KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.492/2000 JUDGMENT DATED 31.7.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Palakkad in OP.54/98 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Asst.Executive Engineer, :APPELLANT Kerala Water Authority, P.H.Sub Division Office, Alathur.P.O.-678541. (By Adv.M.V.Suryaprabha) Vs. M.Sudevan, : RESPONDENT Mandakath Veedu, Kunnamkadu, Kizhakkenchery post, Palakkad District. (By Adv.P.J.Koshy) JUDGMENT JUSTICE .K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Water Authority in OP.54/98. The appellant is under orders to refund sum of Rs.2463/- to the complainant, collected towards arrears of water charges. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the average recorded consumption from the installation of the water meter in 1970 is only 12000 liters per month. But on 14.10.97 the appellant issued an additional bill for Rs.2463/- mentioning water consumption at the rate of 41000 liters per month. According to him when meter reading was taken on 13.10.97 the meter was found faulty and a notice was given to change the meter. According to him he has not consuming that much of water and that water is not available also as his house is situated at a higher elevation. Hence he has dug a borewell also in April 1996. 3. On the other hand the appellant has contended that in October 1993 the meter was found faulty and a notice was issued to change the meter on 6.11.93. The meter was changed on 3.1..94. In August 1995 meter reading was shown as 830800 liters which would work out to 41540 liters per month from January 94 to August 1995. Hence additional bill for the period for January 1994 to June 1996. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of PW1; Exts.P1 to P5; DW1 Exts.D1 to D7. 5. The Forum allowed the complaint on the basis of some discrepancy in the reading recorded in the extract of consumers personal ledger produced ie D3 and D5. It is seen that the meter was found faulty for more than once and the meter was changed. Complainant was remitting the amount as per the provisional invoice card at the rate of Rs.15/-. The period for which the bill has been issued is for 2 ½ years. There is certain minor discrepancies in the readings noted and the readings have not been noted regularly. The same may be on account of the fact that the complainant is remitting the monthly charges on the basis of the provisional invoice card. There is nothing to disbelieve the reading recorded in Ext.D3 and D5. In the circumstances and considering the amount involved which would work out to only to about Rs.80 per month. The version of the complainant that he has not consumed that much of water appears not correct in view of the fact that he has remitted the amount and continue to be the consumer of the water supply. In the circumstance the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
