VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
5th Floor, Singareni Bhavan,
Red Hills, Hyderabad –500 004.
K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director
(Law) and
Vidyut Ombudsman
Sri
Vikas Baid, Managing Partner of Arihant Polymers,
D.No.25-18,
Kabela Road,
Vijayawada-520
012, Krishna District. … Appellant
and
1.
Assistant
Engineer/Operation/RR Nagar, Vijayawada
2.
Assistant
Divisional Engineer/D1, Vijayawada
3.
Assistant
Accounts Officer/ERO/Town-2, Vijayawada
4.
The
Divisional Engineer/Operation/Town, Vijayawada … Respondents
The representation dated 30.05.2007 (received on 02.06.2007) of the Appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 06.10.2007 in the presence of the representative of appellant and respondents and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed the following:
Aggrieved by the order of the Forum for Redressal of
Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL (for short the “Forum”) dated 09.05.2007 in
CG.No.3/2007-08/Vijayawada Circle, the appellant herein filed a representation
(appeal) dated 30.05.2007 stating that:-
(a) The appellant received C.C.Bill for the month of June, 2006
for an amount of Rs.21,690/- as an average consumption of 6237 units due to non-display
of meter. The appellant represented to
R-1 stating that there is no production in the factory as the plant is under
non-production due to non-availability of raw material and requested to revise
the C.C.Bill as per the production particulars submitted to Industries
Department. As there is no response from R-1, even after lapse of 45 days, the
appellant represented to R.2 vide their letter dated 29.11.2006 duly enclosing
all the relevant documents to do the needful and to assess the average consumption
as per the clause 23.3.3.3 of Terms and Conditions of APSPDCL. After 15 days, the appellant received a
letter from R-2 asking to submit the production particulars from 03/2005 to
07/2006 along with the daily log book and staff attendance for the period
04/2006 to 08/2006 for arriving the consumption as per clause 7.5.1.4.3 of
General Terms and Conditions of Supply (for short, ‘GTCS’). The particulars asked by R-2 were submitted
and it was requested to supply a copy of the clause 7.5.1.4.3 for guidance as
the appellant is not aware of the said clause.
Even after lapse of 60 days, there is no response from R-2. Therefore, the appellant submitted a
representation to R-4 along with all relevant documents and requested to
arrange to issue the revised C.C.Bill for the month of 06/2006 and
07/2006. After lapse of 30 days, a
letter was received from R-4 on 29.03.2007 stating that it is not possible to
revise the average consumption because the S.C.No.2231 and S.C.No.2232 are
existing in the same premises with a common R.C.C.roof and the common wall
which is separating the two services was removed by the consumer prior to the
inspection of DE/DPE on 14.07.2006 and also there is possibility of connecting
both the electrical wiring. Thereafter
the appellant approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, APSPDCL for
justice. The Forum has not passed order
in favour of the appellant.
(b) The person who is authorized to take the readings is not
competent to recommend the average consumption particularly in case of
industrial services as per the clause 23.3.3.3 (old) and 7.5.1.4.3 (new) of
GTCS which states that in case of industrial category consumers due regard
shall be given to the production figures and conditions of working in the
period under question. The average consumption for industrial services has to
be assessed by R-2 and R-4. R-1 is not
competent to assess the average consumption for industrial services.
(c) As seen from the production figures, actual production during
the month and the production on which sales tax exemption given are not
tallying. The production figures will
never tally with the sales tax exemption given, because the sales tax exemption
will be allowed depends of sales, but not on the production figures. All the production cannot be sold away on
the same month and sales tax exemption will be given whenever the production
was sold on a particular month.
(d) The details of material produced during the above period can
be obtained from the log book (production sheet). The production figures and the sales tax exemption particulars
will be submitted to the Industries Department every month in the prescribed
proforma communicated by the Industries Department. If any particulars are still required, the Forum might have asked
before coming to the above conclusion.
(e) The production figures stated to be manufactured are not
tallying with the figures on which sales tax exemption given by Govt. In the month of April, 2006 23.578 tonnes of
pipes of length 21916 meters stated to be manufactured but sales tax exemption
given for 16.597 tonnes of length 16,835 meters and in the month of June, 2006,
2.347 tonnes of 2741 meters pipes stated to be manufactured but sale tax
exemption given for 7.708 tonnes of 8266 meters. Hence, the production figures submitted by the appellant were not
taken into cognizance.
(f) The appellant submitted that as per the required format duly
supplied by Industries Department, it used to furnish the production
particulars along with sales, sales tax exemption claimed and units of power
consumed. The appellant submitted the
same information to the department for considering the power consumption. But
the Forum gone in length by comparing the production particulars with sales and
with that of sales tax. This invariably
gave the Forum a wrong conclusion and that they are not tallied. The whole exercise is unwarranted. As the production particulars definitely
different from sales, because what is produced may not be sold in the entirety
in the market. Power is consumed in any
industry is to create production. There
is a direct co-relation between production and consumption of power. Therefore, the Forum ought to have considered
only these two factors in arriving at right conclusions. As per previous consumption and
calculations, the plant is capable of producing 2.85 Kgs. For each unit of
power consumption, with a variation of approximately 5% depending upon the size
and wall thickness of PVC pipes that are manufactured.
