Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant a resident at the address given in the cause title since 1985 is a “Consumer” for water supplied by the Opposite party. He was getting consumption bill between Rs.300 to 350 per month. The house remained locked for a period of 6 months from the 1st week of June 2006 to November 2006 when the complainant and his wife went to U.S.A. to be with their son. After they returned in the 2nd week of November 2006, they found a bill dated 23.09.2006 for Rs.100/- and were later issued a bill dated 07.05.2006 for Rs.2874/. The complainant paid this amount under protest and filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice arising from issuance of incorrect bill. He has prayed that the incorrect bill be quashed and the Opposite party be directed to refund the amount paid by him under protest.<br /> 2. The Opposite party in his version has stated that the bills issued to the complainant are based on the consumption recorded by the water meter, and as such the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. The Opposite party has also stated that there are two portions in the house and there is a sump and an overhead tank. If the complainant was going away locking the house in a long period, it was mandatory for him to intimate the water supply office about it, since the complainant did not do so and the Meter Reader has also not made any note of the door being locked, the burden is on the complainant to explain the abnormal usage of water. <br /> 3. From the above contentions, only one point arises for our consideration; whether the complainant proves that the bill issued by the Opposite party is incorrect, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice? <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. The Opposite party has filed a computer printout of the consumption pattern recorded in the complainant’s house commencing from September 2003 up to November 2006. The consumption during this period has varied from 87000 ltrs. To 4,00,000 ltrs. Thus, the consumption charges has varied from Rs.172/- to Rs.2,500/-. The Opposite party has also produced a report of the testing of complainant’s water meter from which it is evident that the meter was working properly as on 17.11.2006, being the date of testing of the meter. The complainant has not met the allegation of the Opposite party that the house consists of two portions and has a sump and an overhead tank. The Meter Reader has recorded the consumption every month and has never noted that the door was locked during the period when the Complainant says that he was away at U.S.A. The Complainant has not produced any document to show that he was away at U.S.A. during the said period. He also not intimated the Opposite party about the fact the door would be locked during such period. If, the Meter Reader could gain access to the meter to record the consumption and if the consumption has been recorded without any apparent fault in the meter, it only means that the water has been consumed either legally or illegally, with or without the complainant knowledge. Either way Opposite party is entitled to collect the consumption charges and the complainant is bound to pay it. Therefore, we find no merit in the complaint. Hence, we answer the point in the negative and proceed to pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />