O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> The petitioner filed this petition for himself and 51 other consumers. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the opposite party is supplying water to the petitioner for<br /> their domestic use. According to the petitioner from January, 2002 to April, 2005 there<br /> was no supply of water to the petitioners. The local people along with petitioners and some social organisations had given several representation to the higher authorities of the opposite party, they conducted several agitation for getting water. The petitioners had committed default in remitting water charges for the period when there was no supply of water ie. from 2002 on words. The opposite party after April, 2005 was supplying water regularly. Later the opposite party issued bills for the period when there was no supply of water. Petitioners state that the act of the opposite party in issuing bills for the disputed period is a clear deficiency of service. So, he prayed for a direction of the Forum to issue an order directing the opposite party not to collect any amount from petitioners for the<br /> <br /> -7-<br /> period when there was no water and also they prayed for costs of proceedings. <br /> Opposite party one to three entered appearance and filed version contenting that the authority for supplying water to the petitioner is now handed over to Ithithanam Suthajalavitharana Samithi and the opposite party 1 to 3 has no roll in supply of water and bill amounts. The opposite party filed an IA – 257/07 for exonerating opposite party 1 to 3 from the party array. The petition was allowed and opposite party 1 to opposite party 3 were thus removed. The petitioner filed IA – 413/06 for impleading 4th opposite party the said IA was allowed. Notice was issued to the 4th opposite party. 4th opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version. So, 4th opposite party was set ex-parte. At the time of hearing a petition was filed as I.A 208/2008 for deleting the 37th, 38th 44th and 50th petitioner from the party array. The said petition was allowed .<br /> <br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the 3rd petitioner and Ext. A1 to A3 documents in the side of the petitioner.<br /> Point No. 1 <br /> The 3rd petitioner filed an IA 896/05 for allowing the 3rd petitioner to conduct case for the other petitioners the said IA was allowed. The 3rd petitioner filed his affidavit. In the said affidavit he averred that the petitioners along with some social organisation of the locality had given several complaints to the higher authorities of the opposite party. The<br /> <br /> -8-<br /> said compliants were produced by the petitioner and said documents were marked as Ext. A2 series documents. From Ext. A2 series documents it can be persumed that there was no supply of water to the petitioners for the disputed period. The 3rd petitioner proved the case of the petitioners by the affidavit and documents filed by him. Since the opposite party has not entered appearance and filed any version the petitioners case stands unchallenged. So, we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party in issuing bills without supply of water is a clear deficiency of service so point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of finding, point No. 1, petition is to be allowed. In the result, petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for reliefs sought for. So the 4th opposite party is <br /> ordered not to collect any amount from the petitioners as water charges for the period from January, 2002 to April, 2005. Considering facts and circumstances of the case. No cost and compensation is allowed.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008.