(g) Further, the R-2 and R-1 visited the appellant premises
during the above non-production period and also promised to do the needful in
this regard and why the R.2 changed his opinion and wanted to punish the appellant is not understood. Further the R-2 is giving one reason and the
Forum is showing another reason, for arriving at the consumption as per the
production figures. Hence, the
appellant requests to look into the matter and do justice.
2. On 13.08.2007, a common counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the respondents stating that –
(a) In the month of June, 2006, while taking high value meter
readings by R.1, it was observed that “Meter No Display” for the S.C.No.2232.
category-III, Kabela Road, R.R.Nagar.
Due to “Meter No Display”, average consumption was arrived for billing
by taking the average of previous 3 months consumption.
(b) The consumer (appellant) represented that the production of material during the month of June, 2006 was very less due to lack of raw material and due to machinery repairs. On the consideration of the appellant representation, the daily production figures with daily long book including staff duty chart for the month of April, 2006 to August, 2006 was asked for arriving average consumption as per clause 7.5.1.4.3 of GTCS. To safeguard the Distribution company’s revenue and at the same time to do justice to the appellant, the R-2 keenly observed the production figures, electrical consumption and production and consumption of related industries in the same premises for the succeeding months. Clause 7.5.1.4.3 is not applicable for this case since two services 2231 and 2232 are existing in the ground floor of single premises with common RCC roof with separate wall and with different entities. The common wall which separated the two services was removed by the consumer (appellant) prior to the inspection of DE/DPE/Vijayawada and every possibility of movement by all the employees and machinery and also the possibility of connecting both the electrical wirings. Hence, the clause 7.5.1.4.3 i.e., “Industrial consumers shall be given due consideration for the production figures and conditions of working in the period under question” is not applicable.
(c) In its order dated 09.05.2007, the Forum below observed that “ Now coming to the complainant’s industry the material manufactured are of different dia pipes with different gause (thickness). Hence, average power consumption per metric ton or per meter length cannot be arrived at. Even on a review of the production figures furnished by the complainant, the production figures stated to be manufactured are not tallying with the figures on which sales tax exemption given by Govt.Ex. In 4/06 23.578 tons of pipes of length 21916 Mts. stated to be manufactured but sales tax exemption given for 16.597 tons of length 16835 Mts. and in 6/06 2.347 tons of 2741 Mts. pipes stated to be manufactured but sales tax exemption given for 7.078 tons of 8266 Mts. Hence the production figures submitted by the complainant are not taken into cognizance. Further during 6/05 the consumption is 6241 units. In view of the above observations this Forum is of the view that the action of the respondent-1 in arriving the average consumption of 6237 units for 6/2006 based on previous three months average is in order. Hence the petition is Dismissed.”
(d) In this case, clause 7.5.1.4.3 is not applicable. As per clause 7.5.1.4.1, average units recommended by R-1 of 6237 units for the month of June, 2006 is correct. Hence there are no tenable grounds to consider the appeal. Therefore, the respondents pray the Ombudsman to dismiss the appeal.
3. Heard the arguments of the representatives of the parties concerned.
4. The point arises for consideration is “whether the order dated 09.05.2007 passed by the Forum below is sustainable or not”.
5. The GTCS approved by APERC, vide proceedings No.Secy/01/2006 dated 06.01.2006, supercedes the “Terms and Conditions of Supply” of APSEB. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the later any more.
6. The Forum below took notice of the procedure to be adopted for computation of assessed units in case of defect in the meter. In fact, the Forum below extracted the relevant clauses in its order, before arriving at a decision in this matter. Clause 7.5.1.4.1 of GTCS states that during the period in which a meter seized to function or become defective, number of units shall be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the preceding 3 bills cycles. The Forum has rightly came to the conclusion that the action of the R-1 in arriving average consumption of 6237 units for the month of June, 2006 based on previous 3 months average is in order.
7. Clause 7.5.1.4.3 comes into operation in cases where it is not possible to select previous billing cycles. Therefore, production figures and conditions of working need not be taken into consideration by the Forum below for arriving at a decision in this case. Moreover, the Forum below gave reasons for not taking production figures submitted by the complainant (appellant) into cognizance for arriving at a decision by it. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the material available on record does not disclose that the said stand taken by the Forum below is incorrect or inappropriate on the facts of the case.
8. In view of the clear procedure prescribed under clause 7.5.1.4.1 of GTCS referred to above, with regard to determination of number of units during the period of defect in the meter, the various contentions raised by the appellant herein with regard to production figures are irrelevant.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that there are no merits in the representation (appeal) filed by the appellant herein. With the result, the said representation (appeal) dated 30.05.2007 stands dismissed.
This order is corrected and signed on this 22nd day of October, 2007.
Vidyut Ombudsman