SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

            Complaint seeking to quash additional bill, compensation cost etc.

The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

The complainant was provided with water connection by the opp.parties  on 22.10.1997 with consumer No.MP450/D.  He was remitting the water charges for each year in advance.  On 1.10.2009 when he went to the opp.party office for remitting water charges, he was informed that there is an arrear bill up to 30.9.2009 for Rs.260/-.  He remitted the amount as per that bill on 1.10.2009 itself and necessary entries were made in the provisional invoice card.   After remitting the arrears he requested to close his water connection.   There after on 5.10.2009 another arrears bill for Rs.4068/- alleged  to be for the period from 10/97 to 9/2009 was issued .   The above bill is for a period of 12 years and issuance of such bill is illegal and he requested the opp.party to cancel the bill.  But they issued a reply refusing  cancel the additional bill.  Hence the complaint.

The opp.party filed version contending , interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the complainant has taken a domestic connection with Consumer No.M.P.450/D  on 17.10.1997.   The consumer has remitted water charges   in minimum tariff up to September 2009.   The bill as per the consumption was issued on 5.10.2009.  After receipt of the bill he filed a complaint before the opp.parties on  16.10.2009 for which a reply was given on 21.10.2009.   The complainant has remitted  water charges only  as per the minimum tariff.  As per the last reading recorded by the opp.parties  the complainant is consuming   19 KL water . The allegation that the complainant sustained mental  agony is false.   The complaint is filed on a experimental measure.  Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties?

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.  Ext.P1 to P7 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 is examined.

POINTS:

There is no dispute that the complaint who is a consumer of the opp.parties is paying advance yearly water charges in respect of consumer No.MP 450 Ext.P6 series also would establish the aspect.  It is also not in dispute that the water connection to the complainant was provided on 22.10.1997.   The contention of the complainant is that at the time when he remitted the water charges for the period from 10/08 to 9/2009 he was  issued with an arrear bill  for Rs.260/- which he has paid on 1/10/09 evidenced by Ext P[l] and after that Ext. P3 arrear  bill  claiming arrears for 12 years was issued when he applied for dismantling connection.  It is argued by the complainant that there was no regular  inspection of the meter by the opp.parties even though the rules lays down that reading  may be taken every six months.

          Ext.P2 is the meter reading card in respect of the complainants premises.  Only two meter readings are noted in Ext.P2 despite the fact that meter was installed on 22.10.1997 ie. in 7/2000 and 1/2008 from which it is obvious that no meter reading was taken in between 7/2000 and 1/2008 or after 1/08.   Ext.P1 series Provisional Invoice Card and Ext.P6[k] shows that the complainant has paid water charges upto 9/09 Ext.P1  series and Ext.P6 [l] shows that the complainant has paid arrears upto 9/09 Ext.P1 series further shows that the complainant paid the  arrear bill upto 9/09 and applied for closure on 1.10.2009 and it was thereafter that Ext.P3 was issued.

          Ext.P3 is a bill claiming arrears for the period from 10/97 to 9/09.  It is not known as to how after issuing  one arrear bill claiming arrears  upto 9/09, issued another arrear bill claiming arrears  for the same period.     As argued by the complainant after issuing an arrear bill upto 9/09 the opp.party has no right to issue another arrear bill for the same period and there is force in that contention.   As pointed out earlier Ext.P3 is for a period of 12 years.   The complainant would contend that the claim as per Ext.P3 is barred by limitation.  It is further contended that the way in which opp.parties calculated the amount in Ext.P3 is also not forthcoming and that actual consumption of water during the period is not shown and in the absence of such details no credibility can be given to Ext.P 3.

DW.1 has admitted in cross examination in page 2 that it is stated in Ext.P1 seen that arrears upto 9/09 has been paid on 1.10.2009.  He would further admit in cross examination that no additional bill has been issued to the consumer during the period from 17.10.1997 to 30.9.09 and that it is because the consumption was within the limit.   To use his own words Lfk   consumption within the limit Llujgkr\rk” If  that be so, one is at a loss to understand as to how Ext.P3 can be issued

The complainant is paying water charges in advance regularly.   The note below provisional invoice card shows that the amount so  paid is provisional and that the amount for actual consumption will be issued after taking reading within 6 months. It is obvious from the admission in cross examination  that “dispute period H Qgj]hkA LPjd >jH rHdjuj}jh\h”  means  the consumption was within the limit.  However opp.parties have issued an additional  for the period upto 9/09 and the amount was remitted by the complainant  on 1.10.09 can be seen from Ext.P1  series and Ext.P6 [l].  It was thereafter that Ext.P3 was issued claiming arrears for 12 years on 5.10.09.  If there was arrears  as claimed in Ext.P3  the opp.party ought to have included the same also  in the 1^st arrear   which was paid  as per Ext.P6[l].  After issuing an arrear  bill claiming arrears upto 9/09 the opp.party cannot issue another arrear bill for the same period to a consumer at their whims and fancies.   The issuance of Ext.P3  is not supported by relevant materials and  the consumption for these periods are also  not shown and as argued by the complainant the figure are  imaginary.  Ext. P3 bill is not transparent  Claiming arrears for a period of 12 years  itself  is nothing but deficiency in service.  Moreover a major portion of the amount claimed in Ext.P3 is barred by limitation, which cannot be separated.  If at all any further arrears are due after payment of arrears by the complainant  as per Ext.P6[l] it is because of the negligence on the side of the opp.party and the consumer cannot be penalized for the same.  Instead  such amounts ought to be realized from the erring officials.   For the reasons stated above we hold that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties and therefore we quash Ext.P3.  Point found accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed quashing Ext.P3 bill.   The opp.parties are  also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- towards compensation and costs.  

The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order

Dated this the   30^th day of November, 2010.

I N D E X

Pw.1. – Kunjukrishna Pillai

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Provisional invoice cards

P2. – Meter reading card

P3. – Disputed Bills

P4. – Complaint to the 2^nd opp.party

P5. – Reply

P6. series  -  Bills – [13 nos]

P7. – Paper cutting