BEFORE THE VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
Present
K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and
Vidyut Ombudsman
Dated:
15 -12-2008
Smt.
K.Subbalakshmi, Lecturer,
D.No.
65-10-1 / A, Flat No. S-4,
Srinilayam,
Narasanna
Nagar,
1.
The Assistant Engineer / Operation / APEPDCL / Town / D-6 /
2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer /
Operation / APEPDCL / Town /
… Respondents
The Appeal dated 19.07.2008
(received on 25.07.2008) filed by the appellant has come up for final hearing
before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 05.12.2008 in the presence of Sri
J.P.B.Natarajan, ADE, Kakinada (Respondent No. 2) and having stood over for
consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the
following:
Aggrieved by the order passed by
the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APEPDCL (for short the
“Forum”) in C.G. No. 90 / 2008 of East Godavari Dist dated 25.062008, the
appellant filed the Appeal mentioned supra stating that:
(i) she has
got house bearing No. 8-4-2/2, Ramaraopeta,
(ii) The appellant applied for a separate service connection to the upstair portion under domestic category duly paying the required deposit, but the appellant was denied new connection on the plea that there is no ‘separate kitchen’, as per clause 3.5.1(iv) of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS).
(iii) The upstairs single room, though not having a separate kitchen, is being used for residential purpose only. It is not being used either for ‘non-domestic’ or ‘commercial’ activity, for being denied new connection under domestic category.
(iv) Denial of domestic service connection to the said upstairs single room amounts to forcing the appellant to take another service connection under cat-II, even though there is no commercial activity.
(v) Hence, this appeal for justice.
2. In terms of Clauses 8(1)(c) and 11 (1) of the “APERC Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers Regulation, 2004” (for short “Regulation No.1 of 2004”) the Vidyut Ombudsman is required to promote settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. However, inspite of best efforts made by the Vidyut Ombudsman on 01.09.2008, parties could not arrive at settlement by mutual agreement between them. Therefore, on the date of reconciliation, Vidyut Ombudsman directed the respondents to file written submissions.
3. All the respondents filed separate, but identical written submission stating that;
(i) the premises of the appellant was inspected in the month of September 2008 and it was observed that there is no separate kitchen, but only a kerosene stove (without kerosene) is existing and there is no cooking material found there in that single room. Thus, the appellant is trying to create artificial kitchen in the single room.
(ii) As per GTCS, each separate establishment will be given a separate point of supply (clause No. 3.5.2). For domestic category, separate establishment means, those households which have a separate kitchen (clause no. 3.5.1). Hence, as per GTCS it is not possible to release a domestic service connection to the upstair single room.
4. Heard the arguments of respondent No.2 on behalf of respondents. The appellant sent a representation dt. 29.11.2008 stating that she is unable to attend oral hearing as it is expensive and she cannot afford the same and requested the Vidyut Ombudsman to dispose off the matter after examining her grievance.
5. The issue
that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for separate
service connection under domestic category to upstairs single room of the
premises bearing D.No.8-4-2/2, Ramaraopet,
6. It is admitted
by the appellant herself that she constructed first floor comprising of a
single room with attached bathroom on the house bearing D. No. 8-4-2/2,
Ramaraopeta,
7. Even though, clauses 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 of GTCS relied upon by the respondents are relevant for the purpose of arriving at a decision, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that there is force in the contention of the appellant that a single room in the upstairs with attached bathroom is separate from the ground floor portion and she is entitled for a separate service connection under domestic purpose, notwithstanding the fact that the said single room has no separate kitchen. The apprehension of the respondents appear to be that the said single room may be used for non-domestic or for commercial purpose and / or after obtaining separate service connection under domestic category, such supply given to that single room may be misused for running fancy shop in the ground floor as it amounts to commercial activity. Such apprehensions seem to be far fetched and cannot be permitted to refuse release of separate point of supply to the upstairs single room under domestic category. Such refusal of release of separate point of supply runs contrary to spirit of the provisions of GTCS, especially in this case where the appellant requires different category of supply for different purposes. When the single room is altogether different and separate from the house in the ground floor, the respondents are not justified in refusing to release separate point of supply under domestic category on the sole ground that such single room in the upstairs has no separate kitchen. Admittedly a single room will not contain a kitchen, but the room itself may be used for cooking.
8. In view
of peculiar nature of the present case, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion
that ends of justice will be met if the respondents are directed to release
separate point of supply under domestic category as sought by the appellant to
the upstairs single room of house bearing D.No.8-4-2/2, Ramaraopeta,
9. With the result, the appeal is allowed and respondents are directed to release separate point of supply under domestic category to the upstairs single room of the premises bearing D.No.8-4-2/2, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada of the appellant after following the procedure prescribed including collecting necessary charges, if not already paid by the appellant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. However, the time taken by the appellant for complying with the procedure prescribed, payment of charges, etc., shall be excluded from the calculating the time limit of one month mentioned above. Further, the respondents are at liberty to take suitable action against the appellant if it is found that the domestic supply ordered to be released by the Ombudsman is misused for any purpose other than for domestic purpose or otherwise violates GTCS.
10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order-dated 25.06.2008 of the Forum.