BEFORE THE VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

Present

K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and

Vidyut Ombudsman

Dated: 24-05-2008

Appeal Nos. 24 of 2007 and 7 of 2008

Appeal No. 24 of 2007

Between

1. Sri. K.Dharma Rao,

Rice Mill, Uradallapalem, Attili Mandal, W.G. Dist

2. Sri Lakshmi Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mdl, W.G. dist

3. M/s. Varalakshmi Ice Plant

4-101, Industrial Estate, Satrampadu Village

Eluru, W.G. Dist

4. M/s. Venkata Lakshmi Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village,

Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

5. M/s. Raghu Babu Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

6. M/s. Subbaraju Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

7. M/s. Sri. Durga Matha Ice Factory

Unguturu village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

8. M/s. Bala Balaji Ice Cold Storage

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

9. M/s. Ramanjaneya Ice Factory

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

10. M/s. Venkateswara Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

11. M/s. Kondaraju Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

12. M/s. Jaya Lakshmi Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

13. M/s. Satya Ice Factory

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

14. Sri Krishna Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

15. M/s. HMY Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

16. M/s. Srinivasa Ice Makers

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

17. M/s. Sri Rama Ice Makers

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

18. M/s. Balaji Ice Makers

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

19. M/s.Srinivasa Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

20. Sri.M.Kanakeswara Rao

M/s.Naga Hanuman Ice Plant

Narayanapuram Village, Madepalli Village, Eluru, W.G. Dist

21. M/s. Sri Jyothi Ice & Cold Storage,

Mandalaparru village, Nidamarru Mandal, W.G. Dist

22. M/s. Sri Jaya Lakshmi Ice & Cold Storage

Mandalaparru village, Nidamarru Mandal, W.G. Dist

23. M/s. Sri Venkatesh Ice Factory

Madepalli village, Eluru Mandal, W.G. Dist

24. M/s. Sri Venkatesh Ice Industry

Prop : R.Manikyala Rao,

Madepalli, D-4 Section, eluru Mandal, W.G. Dist

25. M/s. Sri Venkatesh Ice & Cold Storage

Madepalli Village, Eluru Mandal, W.G. Dist

… Appellants

And

1. The Asst. Engineer / Operation / Attili / W.G. Dist

2. The Asst Accounts Officer / ERO / Tanuku

3. The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Tanuku

4. The Asst. Engineer / Operation / Chebrolu / W.G. Dist

5. The Asst. Accounts Officer / ERO / Tadepalligudem

6. The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Rural / Tadepalligudem

7. The Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation / Tadepalligudem

8. The Additional Asst. Engineer / Operation / D 3/ Eluru

9. The Asst. Accounts Officer / ERO / Town/ Eluru

10. The Asst.Divisional Engineer / Operation / Town / Eluru

11. The Divisional Engineer / Operation / Town / Eluru

12. The Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation / Eluru

13. The Asst. Engineer / Operation / D 4/ Eluru

14. The Superintending Engineer / Operation/ Eluru

… Respondents

Appeal No. 7 of 2008

Between

M/s. Varalakshmi Enterprises

S.C.No. 545, Surappagudem

Bhimadole Mandal,

West Godavari Dist.,

…Appellant

And

1. Asst Divisional Engineer / Operation / Bhimadole / W.G.Dist

2. Asst Accounts Officer / E.R.O / Rural / Eluru

3. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Electrical / Eluru / W.G.Dist

4. Superintending Engineer / Operation / Electrical / Eluru / W.G.Dist

… Respondents

Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APEPDCL (for short the “Forum”) in C.G. No. 145 / 2007 dated 07.06.2007, the complainants therein (appellants herein) filed common but separate appeals / representations all dated 27.06.2007 before the Vidyut Ombudsman. The said appeals / representations which were received on different dated viz., 06-07-2007, 07-07-2007, 09-07-2007 and 10-07-2007 are taken on file as Appeal No. 24 of 2007.

Similarly aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum in C.G.No. 287 / 2007 dated 19.03.2008, the complainant therein (appellant herein) filed an appeal / representation dated 05.04.2008 before the Vidyut Ombudsman. The said appeal / representation which is received on 15-04-2008 is taken on file as Appeal No. 7 of 2008.

As the issues raised in both the appeals viz., 24 of 2007 and 7 of 2008 are same, the said two appeals are dealt together and are disposed of by a common order.

