             

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext. P1 copy of the bill no; 13852 dated 5-10-12 for Rs.10191/-

Ext. P2 copy of the bill no.8112/18-04-11 for Rs.8250/-;

Ext. P3 Notice issued dated 12-02-13;

Ext. P4 copy of the provisional invoice card.

Opposite Parties Exhibit

Ext. R1 copy of the consumer personal ledger.

                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                      Member