BEFORE THE VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
Present
K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and
Vidyut Ombudsman
Dated: 17-12-2008
Sri. A. Narahari,
General Manager,
M/s. Shri Shakti Alternative Energy Ltd.,
Plot No. F-8, S.I.E.,
Balanagar, Hyderabad – 500 037 … Appellant
1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/APCPDCL/ Balanagar/ Hyd
2. The Divisional Engineer/Operation/ APCPDCL / Bowenpally/ Sec’bad
3. The Superintending Engineer/Operation/ APCPDCL/Hyd (North) Circle/Hyd
4. The Asst. Accounts Officer/ERO/ APCPDCL / Bowenpally/ Sec’bad
5. The General Manager / Customer Services / APCPDCL / Corp. Office / Hyd
… Respondents
The Appeal / representation dated 18.02.2008 filed by the appellant has come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 25.11.2008 in the presence of the Sri L.Ravi Kumar, counsel for the appellant and Sri. D.Narsi Reddy (Respondent No. 1) 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 APCPDCL (for short the “Forum”) in C.G. No. 29 / 2007-08 of Hyderabad (North) Circle dated 08.01.2008, the appellant filed the Appeal stating that:
(i) the premises of the appellant originally belongs to M/s. R.R.Steels, which was sold to the appellant in the year 2005. The said R.R.Steels had connected load of 74HP bearing consumer No. S015902. However, after purchase of the unit, the appellant requested the electricity department to reduce load to 10HP due to slackness in business. But instead of reducing connected load, the department issued a new connection viz., S8006159. Even though the appellant did not pay any amount towards development charges and security deposit, etc. records reveal that an amount of Rs.26156/- is shown as paid by the appellant in connection with release of such new connection.
(ii) other than that, the connection pertaining to M/s. R.R.Steels is still existing and is being used by M/s. Nishita Electricals, notwithstanding the fact that M/s. R.R.Steels has been dissolved and amalgamated with the appellant unit. Thus, there appears to be some mischief which is the handiwork of an employee of department of the respondents.
(iii) some of the above facts were not in the knowledge of the appellant when the complaint filed by it was heard by the Forum
(iv) Even otherwise, the order dt.08.01.2008 of the Forum suffers from lack of reasoning, probabilities of the case and is liable to be set aside.
(v) In view of the above, directions may be issued to the respondent concerned to release load of 40HP without any levy of development charges and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of 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 05.05.2008, parties could not arrive at settlement by mutual agreement between them. Therefore, on that date of reconciliation, Vidyut Ombudsman directed the respondents to file counters.
3. On 21.05.2008, R-1 filed a letter stating that;
(a) Appellant’s service connection, which is under Cat-III (Industrial), was inspected on 24.04.2007 and at the time of inspection it was observed that the said consumer was utilizing supply for commercial purpose. As it constitutes unauthorised use of electricity, it was provisionally assessed that a loss of Rs.59919/- was sustained by the Company of the respondents and consumer was directed to pay an amount of Rs.29459/- towards 50% of initial assessment and Rs.150/- towards supervision charges for continuation of supply pending finalisation of the case.
(b) Aggrieved by such provisional assessment notice, the appellant filed representation before respondent No.3. After careful consideration of the matter an amount of Rs.24615/- was finally assessed. However, aggrieved by the said final assessment, the appellant further preferred appeal before Chief General Manager / Metro Zone / Hyderabad. After careful consideration of the matter, the said CGM / Metrozone / Hyderabad upheld the final assessment made by respondent No.3. Thereafter the appellant approached the Forum. The Forum in its order dated 08.01.2008 held that unauthorised use of supply of electricity does not attract jurisdiction of the Forum as it falls u/s 126 of the EA 2003.
(c) With regard to payment of development charges for enhancement of load from 10HP – 40 HP, the Forum held that the demand of the respondent concerned is as per clause 5.3.3 of GTCS approved by the Commission.
