KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL 139/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 11.6.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF,Kollam in OP.67/02 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Asst.Exe.Engineer, : APPELLANT Kerala Water Authority, Kollam. (By Adv.C.Sasidharan Pillai) Vs. Leela.M.C., : RESPONDENT 708, Thevally, Kollam-9, Rep.by Ramachandra Rao, Proprietor, Hotel Ganesh Bhavan Anandavalleswaram, Kollam-9. (By Advs.B.Sindhu & M.Shaheed Ahmad) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred by the opposite party in OP.67/2002 on the file of CDRF, Kollam, The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant for getting P4 arrear bill cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing P4 bill dated 5.8.03 for Rs.12157/-. It is the case of the complainant that P4 disputed bill was issued without any basis The opposite party filed written version contending that the P4 bill was issued towards the arrears of water charge based on the meter readings. Thus, the opposite party justified their action in issuing P4 bill dated 5.8.03. 2. Before the Forum below the tenant of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P4 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite party DW1, the Asst.Executive Engineer of Kerala Water Authority was examined. No documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case the Forum below found the opposite party deficient in issuing P4 bill dated 5.8.03 for Rs.12157/-. Thereby the aforesaid disputed bill was cancelled with a direction to the opposite party to issue fresh bill for every six months as per the rule. The opposite party was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- by way of compensation and cost to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.12.03 passed by the Forum below in OP 67/02 the present appeal is preferred. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is argued that the disputed bill was issued for the water actually consumed by the complainant for running a hostel business and that the same was issued based on the meter readings. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argued for the position that there is nothing on record to show that the disputed bill was issued based on meter readings. It is further pointed out that the opposite party has not adduced any evidence such as the meter reading register or any other supporting documents to show that the tenant of the complainant consumed so much water amounting to Rs.12517/-. Thus, the respondent/complainant requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether the appellant/opposite party can be justified in issuing P4 arrear bill dated 5.8.03 for Rs.12517/-? 2) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.67/02? Points 1 and 2:- 5. Admittedly the respondent/complainant is consumer under the opposite party and that the premises was let out to a tenant for running hostel business. It is the definite case of the complainant that water charges are being paid regularly and that the complainant had even paid the water charges in advance. Ext.P1 receipt dated 8.4.01 issued by opposite party for Rs.1390/- would make it clear that the complainant was in the habit of making payment towards water charges in advance . It is further to be noted the complainant was also given a discount of Rs.66 for making the payment in advance. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was a defaulter in making the payment of water charges at any point of time. It is to be noted that the P1 advance payment was effected for the period from April 2001 to April 2002. 6. The disputed bill was issued on 5.7.03 demanding a sum of Rs.12157/- by way of arrears of water charges for the period from 3.3.99 to 18.6.02. As per the disputed bill the complainant consumed water at an average rate of 56.3 Kilo liters. But in support of P4 bill the opposite party has not produced any supporting documents like meter reading register. There can be no doubt about the fact that meter reading register should be the best piece of evidence to prove the actual consumption of water by a consumer. But in the present case the opposite party failed to produce the valid document namely; meter reading register. It is to be noted that the meter reader was also not examined to substantiate the case of the opposite party that the complainant consumed so much of water during the period from 3.3.99 to 18.6.02. Thus, it can be concluded that P4 disputed bill for Rs.12157/- was issued without any basis. The opposite party miserably failed in substantiating their case that the P4 bill was issued based on meter readings or based on actual consumption of water consumed by the complainant. 7. The fact that complainant remitted water charges in advance would give indication that there was no amount due to the opposite party from the complainant by way of arrears of water charges up to April 2001. Had there been any arrears of water charges due from the complainant from March 1999 upto April 2001, the opposite party should not receive the amount in advance. This is a strong circumstance that would create genuine doubt about the case of the opposite party that so much of arrears of water charges were due from the complainant from 3.3.99 upto 18.6.02. The Forum below is justified in canceling disputed P4 bill. 8. The Forum below has also found that the opposite party is not entitled to claim the arrears of water charges because of the failure to issue arrear bills at the interval of six months. The mere fact that the opposite party failed to issue arrear bills as provided in the Regulation cannot be taken as a ground to absolve the consumer like the complainant from the liability to pay arrears of water charges for the water actually consumed. In such an eventuality the opposite party is not entitled to claim interest on the arrears of water charges. But at any rate, the complainant/consumer is bound to pay arrears of water charges for the water actually consumed by the complainant/ consumer. In the present case the Forum below can be justified in cancelling P4 disputed bill forRs.12157/-. 9. The foregoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in issuing the disputed P4 arrear bill dated 5.7.03 for Rs.12157/- because of the fact that the said arrear bill was issued without any basis and without taking the actual meter reading. So, the order passed by the Forum below cancelling the said bill is to be upheld. Hence we do so. The Forum below has only ordered a sum of Rs.1000/- by way of compensation and cost. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the said amount ordered by the Forum below can be treated as reasonable. These points answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 11.12.03 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP.67/02 is confirmed. As for as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