Both the appeals viz., 24 of 2007 and 7 of 2008 have come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 13.05.2008 in the presence of the appellants therein and the concerned respondents and after hearing both the parties, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following common:

A W A R D

The identical averments mentioned by the different appellants in their appeals / representations, all dated 27.06.2007, in Appeal No. 24 of 2007 are as follows:

(a) One month notices issued by the ADE /Operation of the circle concerned mainly relied upon the provisions of clause 12.3.3 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply (GTCS) and requested that the additional load is to be regularised within one month paying required SLC, DLC and SD charges. But additional load was not connected to any one of the services of the appellants.

(b) Additional load is arrived based on recorded MD by HT TVR meter. Appellants are paying CC charges for the entire units consumed as recorded by TVR meter regularly every month.

(c) Whenever additional connected load of LT services is noticed, the procedure outlined under clauses 12.3.3.1, 12.3.3.2 and 12.3.3.3 of GTCS is to be followed. According to which additional load can be detected through means of inspection conducted by an inspecting officer. Thereafter notice as mentioned in Appendix – IX has to be issued. In the absence of conducting inspection and issuance of notice question of regularisation of additional load is not correct.

(d) Tariff order relating to category III (A) and III (B) and GTCS do not declare unauthorised load in terms of the MD indicator readings of the TVR meter. The tariff order only states that “billing demand shall be the maximum demand recorded during the month and 80% of the contracted demand whichever is higher and the energy charges will be billed on the basis of actual energy consumption and 50 units per kVA of billing demand whichever is higher”.

(e) Ice industries in West Godavari district are running their industries for decades duly maintaining the standard connected load sanctioned originally from the date of release of supply till date without connecting additional load. In fact no additional load is required to any of these industries. All these industries have SSI certificates and all of them are paying CC charges as per consumption registered and recorded in their respective meters, every month regularly without any default.

(f) Ever since release of LT services, these industries have been provided with LT metering and such industrial services are being maintained for about 5 decades now. Later on APTRANSCO / DISCOM introduced new system of providing high accuracy meters. Subsequently, this system has been changed through means of providing HT trivector meter for industrial services having 50HP connected load and above. These industrial units experienced difference of more than 6% excess consumption of units due to change of metering from LT to high accuracy TVR meter. Thus, these consumers are subjected to heavy burden with liability to pay huge CC charges without any fault on their part.

(g) As a result unilateral decision to introduce HT trivector meter and MD indicator for the services having 50HP and above, departing from the old and established procedures of having LT metering, the consumers are subjected to financial burden with high rate of billing on HT tariffs.

(h) Taking readings through MD indicator and arriving at unauthorised additional load and requesting consumers to regularise such loads is not covered by law, both in GTCS and in the tariff orders. The same is unjust and against the principles of natural justice.

(i) In view of the above, it is requested to set aside the order dated 07.06.2007 of the Forum.

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 the Vidyut Ombudsman is required to promote settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. In pursuance of the same, respondents were intimated of the filing of the appeals / representations. Inspite of the best efforts made by the Vidyut Ombudsman on 07.01.2008, there is no possibility of settlement between the parties by mutual consent. On the said date common written submissions were submitted on behalf of the appellants reiterating the averments mentioned in the representations / appeals dated 27.06.2007. The respondents were directed to file their submissions after serving a copy of the same on the appellant.

3. Vide Lr.No.SE/O/ELR/DE.T/ADE.P/AE.T3/F.VO/D.No.81/08, dt: 11-02-08, SE / Operation / Eluru submitted para wise remarks to the common written submissions submitted by the appellants on 07.01.2008 and stated that

(a) at present the metering is done electronically with MD recording facility. The load utilised by the consumer is recorded in HT TVR with 30 minutes integration period. Earlier there is no MD recording facility meters, so the connected load is to be verified physically. Now the services with contracted load of 50HP are provided with MD recording facility, which indicates maximum load utilised by the consumers continuously for a period of 30 minutes.

(b) In physical verification there is problem in assessing the rating of machines. The name plate details not visible. Capacity of motors changes due to rewinding, etc. To avoid such problems, the MD indicator is the scientific method of assessing utilised load. In view of availability of sophisticated methods, with accuracy in measurements with MD recording meters, there is no necessity for physical verification of connected loads.

(c) MD recorded is the maximum load utilised by a consumer for a continuous period of 30 minutes, as the integration period of meters is 30 minutes. Hence, additional load is calculated based on MD recording.

(d) The installed power system capacity depends on contracted load of consumers. If the consumer exceeds load, it will effect the entire system right from consumer to generating point.

