VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
5th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,
Hyderabad –500 004.
Dated: 27-05-2006
Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman
Sri.M.Paul,
D.No. 258-16-28,
Lakshmi Narayanapuram,
Near Checkpost, Guntur
.…. . Appellant
and
1. The Assistant Engineer, Near Zilla Parishad Office,
Guntur
2. The Assistant Engineer (MRT), Red cross Building,
Guntur
3. The Divisional Engineer, Red cross Building, Guntur
4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Akulavarithota,
Guntur
5. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Near Saraswathi
Theater, Guntur
…… Respondents
This is an appeal dated 28-02-2005 made by Sri. M.Paul,
Guntur ( herein after called
the consumer or appellant) against the order dated 22-02-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of
consumers (herein after called the CGRF) SPDCL, in C.G.No.57/2006. The
Ombudsman having stood over for consideration till this day passes the
following:
The facts on record in this case are briefly mentioned
here. The domestic service connection
No.21692, D-6, Guntur was released on
18-11-1977 with a connected load of 480 watts. The consumer has been using supply and paying bills since
then. In 12/02, the consumer received a
bill for Rs.12,640 on the basis of energy consumption of 2501 units for the
bimonthly billing period October – November 2002. The consumer contended that the meter was defective (due to
jumping of digits in the dial) and sought testing of meter by paying Rs.50/- in
December’2002. The meter was tested by
the MRT (Meters and Relays Testing) wing on 03-02-2003 in the presence of
consumer. However the test result was
communicated in writing to the consumer by the AAE/D-6, Guntur after 16 months
i.e. on 07-06-2004, (that too after the consumer insisted for it in his letter
dated
31-05-2004) stating that the meter status is O.K.. In the said letter the
AAE/D-6/Guntur requested the consumer to pay the arrears of Rs.18,352/-.
Pursuant to a representation made by the consumer on 09-06-2004, the
DE/Opn/Guntur, in his letter dated 16-07-2004 instructed the
AAO/ERO/Town-2,Guntur to revise the CC bill of October – November 2002 taking
the average consumption recorded during past 2 years. The AAO, ERO issued revised bill on 31-07-2004 considering
average of 20 months consumption from April/2001 to November 2002 and also
levied some surcharge. Aggrieved by this,
the consumer filed petition (C.G.No.311/2004) in the District Consumer Forum,
Guntur. The District Forum finally
dismissed the complaint on 30-12-2005.
The consumer then approached the Forum for redressal of grievances of
consumers of electricity, SPDCL, Tirupathi, (CGRF) which was established as per
the provisions u/s 42(5) of the Electricity Act,2003 and filed a complaint
before it on 23-01-2006 which was registered as C.G.No.57/2005-06 (GNT). The CGRF, dismissed the complaint on 22-02-2006 holding that there is no
deficiency of service by the Licensee and that it believed that the abnormal
consumption of 2501 units recorded in October – November 2002 is due to
accumulation of consumption. Aggrieved
by this order of the CGRF, the consumer filed this appeal before the Ombudsman.
2. In his appeal, the appellant consumer mentioned the
following main grounds of appeal :
(i)
The test report does
not reveal whether the meter dial was defective in the previous period, for
which the challenge fee was paid.
(ii)
Their request to inform
the previous position of meter was referred to MRT officials by the DE/
Operation in his letter dated
20-06-2004, but the contents of the reply of MRT officers are kept secret and
have not been mentioned even in the counter filed before CGRF.
(iii)
The surcharge levied in
the revised bill dated 31-07-2004 to the extent of about Rs.1000/- should be
with drawn as the delay was with licensees officials.
(iv)
The DE/Operation/Guntur
did not keep up his promise to consider average consumption for 4 year period
for issue of revised bill.
3. This appeal was received by the Ombudsman on 01-03-2006. As required under clause 8 (1) (c) of APERC Regulation No.1 of 2004, a notice was issued on 06-04-06 requesting the parties herein to reach a mutually agreeable settlement by 17-04-06. The DE (Operation), i.e. the 3rd respondent, in his letter dated 25-04-06 sought for extension of time for settlement by 7 days. The AAO, ERO filed his reply to the notice in his letter 26-04-2006 (which was received on 04-05-06) stating that the bill was revised considering the period from 04/01 to 11/02 as per instructions of DE/Operations/ Guntur. The Appellant replied in his letter dated 28-04-06 that the respondents are insisting for an undertaking to withdraw the appeal before considering settlement. As he is not agreeable to give such undertaking, he requested the Ombudsman for taking up the proceedings in the appeal.
