KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:548/2005 JUDGMENT DATED:1..4..2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1.Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H.Sub Division, KWA, Kollam. : APPELLANTS 2.Managing Director, KWA, Vallayambalam, TVPM. (By Adv: Sri.V.S.Harindranath) V. M.Badarudeen, Secretary, Thattamala Muslim Juma-Ath, : RESPONDENT Thattamala.P.O, Kollam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority in OP:172/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The Forum quashed Ext.P1 demand notice for Rs.25758/- and also directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation. 2. It is the case of the complainant that they were regularly paying the water charges according to the bills issued by the appellant. It is also alleged that they were not getting water through the connection. Non availability of water was intimated several times. Opposite party has not taken periodical reading from 1994 onwards. On 27..3..2004 the opposite party served a demand notice for Rs.25,758/- for water charges with a threat of disconnection if the amount is not paid within 7 days. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellants that the complainant had not paid the minimum amount as per the PIC since long. Only a sum of Rs.500/- was paid on 28..4..1999. It is also mentioned that on inspection it was found that the meter was made unserviceable. Notice was given to replace the faulty meter. PIC is Rs.102/- per month. The bill represented the above amount with agreed interest/fine. 4. The evidence adduced consisting of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party. 5. The Forum has found fault with the appellant for not taking any meter reading and hence held that the bill issued for more than six months is against the statutory provisions. 6. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant the complainant was bound to pay the provisional invoice card amount. It is pointed out that the bill is not with respect to any additional consumption. The bill represented only the total PIC amount + accumulated interest/fine. 7. We find that the Forum has not considered the matter in the proper perspective. The complainant was bound to pay the PIC amount regularly. Of course Ext.P1 bill just mentions Rs.25,758/- as the accumulated arrears including fine. The period is also not mentioned. Ext.P4 the notice dated:3..12..2004 did not contain any mention about the period or the amount. Evidently the bill and notice issued are not transparent. The appellant is bound to mention what is the PIC amount due and what is the interest/fine separately. We make it clear the complainant is bound to pay the PIC amount. The attitude of issuing bills incorporating the fine/interest which multiplies, after a decade has to be charactarised as deficiency of service. This aspect has to be considered by the Forum. 8. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is setaside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The case will stand posted before the Forum on 20..5..2009. Office is directed to despatch this order to the Forum as well as the LCR urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
