By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that the complainant has taken a water connection from respondents vide consumer No.338. It is taken for domestic purposes. As per the provisional invoice card the complainant paid one year charge in advance. Thus the complainant paid water charges from 10.2.97 to April 2003. The complainant has no arrears. But the respondents issued a bill dt. 18.4.03 demanding arrears upto 2003 March. The complainant is not liable to pay this bill amount. The bill is baseless and issued without taking proper meter reading. On acceptance of the bill the complainant submitted one petition to 2nd respondent. There is no necessity of using such quantity of water. The respondents did not take any action on the petition submitted by complainant. The respondents refused to accept water charges from 2003 May onwards. Later the respondents issued one notice dt. 22.8.06 demanding arrears. This act of respondents is deficiency in service. The amount is time barred also. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of respondents-2 and 3 is that it is true that the complainant has taken water connection from the respondent for domestic purposes. There is water meter installed and also issued provisional invoice card for recording meter reading. The water meter of complainant became defective and replaced on 6.3.98. After the replacement it was found that the monthly consumption of water as 56KL and the amount due to water authority was Rs.12,954/-. As per service card the complainant paid Rs.1299/-and after deducting this amount a bill issued dated 18.6.03. The complainant is not paid this bill amount so far. The complainant is liable to pay this amount since the bill is issued for consumed water. There is no deficiency in service from respondents.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondents?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4.
5. Points: The complaint is filed to cancel Exts. P2 and P4 demand notices issued by the water authority. It is the case of complainant that he has paid the water charges in advance as per the provisional invoice card and he has no arrears. But the respondents contended that the water meter of complainant replaced on 6.3.98 and the meter reading was taken and the consumption assessed as 56 KL per month. Accordingly Ext. P2 notice was issued and the complainant is liable to pay the same.
6. It is the case of complainant that he has paid the water charges in advance as per the provisional invoice card. The provisional invoice card is marked as Ext. P1 and it would show that the complainant has paid water charges upto 11.3.02. But Ext. P2 shows that the water authority claimed water charges from 3/98 to 3/99 and also from 4/99 to 3/03. There is difference in unit charge. It is the contention of respondents that the water meter was replaced on 6.3.98 and the consumption of water assessed as 56 KL per month. Accordingly the complainant is bound to pay Rs.12,954/- and as per the invoice card the complainant has remitted Rs.1299/- and the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount. So it is the case of respondents that for the balance amount Ext. P2 has been issued. It is to be noted that the complainant has no case that the water meter was changed and monthly consumption was assessed. There is no evidence adduced by the respondents to show the replacement of water meter and assessment of consumption of water. So the allegations are remaining disproved.
7. The complainant stated that he has paid the water charges as per the invoice card issued by the respondents. But it would show that the complainant has paid water charges upto 11.3.02. Ext. P2 is dated 18.6.03 and the complaint is filed on 5.3.07. There is no explanation why the complainant failed to pay water charges from 11.3.02 onwards. It is stated in the complaint that only because of the deficiency in service of the respondents the complainant could not pay water charges from 2003 May onwards. But the complainant did not step into the box to prove these allegations. There is no evidence at all to show the deficiency in service in that account. It is true that the complainant has consumed the water without paying charges. So he is bound to pay the water charges with interest during the unpaid period. There is no whisper about Ext. P4 in the counter of respondents. The Exts. P2 and P4 remain intact without establishing. So the complainant is not liable to pay the amounts stated in Exts. P2 and P4. But he is bound to pay the water charges from 11.3.02 onwards. The respondents are directed to issue bills during this period.
8. In the result the complaint is allowed and Exts. P2 and P4 notices stand cancelled. The respondents are directed to issue fresh bills duringthe disputed period.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of May 2012.