(d) A letter was submitted to respondent No.3 with a request to direct Sri Veerabhadram the then AE / O / Balanagar to present himself before the Vidyut Ombudsman to appraise the facts as he is the person who is acquainted with the case.
4. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant as well as those of respondents.
5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for release of load of 40 HP without payment of development charges.
6. As seen from the order dated 08.01.2008 of the Forum, the grievance brought before the Forum by the complainant therein (Appellant herein) relate to (i) unauthorised use of electricity and (ii) payment of development charges for enhancement of connected load from 10 HP to 40 HP. In respect of the first grievance, the Forum was of the opinion that the unauthorised use of supply of electricity by the complainant does not fall under its jurisdiction as it amounts to violation u/s 126 of the EA 2003 and for which, a separate mechanism is provided. Even in the appeal filed before the Vidyut Ombudsman, the appellant did not specifically challenge the said finding of the Forum, except stating that the Forum passed order dated 08.01.2008 without proper appreciation of the facts, lack of reasoning, probabilities of the case, in general.
7. The main grievance of the appellant before the Vidyut Ombudsman relates to payment of development charges for enhancement of load from 10HP to 40HP and requested the Vidyut Ombudsman to direct the respondents not to levy development charges for release of additional load.
8. According to the counsel for the appellant, M/s. R.R.Steels which was a sister company of the appellant was purchased by the appellant through a registered sale deed dt. 08.09.2005. A copy of the sale deed is filed before Vidyut Ombudsman and a copy is also served on respondent No.1. As seen from the copy of the registered Sale Deed, the appellant herein purchased the semi-finished industrial shed bearing Unit No. F-8, Ground and First floor, Satellite Industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad covered under part of S.No. 128, admeasuring 685 sq.yards from M/s. R.R.Steels. Therefore, the S.C.No.S015902 belonging to the said M/s. R.R. Steels automatically stands transferred in the name of appellant. When the appellant requested for reduction of load of 74 HP ( of RR Steels) to 10HP due to slackness in business, instead of reducing the connected load of the service connection of the said RR Steels and continuing the above mentioned S.C.No.S015902 in the name of appellant, altogether new service connection was released. Had the appellant was allotted S.C.No.S015902 (of M/s. R.R. Steels), it would have reduced and enhanced connected load within the sanctioned load of 74 HP without paying development charges depending on its requirement from time to time, as the predecessor-in-interest i.e., M/s. R.R. Steels ought to have paid development charges for 74HP. By allotment of a new service connection (S.C.No.S8006159) in the
name of the appellant, when it requested for reduction of connected load of M/s R.R. Steels to 10HP due to slackness in business, it is now required to pay development charges for enhancing connected load to 40 HP once again.
9. Along with letter received on 21.05.2008 referred to above, R-1 submitted a copy of the letter dated 03.05.2008 written by Additional Assistant Engineer / Operation / Balanagar to Assistant Divisional Engineer / Operation / Balanagar, Hyderabad (respondent No.1) , the relevant portion in the said letter reads:
“ On 18.01.2008 and 26.02.2008, the consumer has represented to the Divisional Engineer/Op/Bowenpally, with a copy to this office, stating that the S.C.No.S 015902, in the name of R.R.Steels, with a load of 74 HP belongs to M/s. Shri Shakthi Alternative Energy Limited, since, the company (R.R.Steels) was sold to Shri Shakthi Alternative Energy Limited through registered sale deed, and have also paid CC bills. It is also stated that the company has requested to reduce the load of 74 HP to 10 HP and never wanted a new connection.
On verification of this office records, it is observed that the S.C.No.S 015902 in the name of R.R.Steels, is existing at 6-56/2/6 SVCIE, Balanagar and being utilised by M/s. Tirupathi Wires, proprietor Sri Rakesh Agarwal. On enquiry, the consumer Sri Rakesh Agarwal, has stated that the service was shifted from F8 SIE, to 6-56/6, SVCIE, by the then AE/O/Balanagar, on his request for an additional load of 74 HP over and above his existing load of 30 HP, bearing S.C.No.S6000905. Accordingly, the 30 HP service was removed and 74 HP service was erected in the month of 10/2005.
