By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of complainant is that the complainant had a water connection to her house vide consumer No.3173. She had remitted the water charges regularly and no arrears are pending. There was non-availability of water usually and it was in defect also. The complainant is using water from the well situated in the premises. There are only two members in the family and both of them used to go for work at 9-30 a.m. and will be returned at only 6 p.m. While so a bill dated 3.11.03 was issued to pay an amount of Rs.15,910/- as arrears. Subsequently the complainant put a complaint to the 2nd respondent by dated 1.1.2004. There was no action on that complaint and another bill dated 8.7.04 was issued to pay Rs.15,634/-. At that time also the complainant put a complaint to the 2nd respondent and no action was taken on that complaint. On 11.7.06 the employees of 2nd respondent’s office disconnected the water connection and threatened to initiate coercive action against the complainant. The respondents failed to reply the complaints made by the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay the bill amount. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter is to the effect that there is a water connection in the name of complainant vide consumer No.3173. It was allotted on 16.8.97. A provisional invoice card was given at the time of taking connection by quoting Rs.17/- per month as the water charges. The house of the complainant is situated very below to the KWA pipeline and plenty of water was available to the complainant. It can be seen from the details of meter reading of the complainant. The complainant failed to remit three bills amount issued by the respondents and also abstained from payment even after the issuance of disconnection advice memo. The supply was disconnected only because of non-payment of water charges. There was availability of water through the main pipe line of KWA. The water was not available to the consumer only because of rust occurred to the service line of the complainant. If it was renewed there will be availability of water. It is to be done on the expense of complainant. The matter was informed to the complainant and she was not turned up. The complainant can prefer complaint against the bills issued to her. There was no complaint at all. So she is liable to pay the bills amount. Hence dismiss. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents? (2) If so, reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P7 on the part of complainant and no evidence adduced by respondents. 5. Points: The complainant filed this complaint to cancel Exts. P1 and P2 bills issued by the respondents. According to her, she has no liability to pay the amount stated in these bills. She has stated that there was non-availability of water and she never consumed such a quantity of water as alleged by the respondents. She has further stated that firstly Ext. P1 notice was issued to pay Rs.15,910/- and she made complaint to the Kerala Water Authority on acceptance of these bills. She has produced the copy of complaint put before the Assistant Engineer, K.W.A., Thrissur in which it is alleged that the defectiveness of water meter may be the reason for coming such a huge amount. From the records it can be seen that there is no steps taken by the respondents to clear off the reason stated by the complainant. They even stated in the counter that by accepting Exts. P1 and P2 no complaint was made by the complainant. This is not true because Exts. P3 and P4 are the copies of the complaint put before the Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer of respondent Authority. It is true that there was no action seen taken by the person to whom these letters were given. 6. The version of respondents is that the house of complainant is situated very below the pipeline of KWA and there was plenty of water available to the complainant. At the same time they stated that due to rust caused to the service line of complainant it was unable to get water to the complainant even if water was available through the main pipeline of K.W.A. So there are two contradictory versions taken by the respondents. They did not adduce any evidence and the meter reading of complainant is simply stated in the counter. They failed to bring before the Forum the register of concerned meter reading and to prove their case. If there was rust caused to the service line of complainant definitely there will be non-availability of water through the pipeline. There is no case to the respondents about the defectiveness of meter as suspected by the complainant. So it can be seen from the records available that the Exts. P1 and P2 bills are baseless. The respondents failed to establish that the complainant is liable to pay the disputed bills amount and it is found that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. 7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and Exts. P1 and P2 bills stand cancelled. The order in I.A.633/06 directing to restore the connection made absolute. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 13th day of May 2010.
| | HONORABLE Rajani P.S., Member | HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member | | 
