SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The complainant has a domestic water connection with the opposite party since 1987 as vide consumer No.53. On 22.01.2002, the complainant has paid the monthly water charges in advance till 2003. In November 2002 the complainant decided to disconnect the water connection because of some personal reasons. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party in writing and the opposite party agreed to the complainant that he should be made arrangements for the disconnection. At that time the complainant's meter showed a reading of 3714.1 units. In December 2003 a meter reader from the office of the opposite party came to the complainant's residential premises for taking the meter reading. The complainant informed him that the connection was already disconnected from January 2003 onwards. Without taking the meter reading the meter reader returned. After that the meter reader never came to the complainant's residential premises for taking the meter reading. On 3.07.2006 a demand notice from the opposite party dated 15.06.2006 served to the complainant for Rs.40,890/- for the arrears of the monthly water charges and also stated that revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated against the complainant for recoup the money. On enquiry the complainant revealed that the opposite party did not consider the disconnection application filed by him. The above acts of the opposite party is quite illegal and against the provisions of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986, Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply Regulations) 1991 and the agreement entered between the complainant and the opposite party at the time of connection. It is the duty of the opposite party to take meter reading on every month and if the complainant has used excess water an additional bill can be issued at the prevailing rate. If the complainant has consumed less water than what is permitted, the excess amount paid by him will be adjusted against his future water charges. At the time of giving the said disconnection letter, the assigned charges of the complainant was Rs.125/- per month. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint is filed for cancelling the hike bill served to the complainant on 15.06.2006 for Rs.40,890/-.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written version wherein it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer as Consumer No.53 MTM with effect from December 1987. The complainant had not remitted the water charges as per actual consumption since January 2000. He had remitted the water charges only at the rate of Rs.,127/- per month. But his actual monthly rate was higher than the amount remitted. Two numbers of additional bills, Bill No.30462 dated 15.06.2001 for Rs.7,148/- and Bill No.599 dated 3.10.2002 for Rs.10,024/- were issued to the complainant during the period. But the complainant was not willing to remit the additional bills as per actual consumption. The complainant had remitted the arrear water charges and advances upto January 2003 only at the rate of Rs.127/- per month. But during the period the actual monthly rate to be payable by the complainant was very higher than the amount already remitted and bills were issued accordingly. The complainant did not make any application for disconnection as per the rules and regulations of Kerala Water Authority. If a consumer desires to close his connection, he may apply in Form No.RA 4 to the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned, along with an application fee of Rs.15/- and disconnection fee of Rs.50/-. He should clear the arrears due to the Water Authority before applying for disconnection. The complainant did not make any application as stated. The complainant willfully prevented the meter reader from taking the meter reading claiming that the connection was already disconnected. But the connection was existing at that time. On an enquiry conducted by the Assistant Engineer, reported that the said connection was not seen there on 20.03.2006 and so it is assumed that the said connection was disconnected with effect from 3.02.2006. The water charges were calculated in the previous rates as the meter was not seen there for taking the meter reading. So the complainant himself disconnected the water connection without remitting the arrears and without informing the authority. The average monthly rate of the complainant during the period was Rs.844/- and the complainant had remitted the water charges at the rate of Rs.127/- per month including one year advance upto 1/2003. The amount claimed against the consumer including additional water charges from 2/02 to 1/03 was Rs.8,628/-, (that is (844 – 127) x 12 months) and monthly water charge thereafter Rs.32,262/-, (that is Rs.844 + Rs.5/- as fine x 38 months), a disconnection fee of Rs.50/- and notice charge of Rs.30/-. The total amount including arrear water charges upto 3/06 is Rs.40,970/-. The complainant had not respond to the additional bills and notice issued to him in time. So Revenue Recovery Proceedings was initiated against the complainant and now the case is under consideration of District Collector. The complainant filed this case as an experiment for not making the payment due to the Water Authority and may be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1(series) marked on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as Consumer No.53 is admitted by the opposite party. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has paid the monthly charges of his water connection till 22.01.2002. Ext.P1 is the Provisional Invoice card issued by the opposite party shows the same. As per the complaint, in December 2003 a meter reader from the opposite party's office came to his house for taking the meter reading, the complainant informed him that the connection was disconnected and so the meter reader went back without taking meter reading. After that no bill was received from the opposite party. Except Ext.P2, a letter from opposite party's office mentioning that the water connection of the complainant was disconnected, Rs.40,890/- is due to opposite party as water charges and the opposite party will proceed with revenue recovery. As per the opposite party a bill was issued on 3.10.2002 to the complainant for Rs.10,024/- . Ext.R1(a) is the copy of the same. Ext.R1(b) is the consumer personal ledger of the complainant shows the meter reading of the consumer's water connection. The opposite party is admitted that they are not able to take the meter reading once in 6 months as per the provisions of water supply regulations because of the scarcity of staff. As per Ext.R1(b), when the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant on 20.03.2006 the water connection was not prevailing. So it is reported as disconnected. But as per the complaint, an application was given for disconnection in 2002 for disconnecting consumer No.53 and the relief claimed in the petition is for getting his water connection disconnected with effect from May 2002. But no evidence is adduced for the same. As per Ext.R1(b) produced by the opposite party it is written that when the meter reader from opposite party went to take meter reading on 6.12.2003 the complainant did not allow him to take reading by telling that the connection is already disconnected. As per PW1 he deposed that the meter reader came to his premises and PW1 told him that the connection was disconnected, so he went back without taking reading on 6.12.2003. As per DW1, he deposed that the complainant objected to take meter reading and so the meter reading was not taken on 6.12.2003. So no meter reading was taken after 6.12.2003 as per opposite party and the complainant. The payment was also not done by the complainant after 6.12.2003. If the complainant objected from taking the meter reading the opposite party ought to have availed parallel remedy for the same. It is the statutory provision of the opposite party to take the meter reading. No complaint is given to anywhere for the same or no action is taken against this. As per Water Supply Regulations 14(c) the opposite party have the power to cut off the water supply from any premises without any notice if charges are not paid within 30 days of the dates indicated in the bills or slab card. Without taking reading and without performing the provisions of the law the opposite party calculated the water charge even after 6.12.2003. The assessment done by the opposite party as per Ext.P2 for Rs.40,890/- is including the period in which the meter reading was not aware. So it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So we think that it is fit to direct the opposite party to cancel the bill issued on 15.06.2006 for Rs.40,890/- to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to give the complainant a fresh bill assessing the meter reading of the complainant's water connection in the period before 6.12.2003. The water connection is already disconnected. So there is no need of giving direction for disconnecting the same.<br /> <br /> As a result, the petition is allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel the demand notice of Rs.40,890/- dated 15.06.2006 given to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to give a fresh bill, assessing the meter reading of the complainant's water connection without error excluding the period after 6.12.2003. The petitioner is also entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition, within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2008<br /> <br />