The 30 HP service bearing No. S6000905 was in-turn shifted to plot No. 3&4, SVCIE, and name changed as Vishal Ventures from Nishita Electricals.”
10. Thus, it is evident from the above recitals of the letter written by Additional Assistant Engineer/ Operation / Balanagar, Hyderabad to respondent No.1 that when M/s. Tirupathi Wires sought for additional load to its existing S.C.No.S6000905, the then AE/O/Balanagar removed the said connection and erected 74 HP S.C.No.S015902 of M/s. R.R.Steels in the premises of said M/s. Tirupathi Wires in the month of 10/2005 and it is contrary to terms and conditions of supply. The removed S.C.No.S6000905 of M/s. Tirupathi Wires was in-turn shifted to Plot No.3&4. In the place of removed S.C.No.S015902 (M/s. R.R.Steels) from the premises of appellant, a new service connection with 10 HP connected load was erected. It is the contention of the appellant that it did not pay any amount towards such new connection. Hence, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that it would be just and necessary on the part of the concerned department officials to make an enquiry with regard to such shifting of the service connection from the premises of the appellant to the premises of M/s. Tirupathi Wires.
11. No material is placed by the respondents before the Vidyut Ombudsman at whose instance the service connection which was in existence in the name of M/s. R.R.Steels in the premises of the appellant was shifted to some other place. It is not in dispute that M/s. R.R.Steels which was in the premises of the appellant had a service connection bearing S.C.No.S015902 with connected load of 74HP.
12. Whatever it may be, the act of the then AE / Opn. / Balanagar, resulted in shifting the service connection of M/s. R.R. Steels from the premises of appellant to some other place instead of being transferred in the name of appellant. Even if name of consumer of S.C.No. S015902 was not transferred in the name of the appellant, such connection ought to have been in existence at the premises of the appellant viz., F-8, SIE, Balanagar, Hyderabad, which is the successor-in-interest of M/s R.R. Steels. The appellant is justified in apprehending misuse of service connection of its predecessor-in-interest by a third party who is not connected with such predecessor-in-interest of the appellant viz., M/s R.R. Steels.
13. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman directs the respondent concerned to shift the S.C.No. S 015902 with a connected load of 40 HP to premises No.F-8, SIE, Balanagar where it was originally existing in the name of M/s. R.R.Steels after following all required formalities, but without collecting any charges from the appellant for the said purpose. Consequently, the Vidyut Ombudsman also directs the respondent concerned to delete S.C.No.S8006159 subsequently allotted to the appellant from its premises. Further, upon making an application for transfer of S.C.No.S015902 in the name of the appellant herein, the same shall be considered by the respondent concerned as per the rules governing name transfer. As the connected load of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was 74 HP before it was shifted to premises 6-56/ 6, SVCIE, the appellant
need not pay development charges for its present requirement of 40 HP connected load.
14. The Vidyut Ombudsman further directs respondent No.3 to bring the matter to the notice of the higher authorities for initiating suitable disciplinary action against the then AE / O / Balanagar and submit report of action taken against the then AE / O / Balanagar to Vidyut Ombudsman as soon as possible. The Vidyut Ombudsman is also of the opinion that it is just and necessary to send a copy of this order to Chairman & Managing Director, APCPDCL for information and for taking necessary action in this regard.
15. For the reasons stated above, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that appellant need not pay any amount towards development charges for enhancement of connected load from 10HP to 40HP as the original service connection to its premises had connected load of 74HP. In future, if the appellant wants to further enhance the load, it is at liberty to enhance its connected load upto 74HP without payment of development charges. As the original S.C.No.S015902 was shifted to another premises by an officer of the respondent company, the respondent concerned has to restore the said service connection without collecting any charges from the appellant for such shifting to the premises of the appellant. The respondent concerned is directed to comply with the orders of the Vidyut ombudsman within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
16. With the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above.