O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. The complainant is filed seeking an order that the complaint is not liable to pay the sum of Rs.5911/- as per the demand notice 6154 dated: 19.10.07 issued by third opposite party and seeking compensation and cost. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case is that the complainant having Consumer No.1531/D was issued with a notice demanding Rs.5911/- as additional water charges for the period from 06/00 to 10/06. The complainant has not consumed any excess water and no bills were issued at that point of time. The complainant has filed a petition to third opposite party. Ignoring that petition OP has directed the complainant to remit the said amount; otherwise the supply will be disconnected and also threatened that RR proceedings will be initiated. The act of opposite party is illegal, improper and against the principles of natural justice and it caused irreparable loss, injury and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint. The opposite parties filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averments shown in Para 1 regarding the date of connection is not true and hence denied. Actually consumer took connection on 18.08.94. Para 2 is contrary to the facts and hence denied. Up to 10/06 the complainant had paid minimum water charges Rs.22 per month. But as per meter reading (Consumer Personal (3) Ledger) records kept in OP1 office, since August 2006 onwards the complainant is using excess quantity of water. The amount of water charges calculated on the basis of quantity of water consumed by the consumer the consumer is liable to pay that amount. The acts of opposite parties are legal and proper. The complaint is experimental and liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. The complainant was examined a PW1. Exhibits P1 to P3 marked. From the side of opposite parties. Affidavit filed by third opposite party.DW1 examined. Exhibits D1 marked. Heard both sides. The points of determination are: - Whether there is any deficiency in service.
- Compensation and other relief.
Points (1) and (2) Admittedly the complainant is remitting minimum charges for the consumption of water and he is not a defaulter in that payment till 2006. (4) The main contention of opposite party is that the complainant had consumed excess quantity of water than the permitted quantity for minimum charge Rs.22 per month. The amount of additional water charges calculated on the basis of consumption. The complainant’s case is that he had not used excess quantity of water. Even if he had consumed excess water, definitely the excess charges would have mentioned in the prior bills before Exhibit P1. The second opposite party ought to have mentioned the same in the prior bills issued to him. DW1 has stated in his testimony that if there is balance amount to be payable it would be noted in Exhibit D1 and the opposite party is liable to intimate the same to the complainant. He has admitted that before to the issuance of Exhibit P2 it was never informed to the complainant. The reason for non issuance of additional bill at the point of time stated by the opposite party is because of the shortage of employees. He has further stated that the complainant was allowed to pay minimum charge on assurance that the complainant will pay the balance amount. (5) Here in this case, no intimation was given to the complainant about the consumption of excess water and excess water charge is payable by the complainant. No demand notice was issued to him till 19.10.07. Exhibit P1 was issued on that day demanding the arrears of excess water charges from 2000 to 2007 and the amount due to the year 2007. No evidence produced by the opposite parties to show that they had allowed to remit the minimum charges on assurance given by the complainant that he is ready to pay the excess charges. The opposite party has stated that the additional bill is based on meter reading. If it is so the opposite parties are duty bound to inform the complainant properly at that point of time itself. On perusal of Exhibit D1 we find that it is an insufficient document to support the statement of excess charges given in the version. Exhibit D1 shows that there is no balance to be paid as on 16.10.06. The meter reading was not properly recorded in D1 there are some discrepancies in recording the meter charges. Thus D1, the document produced by the opposite party itself impeached the case of opposite parties. We find that the complainant is not liable to pay the sum of Rs.5911/- as per demand notice No.6154 dtd: 19.10.07. (6) In the result, the complaint is allowed quashing the demand notice bearing no.6154 dtd: 19.10.07. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost to the complainant. The complainant also directed to pay the the minimum charges due from 2006 to 2010 along with interest at the rate of 9%. If any loss sustained by the opposite parties it may be collected from the officers concerned with. Dated this the 30th day of June 2010. K.Vijayakumaran : Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- / / Forwarded by Order / / Senior Superintendent INDEX List of witness for the complainant PW1 - Padmakumar List of documents for the complainant P1 - Demand Notice P2 - Bill dated: 16.11.06. P3 - Bill dated: 13.01.04. List of witness for the opposite party DW1 - C.Sajeev List of documents for the opposite party D1 - Consumer Personal Ledger attested copy | 
