Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                        The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from this Forum.

                        2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows:-  The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party under Con.No.154, which was allotted in favour of one George Thomas, who is the prior owner of the land where the complainant’s factory is functioning.  In the year 2000, the water meter of the complainant was replaced in accordance with the direction of the opposite party as it was found defective.  The complainant has been paying the water charges since from 2000 onwards.  None of the staff of opposite party has informed about any defect of the existing water meter up to 23.6.04 or the opposite party has not issued any excess bill during this period.  On 24.6.04, the complainant received a notice from the opposite party for repairing or for replacement of the complainant’s water meter.  Accordingly on 8.7.04, the complainant purchased a new meter for replacement and submitted before the 1^st opposite party’s office for testing and for installation.  While submitting the meter for testing, 1^st opposite party had issued a bill dated 8.7.04 for Rs.12,348/- as against the amount due in connection with the excess quantity of water alleged to have been consumed during the period from May 2000 to June 2004.  But the complainant has not used any excess water at any time.  On getting the above said bill, on 29.7.04 the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party to wave the bill for Rs.12,348/- as it is illegal and requested the opposite party to replace the defective water meter at the earliest.  But the opposite party has not taken any action so far.  The aforesaid conduct of the opposite party is a deficiency in service and because of the above said deficiency the complainant had suffered loss and damage for which the complainant is entitled to be compensated.  Hence this complaint, seeking an order for setting aside the bill dated 8.7.04 for Rs.12,348/- issued by the opposite party and allowing Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the damage and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with cost of this proceedings.

                        3. For the opposite parties 1 and 2, the 1^st opposite party has filed a common version raising the following contentions:-  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party as far this water connection is concerned.  The Con.No.154 of the 1^st opposite party is in favour of one George Thomas and as per the records kept in the office of the opposite party the said George Thomas is the titleholder and the owner of the property where the water connection is provided under Con.No.154.  The opposite party has admitted that they have issued a notice on 9.5.2000 to the consumer for changing the faulty meter.  But the consumer has submitted the new water meter only on 5.7.2001.  But the said meter was immediately damaged and reading could not be taken.  It is also admitted that on 24.6.04, the 1^st opposite party has issued a notice to the complainant for replacing the faulty meter and also issued a bill for Rs.12,348/-.  Originally, this water connection was given as a domestic connection and later it was converted as non-domestic category during 9/95.  The average consumption between 8/97 and 8/98 is 47.2 kl.  per month.  The water from this connection is using for a commercial purpose.  The consumer has not replaced the faulty meter promptly.  Hence the opposite party has to calculate the consumption on the basis of the average consumption of the prior period and accordingly they have calculated the average consumption and issued bill for Rs.12,348/- and hence the bill is proper and the complainant is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the bill and the opposite parties are entitled to get the said amount.  It is also stated that the complainant has no case regarding the accuracy of the water meter.  The consumer has not filed any complaint regarding this bill before the appellate authority of the Kerala Water Authority.  In the circumstances, there is no deficiency from their part and hence they prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                        4. The 3^rd Additional opposite party is exparte.

                        5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

                        (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for

in the complaint?

(3)   Relief & Costs?

            6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents submitted by the complainant has been marked as Exts.A1 to A4 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant.  PW1 has not been cross-examined by the opposite parties as they were absent.  For the opposite parties, there is no oral or documentary evidence other than the version filed for the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.

            7. Point No.1:-  It is an admitted fact that the water connection under Con.No.154 stands in the name of one George Thomas and it is using by the complainant.  So the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the dispute between the parties is with regard to the deficiency of service of the opposite party.  C.P. Act is enacted as an additional law for settling the grievances of consumers.  In the circumstances, this complaint is maintainable before the Forum.

            8. Point No.2 and 3:-  The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties has issued an additional bill for Rs.12,348/- alleging that the complainant had consumed an excess quantity of water for a period from May 2000 to June 2004.  The said bill was issued by the opposite parties by saying that during this period the water meter of the complainant was not working and the complainant failed to replace the faulty water meter irrespective of the opposite parties direction.  So they have prepared the bill on the basis of the complainant’s previous average consumption.  According to the complainant, they have not consumed any excess water during this period and the opposite parties never inform the complainant about the complaint of the water meter.  So the opposite parties have no right to issue such a bill and the complainant is not liable to pay the amount demanded in the bill as the bill is illegal and baseless and is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Because of the above said deficiency in service, the complainant had sustained loss and damages for which the complainant is entitled to be compensated.  Therefore, the complainant prays for setting aside the bill dated 8.7.04 for Rs.12,348/-.  The complainant also prays for allowing compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost from the opposite parties.  In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 4 documents.  The complainant has been examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the provisional invoice card of Con.No.154 in the name of George Thomas.  Ext.A2 is the notice-dated 24.6.04 issued by the opposite party asking the complainant to replace the faulty meter.  Ext.A3 is the disputed bill dated 8.7.04 issued by the opposite party demanding the payment of Rs.12,348/-.  Ext.A4 is the notice-dated 29.7.04 issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party requesting to cancel the Ext.A3 bill.  PW1 was not cross-examined by the opposite party.

             9. In this case, the opposite party has filed a version.  But they have not turned up for contesting the case.  However the contention of the opposite party in their version is that the complainant’s water meter became faulty, but the complainant has not replaced the faulty meter as per the directions of the opposite party.  In the circumstances, they could not taken the reading.  So they have calculated the average consumption between 8/97 and 8/98 and they have arrived at a conclusion of consumption as 47.2 kl. per month.  On the basis of the aforesaid calculation they have issued Ext.A3 bill.  They are entitled to issue bills on the basis of the average previous consumption in case of faulty meter.  So Ext.A3 bill is legal and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount as per the terms of agreement executed in between the consumer and the opposite party at the time of allowing the water connection.  Therefore, they pray for the dismissal of the complaint, as there is no deficiency in service from their part.  But the opposite parties has not turned up for  contesting the case or they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence substantiating their contentions in their version.

            10. In the circumstances, we are constrained to accept the contentions of the complainant.  The complainant’s case stands proved unchallenged.  Opposite parties has not taken any action for replacing the defective meter for many years.  Thereafter, they have issued Ext.A3 bill.  Issuance of Ext.A3 bill is illegal and their inaction for a long period is a gross deficiency of service.  Therefore the complaint is allowable and Ext.A3 bill is liable to be set aside.

            11. In the result, this O.P is allowed thereby Ext.A3 bill issued by the opposite party is hereby set aside.  In the absence of any evidence, the prayer for compensation is disallowed, but the complainant is entitled to get cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) from the opposite parties.  So opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

            Declared in the Open Forum on this the     6^th day of December, 2008.

                                                                                                                                           (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                                    Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                                                        (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)                  :           (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                      :           (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1   :  Sreekumar. N. Das

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Photocopy of the Provisional Invoice Card issued by Kerala Water Authority,

               P.H. Sub Division, Pathanamthitta issued in the name of George Thomas.

A2       :  Photocopy of the notice dated 24.6.04 issued by the opposite party to

               George Thomas.

A3       :  Photocopy of the disputed bill dated 8.7.04 for Rs.12,348/- issued by the

               opposite party to George Thomas.

A4       :  Photocopy of the letter dated 29.7.04 issued by the complainant to the

               1^st opposite party requesting to cancel the Ext.A3 bill.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.