4. As no
settlement was reached, the parties herein were heard by Ombudsman on 23-05-06
after issue of notice. The appellant attended the hearing along with Sri D.V.Lakshmi
Narayana, Vice President, Consumer Assistance Center, Brodipet, Guntur. The respondents 2.3. and 4 have attend the
hearing. A written statement on behalf
of respondents 1 to 4 was filed during the hearing on 23-05-2006.
In this written statement the
respondents made the following prime contentions.
(i)
The appeal is not
sustainable in law or on facts.
(ii)
The complaint filed by
the consumer before the CGRF, is not tenable under law as the matter was
earlier decided by the District Forum, Guntur.
(iii)
The revision of bill on
the basis of average consumption from April/01 to November 2002 is justified
and there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondents.
6. In the context of the facts on record
as mentioned above, the issues for consideration in this case are:
(i)
Whether the consumer
was entitled to approach the CGRF, when the same matter was earlier dismissed
by the District Forum, Guntur?
(ii)
Whether the meter was
defective as contended by the Appellant?
(iii)
If not what is the
reason for the abnormal consumption of 2501 units in the bill 10-11/02
bi-monthly period?
(iv)
What is the
responsibility of the Licensee as well as consumer on the implications of such
cases?
7. The above issues are discussed hereunder in detail.
(i) Right of Electricity consumers to
approach the respective CGRF
The Electricity Act,2003 came into force with effect from
10-06-2003 Sub Section 5 of section 42 of this Act requires that each
Distribution licensee shall establish a Forum for redressal of grievances of
consumers in accordance with guide lines as may be specified by the State
Commission. The AP Electricity
Regulatory Commission (APERC) notified the Regulation No.1 of 2004 in February
2004 specifying the guide lines as required under the said Act. The CGRF, was established and started
functioning from 06-01-2005 in
terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulation made by
the APERC thereunder. Thus the CGRF,
has a statutory status and is statutorily required to take up the complaints
made to it in terms of the Regulation mentioned above unless it is prohibited
to do so either in the said regulation or in any other law touching the
consumers rights. Section 173 of the Electricity Act, 2003 contains some
provisions concerned with this matter.
It provides that
“ Nothing contained
in this Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder or any instrument having
effect by virtue of this Act, rule or regulation shall have effect in so far as
it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (68 of 1986) or the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962) or the Railways
Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).”
The consumer protection
Act, 1986 does not restrain any consumer from seeking reliefs available else
where under any law for the time being in force. The respondents did not produce any supporting material to prove
any inconsistency in these two Acts, and merely made a statement in the written
submission about the ineligibility of the consumer to approach CGRF. This objection is therefore rejected.
(ii) Meter
Status: During the hearing on
23-05-2006, the appellant mentioned that the meter reader has informed them
about jumping digits in the dial of meter.
Similar statement was made in the letter dated 09-06-2004 of the consumers
welfare and assistance centre Guntur.
Sri D.V.Lakshmi Narayana, on behalf of consumer brought to my notice
during the hearing that the reply of ADE/ LT meters on the previous condition
of meter was kept secret and was not made available to consumer. He repeatedly questioned the basis for
certification of the ADE (MRT) on the correctness of previous condition of the
meter. This matter was earlier referred
to DE/Opn/GNT by the consumers’ welfare and assistance centre Guntur in its
letter dated 21-06-2004. The respondent No.3 (DE, operation, Guntur)
filed a copy of the Meter Test report on the test conducted on 03-02-03. This report reveals that the condition of
the dial which was the main ground for the challenge test, is O.K. The
DE/Opn/Guntur also made available a copy of the letter dated 30-06-2004 of ADE/LT meters Guntur,
during the hearing on 23-05-2006. The
said letter does not contain any confirmation or certification of previous
condition of the meter. It says that
the errors are found to be with in permissible limits and all including dial
are in normal condition. Sri
D.V.Lakshmi Narayana then suggested that meter may be sent to an external meter
testing centre.
Having regard to the circumstances of this case, and
the Test report dated 03-02-2003 of
MRT wing, I do not find any need for any further test of the meter by any
external agency as suggested by the representative of the appellant during the
hearing. The contention of the
Appellant consumer about jumping of digits in the dial of the meter appears to
be based on a suspicion rather than on any physical evidence at any point of
time. Thus the complaint of meter
defect on that ground could not be established and hence the abnormal consumption
of 2501 units in 10-11/02 cannot be attributed to such meter defect.
