KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL.666/05 JUDGMENT DATED: 11.5.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Assistant Executive Engineer, :APPELLANT Kerala Water Authority, P.H.Sub Division, Piravom. (By Adv.P.K.Soyuz) Vs. Chinmaya International Foundation, : RESPONDENT Adi Sankara Nilayam, Veliyanad, rep.by its Chief Sevak. (By Adv.George Cherian KArippaparambil) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 17th June 2005 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.158/05. The above complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party Kerala Water Authority alleging deficiency in service in issuing exorbitant bills and additional bill as arrears of water charges for Rs.13898/-. It was also alleged that the opposite party disconnected the water supply without assigning any valid reason and without considering the objection filed by the complainant with respect to the bill dated 14.10.04 for Rs.13898/-. Opposite party entered appearance and contended that the additional bill for Rs.13898/- was issued based on the consumption of water and that there was no deficiency in service in disconnecting the water supply. It was contended that the water supply was disconnected because of the failure of the complainant to remit the amount covered by the bill dated 14.10.2004. 2. Before the Forum below Ext.A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint in OP.158/05 cancelling the impugned bill dated 14.10.04. The opposite party was also directed to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant as stated in A1 representation. The complainant was also directed to remit PIC amount in lumpsum. The opposite party was further directed to issue fresh bill for the disputed period based on the proper reading with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for illegal disconnection and to pay cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party therein. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the ground urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the opposite party had issued a reply to A1 notice and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He also challenged the direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Thus, the appellant/opposite party prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant support the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He pointed out that the appellant/opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the case regarding issuance of reply to A1 notice. He also challenged production of the so called additional documents at this appellate stage. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party as alleged by the respondent/ complainant? 2) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below? 5. Points 1 and 2:- Admittedly the respondent/complainant is a consumer under the appellant/opposite party Kerala Water Authority. The respondent/ complainant is a charitable institution and consuming water for domestic purpose. Admittedly the water connection was given to the complainant in December 2001 and that the complainant had remitted a total of Rs.62125/- towards water charges. It is there after, Ext.A2 impugned bill dated 14.10.04 demanding a sum of Rs.13898/- was issued by the appellant/ opposite party. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant has been remitting the amount at the rate of Rs.102/- as per the provisional invoice card. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant/opposite party had taken the meter readings regularly as stipulated in the Kerala Water Supply Regulation, 1991. So, the additional bills were issued without following the procedures prescribed under the water supply regulations. That itself would amount to deficiency in service. There is no dispute that on getting A2 additional bill for Rs.13898/-, the complainant moved appellant/opposite party by filing A1 complaint dated 3.11.04. But the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority failed to take any action on A1 complaint. It is to be noted that the opposite party has not produced any document to support his contention that they issued reply to A1 letter dated 3.11.04. It is also to be noted that the Forum below passed an interim order directing the opposite party to take necessary steps on A1 complaint. But even after such a direction, no step was taken by the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority. The opposite party was least concerned and bothered about the interim direction issued by the Forum below. It can very safely be concluded that no step was taken by the opposite party based on A1 complaint. 6. After getting the A1 complaint the opposite party disconnected water supply to the premises of the complainant. The action on the part of the opposite party in disconnecting water supply without assigning any valid reason would amount to deficiency in service. The Forum below is perfectly justified in awarding compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for the aforesaid deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in disconnecting water supply to the premises of the complainant. We do not find any justifiable reason or ground to interfere with the aforesaid direction given to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. 7. The appellant/opposite party has got a case that they issued a reply to A1 letter. The appellant has also produced photocopy of a reply letter dated 29.3.05. But there is nothing on record to show that such a reply was issued by the opposite party. They have produced photocopy of the despatch register; but no reliance can be placed on photocopy of the concerned pages of the despatch register. Had there been any such reply issued to the complainant on A1 letter, that fact would have been proved before the Forum below by producing copy of the said letter. The inaction on the part of the opposite party to adduce any evidence before the Forum below would give a clear indication that there was no such reply in existence at the relevant time. It can only be assumed that the so called reply is a concocted document to substantiate the case of the appellant in the appeal memorandum. So, the appellant cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in evidence. We have no hesitation to reject the documents produced at this appellate stage. 8. The forgoing discussions and the finding would make it clear that the appellant/opposite party issued additional bills without taking the water readings as specified in the water supply regulations. The appellant/opposite party was in the habit issuing additional bills without any basis. It is also to be noted that the appellant/opposite party has not produced water meter reading register or any other document to show the consumption of water by the complainant/ consumer. In the absence of any such document it can only be presumed that there was no excess consumption of water. The Forum below has rightly directed the opposite party to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant and to issue fresh bill based on the actual consumption of water recorded by the water meter. The direction to pay cost of Rs.1000/- can also be treated as just and reasonable. There is nothing wrong with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The present appeal deserves dismissal. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
