KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL.109/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11.5.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER C.M.Varghese, : APPELLANT Cheeran House, Poorna Nagar, Aluva – 683 101. (By Adv.Roy Varghese) Vs. The Asst.Executive Engineer, : RESPONDENT Public Health Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Aluva – 683 101. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 31st March 2004 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.681/03. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority in issuing the arrear bill for Rs/12226/- and also to get the impugned bill cancelled. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version and justified their action in demanding the amount of Rs.12,226/- covered by the additional bill. It was contended that the complainant shifted his shop to Edayapuram 3 years back; but the complainant failed to inform the shifting of the premises. It is further contended that the complainant consumed water over and above the minimum quantity fixed vide the provisional invoice card and so the complainant is liable to pay the additional bill amount of Rs.12226/-. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP.681/03. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P4 documents. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence in support of their case. The opposite party was also not interested in cross examining the complainant who filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below dismissed the complaint in OP.681/03. As per the impugned order, Forum below allowed the complainant to remit the bill amount at Rs.12226/- by 10 monthly installment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submitted his arguments based on the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the impugned bill for Rs.12226/- was issued without any basis and on the basis of an imagination. It was also argued that no meter readings were taken and there is nothing on record to support the case of the opposite party that there was excess consumption of water over and above the quantity of water fixed by the provisional invoice card. Thus, the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the complaint in OP.681/03. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. He submitted that there was excess consumption of water and the additional bill was issued based on actual consumption of water. He also relied on the meter readings recorded in P1 bill dated 27.8.03 for Rs.12226/-. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether the appellant/complainant has succeeded in establishing the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party? 2) Whether the Forum below can be justified in disallowing the case of the complainant to get the impugned penal bill cancelled? 5. Points 1 and 2:- There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant was a consumer under the respondent/opposite party/Kerala Water Authority. The appellant/complainant was having a non domestic connection. It is admitted by both parties that the appellant was running a shop. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was running business based on use of water. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he was running a business which was not in need of any water and that he was not running water based industry. The case of the complainant is that the consumption was only 2.17 kilo liters. On the other hand, the respondent/opposite party would contend that he was in the habit of consuming water at the rate of 38.6 kilo liters. But the respondent/opposite party has not produced any document to show the actual consumption of water by appellant/complainant. There is also nothing on record to show that meter readings were taken regularly as stipulated in the Water Supply Regulations. 6. A perusal of P1 impugned bill dated 27.8.03 for Rs.12226/- would make it clear that the consumption was recorded on 27.4.97 and 24.11.97. Thereafter no meter readings were taken to show the consumption of water by the consumer. This circumstance would strengthen the case of the complainant that the impugned P1 bill for Rs.12226/- was issued without any basis and no such consumption of water by the appellant/complainant. There is sufficient material to hold that the P1 impugned bill was issued without any basis and the same was issued on the basis of meter reading taken in the month November 1997. Admittedly Ext.P1 bill is for the period from 27.4.97 upto July 2003. It is not stated as to how the consumption of water during the said period was assessed by the respondent/opposite party. Thus, there is justifications to cancel the impugned bill for Rs.12226/-. But, the Forum below has not considered the relevant aspects of the case in its correct perspective. The Forum below cannot be justified in upholding P1 bill dated 27.8.03 for Rs.12226/-. This Commission have no hesitation to cancel the impugned bill for Rs.12226/-. Hence we do so. 7. Ext. P1 impugned bill has been issued for a period of 6 and quarter of years. It is not based on actual consumption of water. There is no material to show the actual consumption of water during the period from 24.11.97 upto July 2003. Admittedly the provisional invoice card was issued to the complainant and thereby he was only liable to pay Rs.178/- per month. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant/complainant remitted provisional invoice card amount of Rs.178/-. It is to be noted that the consumer is legally bound to pay the provisional invoice card amount regularly without any default. No separate demand is required for remitting the provisional invoice card amount. The failure on the part of the appellant/complainant to remit PIC amount can be treated as a fault on his part. The appellant/complainant is liable to pay penal interest or penal charge for his failure to pay PIC amount of Rs.178/-per month. Ext. P1 bill would show that the PIC amount was fixed at Rs.178/-. So, the respondent/opposite party can very well issue and very well demand PIC amount with the penal charge from the appellant/complainant and that the appellant/complainant is bound to remit the same. 8. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant shifted his business 3 years back. This fact has been admitted by the respondent/opposite party in his version. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant/consumer failed to inform the opposite party regarding the shifting of his business and closure of the shop. But the complainant in his proof affidavit has categorically averred that the matter regarding shifting of the business has been informed by P2 registered letter dated 17.9.03. The complainant has also produced P4 acknowledgment card evidencing acceptance of the registered letter by the opposite party. It can be inferred that for the period from 2000 to 2003 the appellant/complainant was not consuming any water from the water supply connection provided to the premises. This circumstance would also make it clear that the amount claimed in the impugned bill is excessive and the said demand is made without any basis. The Forum below can not be justified in upholding P1 bill for Rs.12226/-. The prayer in the complaint in OP.681/03 to get the P1 bill cancelled is to be allowed. Hence this Commission is pleased to allow the complaint in OP.681/03 and thereby the impugned P1 bill dated 27.8.03 for Rs.12226/- is cancelled. At the same time respondent/opposite party/Kerala Water Authority will be at liberty to issue fresh bill demanding arrears of the provisional invoice card amount at the rate of Rs.178/- with necessary penal charge or penal interest. 9. The forgoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that the impugned order dated 31.3.04 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.681/2003 is liable to be set aside. The complaint in OP.681/03 is allowed to the extent as indicated above. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is set aside. The respondent/opposite party will be at liberty to demand the arrears of the provisional invoice card amount at the rate of Rs.178/- with penal interest or penal charge as stipulated in the Water Supply Regulations. The impugned P1 bill for Rs.12226/- is cancelled. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
