KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:878/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:30..10..2008. (Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF Kollam in OP.No:410/2003.) PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER 1.The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum. : APPELLANTS 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H.Division, Kollam. (By Adv: Sri.C.Sasidharan Pillai) V. S. Vijayan Pillai, Jaya Vihar, Kizhavoor, Mukhathala.P.O, Kollam. : RESPONDENT (By Adv: Sri.S.Renjith Kumar) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:2nd September 2004 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP:410/03. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein for getting the P1 bill dated:13..8..2003 for Rs.7,720/- cancelled and also getting reconnection of the water supply which was disconnected by the opposite party/KWA. Written version was filed by the opposite parties contending that the bill dated:13..8..2003 was issued based on the meter readings taken and for the water actually consumed by the complainant/consumer. It was also contended that the complainant failed to make payment towards the fixed charge under the Provisional Invoice Card. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to some extent and thereby quashed P1 bill for Rs.7720/- with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal by the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellants argued this case based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and pointed out the fact that the respondent/complainant neglected to pay the amount covered y the Provisional Invoice Card. He also canvassed for the position that the P1 bill was issued based on the meter readings and also for the water actually consumed by the respondent/complainant. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. It is further submitted that the disconnected water supply has already been restored. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the appellants/opposite parties can be justified in issuing P1 bill dated:13..8..2003 for Rs.7,720/- for the period from 1..10..1992 to July 2003? 2. Whether the respondent/complainant failed to remit the charge covered by the Provisional Invoice Card? 3. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority in demanding the said sum of Rs.7720/- for the period from 1..10..1992 to July 2003? 4. Is there any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below? 4. POINT NOS: 1 to 4:- Admittedly the respondent/complainant is a consumer under the appellant/Kerala Water Authority and he has been using the facility provided by the Kerala Water Authority. It is the definite case of the respondent/complainant that there was no supply of water from February 1993 onwards and he got supply of water only from February 2001 onwards. PW1, the complainant has also deposed to that effect. There is no evidence forthcoming from the side of the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority to show that there was regular supply of water during the said period ie, from February 1993 to January 2001. Admittedly the opposite party failed to take the water meter readings till February 2001. So the opposite party is not in a position to say as to whether there was supply of water to the premises of the complainant during the said period ranging from February 1993 to February 2001. But at the same time the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority is claiming water charges for the said period also. The failure on the part of the opposite party to make supply of water to the complainant during the said period would amount to deficiency of service. 5. There can be no doubt about the fact that the respondent/complainant was provided with Provisional Invoice Card and thereby he was bound to make the payment regularly as shown in the Provisional Invoice Card. The complainant has not produced any receipt showing payment of the amounts covered by the Provisional Invoice Card during the period from 1..10..1995 to July 2003. The failure or negligence on the part of the complainant to make payment under the Provisional Invoice Card (PIC) would justify the opposite party in disconnecting the supply of water to the premises of the complainant. It is also to be noted that the complainant being a consumer is legally bound to pay the amount as per Provisional Invoice Card regularly and in the event of failure to pay the said amounts under the Provisional Invoice Card the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority can very well demand and levy penal charges at the rate of Rs.5/- for every default. These circumstances would show that the respondent/complainant has no right or authority to find fault with the opposite party in issuing P1 bill for Rs.7720/-. It is to be noted that even if there was lack of supply of water, the consumer is bound to pay the charge covered by the Provisional Invoice Card. It is also to be noted that if the complainant/consumer is not interested in continuing the water connection he can very well apply for disconnection and thereby he could avoid payment of charges under the Provisional Invoice Card. But as long as the water connection is alive, the consumer is bound to pay the amounts covered by the Provisional Invoice Card. The opposite party/Kerala Water Authority will be at liberty to demand and levy the charges covered by the Provisional Invoice Card. 6. Regulation-13 (b) of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations stipulates the way in which the meter reading is to be taken and the manner in which additional bill is to be issued. As per the said Regulation - 13 (b), it was the bounden duty of the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority to take the meter readings at an interval of six months. But in the present case the Kerala Water Authority failed to take the water meter readings for a continuous period of more than 10 years. So the Water Authority cannot be justified in issuing P1 bill dated:13..8..2003 for Rs.7720/- for the period ranging from 1..10..1992 to July 2003. So the Forum below is justified in quashing the P1 bill for Rs.7720/-. We have no hesitation to confirm the order passed by the Forum below in quashing P1 bill. 7. The Forum below has also ordered compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. It is to be noted that the complainant as consumer failed to make the payment due under the Provisional Invoice Card. Thus, the complainant himself was a defaulter in making the payment due to the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority. In such a situation it was not fair on the part of the Forum below in awarding compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. We have no hesitation to quash the said order regarding the direction to pay compensation of Rs.1000/-. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. Thereby the impugned order dated:2.9..2004 passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP:410/03 is modified. The compensation of Rs.1000/- awarded by the Forum below is quashed. The order quashing P1 bill for Rs.7720/- is confirmed. It is made clear that the appellants/opposite parties (Kerala Water Authority) will be at liberty to demand and levy the water charges due under the Provisional Invoice Card for the period from 1..10..1992 onwards with necessary penal interest or surcharge. As far as the present appeal is concerned the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VL. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER | 