(e) As per the tariff order, if the recorded MD exceeding the contracted load, it shall be billed at demand charges prescribed under HT-Cat-I. These charges are only CC charges and do not come under regularisation of additional load. The same is confirmed by the Forum below.

(f) As per GTCS if at anytime maximum demand of a HT consumer exceeds the contracted load without prior approval from the DISCOM, the consumer is liable to compensate the DISCOM for the damages. The GTCS also clearly states that additional load shall be regularised within one month, otherwise the service will be disconnected.

(g) As per the GTCS, if the load exceeds 75 HP/56kW, the services should be billed under HT category. If additional load is regularised, the HT metering should be provided as per clause 7.1.5 of the GTCS.

4. In response to the reply dated 11.02.2008 filed by the Superintending Engineer as mentioned above, the appellants on two different dates viz., on 28.02.2008 and 14.03.2008 in two batches filed identical rejoinders stating that:

(a) The plea of the respondents that at present services with contracted load of 50HP are provided with MD recording facility with 30 minutes integration period is not correct. The said system is in vogue since 2002 and is not new.

(b) Even otherwise, alleged utilisation of load by the consumers as recorded in HT TVR with 30 minutes integration cannot be termed as additional load.

(c) There should not be any difference between the physically available connected load or load shown from MD indicator. Any difference of load may be due to technical fault to be traced by the technical personnel and such anomaly should be rectified. Such momentary observed load cannot be termed as additional load.

5. In the appeal / representation dated 05.04.2008 in Appeal No. 7 of 2008, the appellant therein mentioned supra stated that the order dated 19.03.2008 of the Forum in the C.G.No.287/2007 was received by it after hearing held by the Vidyut Ombudsman on 07.01.2008 in Appeal No. 24 of 2007 and after filing rejoinder dated 14.03.2008 also mentioned supra by a group of appellants in Appeal No. 24 of 2007. The appellant in Appeal No. 7 of 2008 requests that its appeal may be read as part and parcel of Appeal No. 24 of 2007 and set aside order of the Forum dated 19.03.2008 passed in CG No. 287/2007. On 13.05.2008 the appellant in Appeal No. 7 of 2008 filed a memo stating that the issues raised in appeal No. 24 of 2007 and the said appeal no. 7 of 2008 are one and the same.

6. The point that arises for consideration in both the appeals is whether the orders in CG Nos. 145/2007 dated 07.06.2007 and 287/2007 dated 19.03.2008, both passed by the Forum suffer from any infirmity and, if so, whether they are liable to be set aside.

7. Perused the records in both the appeals.

8. The main grievance of the appellants is with regard to the observation of the Forum in its orders dated 07.06.2007 and 19.03.2008 that physical verification of loads is not necessary and directing the appellants to get additional loads regularised within one month. The contention of the appellants is that taking readings through MD indicator arriving at unauthorised load based on such readings and issuing notices to the appellants directing them to regularise such additional loads is not covered by law, either in GTCS or the Tariff orders issued by APERC. Therefor, the observation and the direction of the Forum below is unjust and against the principles of natural justice.

9. On the other hand it is the contention of the respondents that at present metering is done electronically with MD recording facility, in the place of old practice of verifying connected loads physically. In the new facility, load utilised by the consumer is recording in HT-TVR metering with 30 minutes integration period and service with contracted load of above 50HP are provided with MD recording facility. In view of developments in technology and availability of sophisticated methods, there is no necessity for physical verification of connected loads any more. Physical verification of connected load involves problems in assessing the rating of machines, and to avoid such problems MD recording facility which is a scientific method of assessing utilised loads are being adopted.

10. The Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that in the absence of challenge to the electronic metering with MD recording facility as unscientific or otherwise defective, the appellants cannot be permitted insist for physical verification of load. It is common knowledge that due to advancement in science and technology new facilities, methods, and equipment are developed which obliviate old facilities, methods and equipment. Unless the new facilities, methods equipment, etc., are proved imperfect, defective or otherwise not according to standards, introduction of such facilities, methods, equipment, etc cannot be done away with. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the observation of the Forum below that the physical verification of loads is not necessary. For that reason, the contention of the appellants that issuance notice for regularisation of additional loads without conducting physical verification of load has no legs to stand and is liable to be rejected.

