O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner as a beneficiary is availing water connection from the opposite party with vide consumer No. K-17/184. The petitioner was remiting water charges at the rate of Rs. 79/- from the date of connection till July 2006. According to the petitioner, the opposite party was not taking meter reading and the petitioner was using minimum water. On 25..5..2006 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 12,640/- being the charges for consumption of water from 30..1..2001 to 31..7..2005. According to the petitioner he had not consumed water as shown in the bill and he further alleges that no deduction of the payment already made by the petitioner was done. So, the bill is not sustainable.The petitioner also states that the demand made by the opposite parties is barred by limitation. The petitioner states that as per law the petitioner has to take meter reading at every 6 months and issue an additional bill if any. If the opposite party issued <br /> -2-<br /> additional bill in every six month the petitioner could be able to reduce his consumption if it was excess. The petitioner states that the will full omission of the opposite party in taking meter reading, as provided by the law, is a clear deficiency of service. So, the petitioner prays for setting aside the bill dtd: 25..5..2006 and also he claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 10,000/- along with cost of the proceedings.<br /> The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the petitioner is not a consumer and no transfer of ownership as per regulation 7 (f) of water supply regulation 1991 is carried out in the present case. The opposite party contented that water charge of the petitioner is based on the consumption of water. They contented that the amount remitted by the petitioner had been duly accounted and deducted when the bill was prepared. The arrear bill was served based on the meter reading taken and water tariff of petitioner. They contented that they are ready to allow instalment facility. According to the opposite party the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner is not sustainable and there is no deficiency of service on their part so they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determinations 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 both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner produced a copy of the demand notice Dtd: 25..5..2006 for an amount of Rs. 12,640/- and said document is marked as Ext. A1. In Ext. A1 it is stated that the period of the bill is from 30..1..2001 to 30..4..2006. The opposite party produced a consumer ledger and the said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the meter reading was taken on 30..1..2001, 30..9..2003, 30..9..2004, 31..7..2005 and 26..7..2006. Regulation 13(b) of the water supply regulation 1991 reads as follows. “The authority may fix monthly rate of water charges of the consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of the existing connection”. <br /> Regulation 13 (c) reads as follows:<br /> “The authority may introduce a slab system for collection of water charges. The slab fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water of the consumer in the premises is found to have increased or decreased, based on the observation of the meter reading taken in subsequent six months. Here from Ext. B1 it can be seen that no meter reading was taken as provided under regulation 13 (b), by the opposite party. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that even penal charges were imposed against the petitioner. Hon'ble National Commission in Hariyana vydyuth Prasaran Ltd. Vs. Agrawall Ice Factory reported in 2009 CTJ 297 stated that recovery of arrears beyond 3 years was tme barred. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the demand notice is for a period from 30..1..2001 to 30..4..2006. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of bill without compliance of section 13 (b) and (c) of the water supply regulation 1991 and demand of an amount beyond a period of 3 years is a clear deficiency of service. So , point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> -4-<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed in part.<br /> In the result the bill dtd: 25..6..2006 for an amount of Rs. 12,640/- is cancelled and the opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill for the amount legally entitled within a period of 3 years from 3..7..2006 without any penal charges. The opposite paprty is also ordered to adjust the amount if any remitted by the petitioner. The opposite party is also ordered to fix the slab of the petitioner as per regulation 13 (c) of water supply regulation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. No cost and compensation is ordered. Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2008.