At
this point, I consider it necessary to make a few observations on the MRT
Report on the test conducted on 03-02-2003.
The format of report covers the various items of checks and tests as
follows:
|
Item 9 |
: Position of
seals – O.K. |
|
Item 10 |
: Physical
(external) examination – no defects |
|
Item 11 |
: Internal
examination – no defect |
|
Item 12 |
: Result of
megger test – O.K. |
|
Item 13 |
: Condition
of P.C. and C.C – O.K. |
|
Item 14 |
: Test
results – percentage Error: At
full load and unity power factor : +0.56% At
1/10th full load and unity power factor : 0.00% At
full load and 0.5 power factor : +5.8% |
|
item 15 |
: Remarks –
Nil |
It may be noted from item 14 that the meter is
showing an error of +5.8% (at full load and 0.5 power factor) which is beyond
the limit of 3% specified in IE Rules 1956.
It is pertinent to observe that no comments are recorded against item 14
as well as against item 15 (remarks).
The consumer’s power factor is required to be maintained at 0.9 as per
rules, but it may vary from 0.5 to unity depending on the appliances used. Thus even if average error between unity
power factor and 0.5 power factor at full load is taken, the error it works out
to 3.18% which is beyond the permissible limit. Thus the meter was defective from this point of view of
permissible error at different power factors.
(iii) Possible reason for abnormal
consumption of 2501 units in October – November 2002.
The DE/Opn/Guntur, respondent 3, has stated during the hearing on 23-05-2006 that this is a case of suppressed (accumulated) consumption. When he was asked to indicate the basis for coming to such conclusion he and the ADE/Opn/Guntur (respondent No.4) have produced statements of meter readings from 1999 on wards and pointed out some periods when low consumption was recorded. I asked them whether the premises was inspected to check up the connected load when abnormal consumption surfaced in November 2002. They replied in negative. The premises was inspected by AAE, Opn, D-6, Guntur (Respondent 1) only on 06-07-2004, pursuant to the endorsement dated 29-06-2004 of DE/Opn/Guntur and found that the connected load was 1760 watts. When I asked about the regularisation of the additional load over the original sanctioned load of 480 watts, the respondent No.4 replied that it was regularised in April 2004. In any case, the regularisation aspect is not relavant for consideration in this case.
On the other hand, the appellant consumer stated during the hearing on 23-05-2006 that they constructed an upstair portion in 2002 and that their consumption increased after the tenants occupied the upstair portion as they started using electricity from the same service connection. An analysis of the meter readings was made in the above context, which reveals the following pattern of consumption.
Billing
Period
|
No.of
months |
Total
Consumption |
Average
Consumption |
Remarks |
|
|
3/1999 |
- 3/2000 |
- 13
months |
-
2059/13 |
= 158
units/month |
(Meter
changed in April 2001) |
|
4/2000 |
-10/2000 |
- 6
months |
- 1244/6 |
= 207
units/month |
|
|
11/2000 |
- 3/2001 |
- 5
months |
- 331/5 |
= 66
units/month |
|
|
4/2001 |
- 9/2002 |
- 18
months |
-
2489/18 |
= 138
units/month |
|
|
10/2002 |
-
11/2002 |
- 2
months |
- 2501/2 |
= 1250
units/month |
|
|
12/2002 |
-11/2003 |
- 12 months |
-
2997/12 |
= 250 units/month |
|
It
may be seen from the above that the lowest level of consumption was recorded in
the 5 months period 11/2000 to 03/2001 at an average of 66 units per
month. Further it appears that the
meter was struck up as observed from the readings furnished during the
hearing. The same reading 5141 is
recorded for five months from November 2000 to 3/2001. A consumption of only 331 units are billed
for the whole period of 5 months and the meter was charged in April 2001. The average consumption of previous 6
months period was about 207 units / month.
After the change of meter in April 2001, the average consumption
recorded from April 2001 upto to September 2002 was only 138 units per month.
The huge abnormal consumption of 2501 units was recorded in October – November
2002. The consumption from December
2002 to November 2003 showed a decisive increase to a level of 250 units per
month. This corroborates with the
consumer’s statement that the upstair portion is occupied after this event of
detection of abnormal consumption in December 2002. The above sequence of events lead to an inevitable conclusion
that this is a case of suppressed (accumulated) consumption and not a case of
meter defect. This may also require
examination of the reasons for recording constant meter reading of 5141 for the
period 11/2000 to 3/2001 and change of meter in April 2001. I asked for the copies of MRB (Meter Reading
Book) during the hearing on 23-05-06.
