KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:333/2005 JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER L.Muthuswamy, Lakshmi Nivas, 43/659A, : APPELLANT Chittoor Road, Kochi-18. (By Adv:Sri.Varghese Parambil & Prakash.P.George) Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, : RESPONDENT Pallimukku, Kochi-682 016. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:8th February 2005 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP:526/04. The above complaint was filed for getting Exts.A2 and A3 series of bills cancelled. The complainant alleged that the disputed bills were issued without any basis and that the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority fixed the average consumption of water at 83.2.KLs based on 3 months consumption and it is against the provisions of water supply regulations. The opposite party entered appearance and contended that the disputed bills were issued based on the meter readings and that those bills were issued for the water actually consumed for the complainant/consumer. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below accepted the case of the opposite party and thereby dismissed the complaint in OP:526/04. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred by the complainant therein. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing on 16..12..2009, both parties were present. The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party requested time for producing the meter reading register. But when the matter was taken on this day (11..1..2010) there was no representation for the respondent/opposite party. The respondent has also failed to produce the meter reading register in support of their case that the disputed bills were issued based on the consumption of water by the complainant and based on the meter readings taken. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on Ext.A2 bill dated:13..2..2004 and argued for the position that the average consumption at 83.2.Kls was based on the meter readings taken on 20..9..2002. A perusal of A2 bill would show that the previous reading was 63 and the previous reading was taken on 21..6..2002. The next reading was taken on 20..9..2002 and the reading was 312. The consumption was taken at 249 and thereby the average consumption was taken as 83.2.Kls. It is based on the aforesaid average consumption, the subsequent arrear bills have been issued. There can be no doubt about the fact that the meter readings are to be taken at intervals of six months for the purpose of fixing the average consumption. But in this case no such meter readings have been taken as stipulated under Regulation 13 of the Water Supply Regulations, 1991. So, it can very safely be concluded that the average consumption at 83.2.Kl was fixed without following the procedures prescribed under Water Supply Regulations, 1991. So, the fixation of average consumption at 83.2.Kls cannot be accepted. 3. Admittedly the appellant/complainant remitted the water charges based on the provisional invoice card issued at the time of taking the consumption in January 2001. The complainant/consumer (appellant) has been remitting bimonthly water charges at the rate of 104. He remitted the PIC amount up to and inclusive of January 2004. The provisional invoice card itself would show that actual amounts due will be ascertained based on reading in the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amount due will be issued at an interval of 6 months as stipulated in the PIC. So, A2 and A3 series of disputed bills issued by the respondent/opposite party (KWA) cannot be upheld. The complainant as PW1 has also admitted that he is ready and willing to pay the excess water charges based on the actual meter readings. The appellant/complainant is entitled to get A2 and A3 arrear bills cancelled. But at the same time the appellant/complainant being the consumer is bound to pay the charges for water he actually consumed. The respondent/opposite party (KWA) can very well issue additional bills for the period from 2001 onwards based on the actual consumption of water. The respondent/opposite party is directed to fix the average consumption based on actual consumption of water by the appellant/complainant. It is also made clear that the appellant/complainant is liable to pay the amount covered by the PIC from January 2004. The PIC amount can be accepted from the complainant subject to the liability of the complainant/consumer to pay the water charges for the excess consumption of water which is to be assessed and ascertained on the basis of the meter readings. 4. Admittedly the water meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer is defective. The appellant/complainant is directed to take necessary steps to get the defective meter replaced. At any rate the appellant/complainant has to approach the opposite party to get the defective meter replaced within 15 days from this day failing which the appellant/complainant will be liable to pay the necessary penal charges for his failure to get the defective meter replaced. In the result the impugned order dated:8..2..2005 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP:526/04 is set aside. The complaint in OP:526/04 is allowed to the extent that A2 and A3 bills are cancelled. It is made clear that the respondent/opposite party (KWA) will be at liberty to issue additional bills based on actual consumption of water by the appellant/consumer. The additional bills can be issued based on the meter readings taken from the defect free meter. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL. | 
