Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant had filed a complaint in C.D.22/2000 before this Forum challenging the bills issued by the Opposite party claiming Rs.6,039/-. This Forum quashed the bill and directed the Opposite party to install a new water meter at the complainant’s cost and issue a new bill based on the average consumption per month recorded by the new meter over a period of 6 months.<br /> 2. The complainant got a new water meter installed as per the order of this Forum. According to him, after the installation of the meter the Opposite party did not issue any bill to him but all of a sudden issued a bill for Rs.44,337.50. He says he was away in U.S. for six months and his two mentally sick daughters were staying in the house. The complainant says that the new meter was also, faulty. Anyway, on the persistent demands by the Opposite party, the complainant’s daughters paid Rs.4,900/- to retain water supply.<br /> 3. According to the complainant after he installed a new water meter, the Opposite party issued a bill for Rs.45/- for 2 months. Though he paid this bill, the Opposite party disconnected water supply. It is the case of the complainant that despite the direction of this Forum, the Opposite party issued a bill for Rs.44,337.50 which was subsequently revised to Rs.84,488/- on 10.11.2006.<br /> 4. The complainant has complained that the bill issued by the Opposite party is illegal, excessive imaginary and exorbitant. According to him the Opposite party should have issued bill at the rate of Rs.45/- per month. (However, in the final para, the complainant says that the Opposite party ought to have issued bill at Rs.45/- for 2 months). The complaint ends with a vague prayer to pass appropriate orders against the Opposite party for not obeying the orders of this Forum.<br /> 5. In the version filed by the Opposite party, it is stated that the complainant got a new meter installed on 08.02.2001 as per the direction of this Forum and a bill was issued based on the basis of average consumption for 6 months. It is, further, stated that the complainant found the consumption extraordinary and against a demand for Rs.51,329/- paid Rs.4,900/- only. The new meter was tested, and found to be alright at the instance of the complainant. Yet, he got another new meter installed on 22.11.2001. A bill was issued based on the consumption recorded in the new meter.<br /> 6. According to the Opposite party the bill issued in November 2006 for Rs.84,488/- is correct. He, further, says that supply was stopped in December 2002.<br /> 7. From the above contentions, a preliminary point arises for our consideration: Whether the complaint is maintainable? <br /> REASONS<br /> 8. As per the order of this Forum in CD 22/2000 the demand bill dated 03.12.1999 for Rs.6,039/- was cancelled. The Opposite party was directed to record the consumption for 6 months after the installation of new meter and reissue the bill on the basis of average consumption over the 6 months period.<br /> 9. As per the statement of consumption furnished by the Opposite party, the new meter was installed on 03.02.2001 (the 2 witnesses of the Opposite party who deposed as R.W.1 and R.W.2 have given the date of installation of meter as 08.02.2001). R.W.2 has stated that the complainant gave a representation stating that the new meter was recording excess consumption. At the request of the Complainant another new meter was installed on 22.11.2001. These facts are not at all stated in the complaint or in the affidavit of the complainant. The Opposite party’s witness has also stated that the new meter fixed on 03.02.2001 (08.02.2001) was sent for testing and was found to be functioning normally. In any case, the 2nd new meter installed on 22.11.2001 also recorded consumption ranging from 25,000 lts. to 2,50,000 lts. A bill was issued in the month of May 2002 claiming an amount of Rs.60,664/- which included arrears of Rs.49,580/- and subsequently bills were issued regularly claiming the arrears and interest thereon. According to the Opposite party water supply was disconnected in the month of December 2002.<br /> 10. It is to be noted that the complainant has got changed the meter twice after passing of the order on 24.10.2001. Both new meters were installed in the year 2002. Order had been passed directing the Opposite party to issue a revised bill in place of the demand bill dated 03.12.1999 taking into account consumption recorded by the new meter for a period of 6 months. We do not understand how this complaint seeking execution of the order passed in C.D.22/2000 is maintainable. The Complainant is not seeking any remedy on any fresh cause of action. Though the meters were changed in the year 2002 he has come up with this complaint with a prayer “to quash the bill dated 10.11.2006 and issue a fresh bill on the basis of meter reading at Rs.45/- every two months”. The demand bill dated 10.11.2006 includes the period which was adjudicated in C.D.22/2000 and upto the date of disconnection in December 2002. The order passed in C.D.22/2000 has become final and if the Opposite party did not issue bill in accordance with the order passed by this Forum, it was open for him to file an execution petition. Instead of it, he has come up with this complaint 4 years after installing the new meters with a prayer to quash the bill which includes the amount for the disputed period, it was adjudicated in C.D.22/2000. If the complainant is complaining about the bill issued in May, 2002 for Rs.60,664/- then the limitation aspect comes into play. A subsequent bill issued in 2006 will not give a new cause of action. The bill issued in 2006 is a continuation of the bill issued in 2002. After all, water supply was disconnected in 2002. Since then only interest component is being added in the bill. If the complainant had any grievance for the bill issued in 2002 he should have filed an execution petition as the bill had been issued as per the direction of this Forum. Therefore, a fresh Complaint based on the same cause of action, is not maintainable. The bill has accumulated to Rs.84,488/- on account of it’s non-payment. If the Complainant is of the opinion that the Opposite party has not issued the bill as per the direction of this Forum, it is always open for him to seek remedy under an execution petition. The complainant has paid only Rs.4,900/- from the date of the order in C.D. 22/2000. He did not question the revised bill issued by the Opposite party through an execution petition. The present prayer to direct the Opposite party to issue a bill calculated at Rs.45/- every 2 months is unacceptable. As such, we hold that this Complaint is not maintainable 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 /> <br />