The 3rd respondent stated that the concerned MRBs are in the
custody of vigilance officers in connection with a scam. The MRBs would be useful to check with
reference to basic record of entries made by meter reader. However considering the facts already
available on record, it is considered not necessary to obtain the MRBs from
vigilance wing for the purpose of these proceedings. Suffice to say that there is sufficient ground to believe that
the meter readings are not properly recorded from 04/2001 onwards and also
there was scope for increased consumption due to the construction activity
under taken by the consumer, which is not reflected by way of increased
consumption in the meter readings recorded by the staff of licensee upto
September 2002. Thus the action of the
respondents in revising bill considering the 20 month period from 04/2001 is in
order. However to be fair to the
consumer the energy recorded from 4/2001 to 11/2002 has to be reduced by 3.18%
(average of (+)0.56% and (+)5.80%) for the propose of arriving at the total
consumption liable to be billed as well as for arriving at the average
consumption in this period
(iv) Responsibility of respective parties:
(a) Licensee:
There seems to be some laxity on the part of the
Licensee’s staff in not conducting inspection of premises by the concerned
distribution engineer when a complaint of this nature involving huge money
(about twelve thousand rupees) linked to meter defect, was made by the
consumer. A simple inspection of the
premises of consumer by the concerned engineer world have resulted in
resolution of the matter in December 2002 itself by detection of additional
load consequent to construction of additional floor. Further while the respondents took action in Dec’2002 to recover
the short billed amount on account of the suppressed (accumulated) consumption,
there is no record of having taken any action on the persons responsible for
such suppression (accumulation) of consumption. The DE/Opn/Guntur (respondent No.3) could not confirm during the
hearing on 23-05-2006, of having taken any action on the delinquent staff in
this matter. In any case this aspect is
not a subject matter of these proceedings.
(b) Consumer:
There is no evidence on record about the consumer’s
involvement in the suppression (accumulation) of consumption. On the other hand during the hearing on
23-05-06, the consumer himself came out with the fact that he has started
construction of up-stair portion about 3 months prior to this case of abnormal
billing. While the consumer is liable
to pay for the energy consumed, he should not be subjected to any penalty
un-less it is conclusively established that the consumer interfered with the
functions of the Licensee’s staff.
There is no material on record to establish the involvement of
consumer. Hence the consumer is not
liable to pay any additional charges other than normal charges for the energy
consumed.
8. Concluding
the discussion I decide the following award on this appeal.
(i)
As the alleged defect
of jumping of digits in dial of the meter is not established and as there is
evidence of use of electricity for construction of additional floor, the
abnormal consumption of 2501 units billed in October – November 2002 bill shall
be spread over the 20 months period from April 2001. The total consumption from April 2001i.e. from the month in which
meter was changed, upto the removal of meter on 21-12-2002, shall be reduced by
3.18% and a separate revised bill may be issued for that period on the basis of
average consumption from 4/01 to 12/02, duly adjusting the payments already
made for that period.
(ii)
No surcharge shall be
levied in the revised bill for the above period as consumer’s fault is not
established in the matter of suppression
(accumulation) of consumption.
(iii)
The consumer shall pay
the amount of this separate bill, with in 15 days from date of such separate
bill raised as stated in (i)
above, failing which the licensee shall be at liberty to take appropriate
action as per the General Terms & Condition of supply approved by the
APERC.
(iv)
The consumer shall be
entitled to approach the Licensee for grant of installments as per the
provisions of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, if the consumer so
desires.
This order is signed on the 27th day of May, 2006.
VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
To
1. Sri.M.Paul,
D.No.
258-16-28,
Lakshmi Narayanapuram,
Near Checkpost, Guntur
.…. . Appellant
2. The Assistant Engineer, Near Zilla Parishad Office,
Guntur
3. The Assistant Engineer (MRT), Red cross Building,
Guntur
4. The Divisional Engineer, Red cross Building, Guntur
5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Akulavarithota,
Guntur
6. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Near Saraswathi
Theater, Guntur
…… Respondents
Copy
to
The
Secretary,
APERC,
Hyderabad.
The
Chairperson,
Forum
for redressal of grievances of consumers,
SPDCL,
Tirupathi.