11. Nextly, as early as in the Tariff order issued for the year 2001-02, the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) issued directions to provide metering on HT side for LT Cat-III consumers having connected load 50 HP and above up to 75HP. In pursuance of the same APTRANSCO examined the existing HT terminal and metering arrangements in respect of HT services and decided that the existing design of metering arrangements can be simplified. The simplified metering arrangements on HT side of LT services is indicated in the Memo. No.CE(Comml)/BL/ LT-III(50-75HP)/D.No.45/2001, dt: 29-05-2001. In the said memo, the Superintending Engineers are requested to identify LT industrial services with connected loads of 50HP and above up to 75 HP and to take up the works in that connection. Therefore, providing HT TVR meters for industrial services having 50 HP connected load and above upto 75HP is as per the directions of APERC. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the appellants that the decision to introduce HT TVR meters and MD indicator for services having 50 HP and above is unilateral and the same is liable to be rejected.

12. For all the reasons stated above, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that the orders of the Forum in C.G.No.145/2007 dated 07.06.2007 and C.G.No.287/2007 dated 19.03.2008 do not suffer from any infirmity and the said orders need not be interfered with. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

This order is corrected and signed on the 24^th day of May 2008.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

List of Appellants & Respondents in Appeal Nos.24 / 2007 & 7 / 2008

1. Sri. K.Dharma Rao,

Rice Mill, Uradallapalem, Attili Mandal, W.G. Dist

2. Sri Lakshmi Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mdl, W.G. dist

3. M/s. Varalakshmi Ice Plant

4-101, Industrial Estate, Satrampadu Village

Eluru, W.G. Dist

4. M/s. Venkata Lakshmi Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village,

Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

5. M/s. Raghu Babu Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

6. M/s. Subbaraju Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

7. M/s. Sri. Durga Matha Ice Factory

Unguturu village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

8. M/s. Bala Balaji Ice Cold Storage

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

9. M/s. Ramanjaneya Ice Factory

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

10. M/s. Venkateswara Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

11. M/s. Kondaraju Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

12. M/s. Jaya Lakshmi Ice Factory,

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

13. M/s. Satya Ice Factory

Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, W.G. Dist

14. Sri Krishna Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

15. M/s. HMY Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

16. M/s. Srinivasa Ice Makers

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

17. M/s. Sri Rama Ice Makers

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

18. M/s. Balaji Ice Makers

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

19. M/s.Srinivasa Ice Factory

Unguturu Village & Mandal, W.G. Dist

20. Sri.M.Kanakeswara Rao

M/s.Naga Hanuman Ice Plant

Narayanapuram Village, Madepalli Village, Eluru, W.G. Dist

21. M/s. Sri Jyothi Ice & Cold Storage,

Mandalaparru village, Nidamarru Mandal, W.G. Dist

22. M/s. Sri Jaya Lakshmi Ice & Cold Storage

Mandalaparru village, Nidamarru Mandal, W.G. Dist

23. M/s. Sri Venkatesh Ice Factory

Madepalli village, Eluru Mandal, W.G. Dist

24. M/s. Sri Venkatesh Ice Industry

Prop : R.Manikyala Rao,

Madepalli, D-4 Section, eluru Mandal, W.G. Dist

25. M/s. Sri Venkatesh Ice & Cold Storage

Madepalli Village, Eluru Mandal, W.G. Dist

26. The Asst. Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Attili / W.G. Dist

27. The Asst Accounts Officer / ERO

APEPDCL /Tanuku / WG Dist

28 The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Tanuku / WG Dist

29. The Asst. Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL/ Chebrolu / W.G. Dist

30. The Asst. Accounts Officer / ERO

APEPDCL / Tadepalligudem / WG Dist

31. The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Rural / Tadepalligudem / WG Dist

32. The Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Tadepalligudem / WG Dist

33. The Additional Asst. Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / D 3/ Eluru / WG Dist

34. The Asst. Accounts Officer / ERO

APEPDCL / Town/ Eluru / WG Dist

35. The Asst.Divisional Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Town / Eluru / WG Dist

36. The Divisional Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Town / Eluru / WG Dist

37. The Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Eluru / WG Dist

38. The Asst. Engineer / Operation / D 4

APEPDCL / Eluru / WG Dist

39. The Superintending Engineer / Operation

APEPDCL / Eluru / WG Dist

40. M/s. Varalakshmi Enterprises

S.C.No. 545, Surappagudem

Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari Dist.,

41. Asst Divisional Engineer / Operation /

APEPDCL, Bhimadole / W.G.Dist

42. Asst Accounts Officer / E.R.O /

APEPDCL / Rural / Eluru

43. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Electrical /

APEPDCL / Eluru / W.G.Dist

44. Superintending Engineer / Operation / Electrical /

APEPDCL / Eluru / W.G.Dist.