KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:762/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:14..12..2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum. : APPELLANTS 2.The Asst. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H.Sub Diision, Kollam. (By Adv:Sri.C.Sasidharan Pillai) V. P.G.Sarada, Padinjattethundil, Kurumandal, Paravoor, : RESPONDENT Kollam. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:30th July 2004 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP:423/03 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants/opposite parties for quashing the bill dated:6..10..2003 and also for compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The aforesaid case of the complainant was disputed by the opposite parties and contended that the disputed bill was issued on the basis of the actual consumption of water by the consumer and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. But the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby the bill dated:6..10..03 for Rs.5900/- was cancelled with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent. We heard the counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant argued this appeal on the basis of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and requested to setaside the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP:423/03. The points for consideration are :- 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in issuing Ext.P1 bill dated:6..10..2003 demanding Rs.5900/- as the arrears of water charges? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum? POINTS 1 AND 2:- The respondent/complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant as a consumer has paid the minimum water charges fixed by the provisional invoice card. So, the respondent/complainant cannot be treated as a defaulter of the water charges fixed by the provisional invoice card. But subsequently on 20..10..2003 the bill dated:6..10..03 for Rs.5900/- was served on the complainant/consumer. The aforesaid bill was issued for a period of 65 months and it represents the arrears of water charges for the said 65 months. But there is nothing on record to show that the said bill was issued on the basis of the meter readings taken by the officials of Kerala Water Authority. Regulation-13 of the water supply regulations stipulates the procedure and method to be adopted in revising the minimum water charge fixed in the provisional invoice card and also regarding issuance of additional bills based on meter readings taken at intervals of six months. There can be no doubt about the fact that the officials of Kerala Water Authority are bound to take meter readings every six months and issue the additional or revised bills every six months. But the appellants/opposite parties failed to follow the procedures prescribed under Regulation-13 of the water supply regulations. So, the disputed bill dated:6..10..03 issued for a period of 65 months can only be treated as the bill issued against the provisions of water supply regulations. The demand for payment made by P1 bill can be treated as deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties. The lower forum is justified in cancelling Ext.P1 bill dated:6..10..2003. 4.The lower forum has also award a sum of Rs.1000/- by way of compensation to the respondent/complainant. But there is no sufficient ground to award such a compensation to the complainant over and above cancellation of the disputed bill. It is to be noted that the complainant/consumer has not suffered any loss on account of issuance of P1 bill for Rs.5,900/-. The mere fact that the appellants/opposite parties failed to take the meter readings and issue the revised bills or additional bills in accordance with the provisions of regulation-13 of the water supply regulations cannot be taken as a ground to award compensation to the complainant. The order passed by the lower forum awarding compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant is setaside. In all other respects, the impugned order passed by the lower forum is confirmed. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP:423/03 is modified to the extent as indicated above. Thereby the order passed by the lower forum canceling P1 bill dated:6..10..03 is upheld. But the order regarding payment of compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant is setaside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL . | 
