V I D Y U T    O M B U D S M A N

Office of ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

5th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,

Hyderabad

 

Dated: 04-01-2007

 

Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao

Ombudsman

 

 

Appeal No 24 of 2006

 

 

 

Between

 

Sri. V.Rajanna

Sri. V.Kiran Kumar

H.No.18-2, Gandhi Road

Husnabad (P.0) & (M)

Karimnagar District                                                              …….        Appellants

 

 

and

 

 

1.      Assistant Divisional Engineer / Operation / Husnabad

2.      Assistant Engineer / Distribution / Town / Husnabad  …….  Respondents

 

 

***

 

 

This appeal dated NIL (received on 27-09-2006) filed by Sri Sri. V.Kiran Kumar on behalf of his father Sri. V. Rajanna and himself (hereinafter called the consumer or appellant) against the order dated 31-08-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (hereinafter called the Forum or CGRF), Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (NPDCL), Warangal in C.G.No.7 of 2005 coming up for consideration before the Ombudsman and having stood over till this day, the Ombudsman issued the following:

ORDER

 

2.         The facts on record in this case are briefly narrated herein.  The appellant is availing electricity supply with S.C.No.5256 under LT Category – I for Domestic purpose and another connection in his father’s name in the same premises with S.C.No.1313 under LT Category II for Non-Domestic purpose.  The meters of these two services were originally fixed inside the premises in meter boxes, but later shifted by the respondents outside the premises and fixed on the wall facing the street.  The appellant protested for shifting the meters outside the premises as the street boys are removing fuses frequently and once the glass of one of the meters was broken, and made representations to the appellants to re-shift the meters inside the premises.  As the respondents have not taken action, the appellant made a compliant before the Forum on 23-06-2005.  The learned Forum in its order dated 31-08-2006, rejected the complaint stating that the shifting of meter was in line with GTCS and Section 163(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  Hence the appeal.

 

3.         In his appeal the appellant made the following prime contentions:

                    i.            The Forum erred in concluding that the meters are fixed in accordance with clause 7.1.4 of the GTCS.

                  ii.            The deposition of respondents before the Forum that the appellant refused entry to billing staff is false.

                iii.            In such case, the respondents could have issued a 24 hour notice u/s 163(3) of the Act and disconnect supply.

                iv.            There is no safety for the meters as they were fixed on the wall (on the side of street).

                  v.            The consumer cannot be held responsible for protecting the meters.

 

For all the reasons mentioned above, the appellant requested for relieving the consumers from the responsibility or protecting the meters or alternatively order shifting of the meters inside the premises.

 

4.         As per clause 8(1)(c) of Regulation No.1 of 2004 of APERC, the Ombudsman is required, at the first instance, to endeavour to promote a settlement by mutual agreement between the parties.  Accordingly, by notice dated 29-09-2006 the parties herein were requested to endeavour to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement by 28-10-2006, and by another notice dated 20-10-2006, the Ombudsman informed the parties that, if no settlement could be arrived by the parties themselves, the Ombudsman himself will mediate as envisaged in clause 11 of Regulation No.1 of 2004 of APERC.   Accordingly, a meeting was convened at Karimanagar on 04-11-2006, which was postponed and held on 06-11-2006 at Karimnagar.  The respondents attended the meeting but the appellant did not attend, on the ground that they are not aware of the postponement. 

 

5.         Having discussed the issue in appeal with the respondents present at the conciliation meeting held on 06-11-2006 at Karimnagar and having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman intended to promote a settlement by mutual agreement and accordingly proposed a recommendation in terms of clause 11 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004, as indicated hereunder:

 

Recommendation of Ombudsman for settlement by mutual agreement:

 

1.         The appellants will confirm in writing that they will ensure that in future there will be no scope for any complaint on not affording or delay in affording the facility for meter reading by licensees staff or authorized agencies

 

2.         The Respondents will shift the meters of the two services to the original location with in the premises of the appellants.

 

3.         In the event of both the parties agreeing to the proposed settlement and after Ombudsman confirming the settlement by separate proceedings to be issued in this regard, the respondent shall shift the meters with in 48 hours of the appellant furnishing the written assurance mentioned in Para 1 above

 

6.         The above recommendation was served to the parties herein by notice dated 09-11-2006 with a request to consider the same and furnish the acceptance within 15 days.  In the said notice, it was also informed that if either of the parties does not accept the proposed settlement, the Ombudsman will takeup further proceedings in terms of Regulation No.1 of 2004, and in such case the respondents were required to file their counter by 02-12-2006 with copy to appellant and the appellant shall file rejoinder if any by 12-12-2006 with copy to the respondents and that the Ombudsman will hear the parties on 18-12-2006 in the office of the APERC.

 

7.         The respondents have communicated their acceptance for the proposed settlement on 06-12-2006 (received on 08-12-2006).  The appellant has not furnished any reply to the notice dated 07-11-2006.  Instead, the appellant sent a rejoinder stated to be in reply to the counter filed by the respondents, enclosing a photo of a meter and copy of the bill of December 2006, alleging that the bills are not issued correctly.   However, the respondents did not file any counter except acceptance for the recommendation of Ombudsman as stated above.

 

8.         As the appellant did not communicate acceptance for the proposed settlement, the hearing was held on 18-12-2006 in the office of APERC at Hyderabad.  The respondents have not attended the hearing (on the premise that they already accepted the proposed settlement), while the appellant attended the hearing along with an advocate.

 

9.         During the hearing Sri.D.Venkateswara Rao, learned advocate of the appellant reiterated the contentions raised in the appeal and pleaded for shifting of meters inside the premises as per clause 7.1.4 of the GTCS.    I asked the advocate to clarify about the ownership of the platform adjoining the wall and the drain on the street, and whether it constitutes the premises of consumer or not.  The learned advocate desired to make written submissions on this aspect.  Accordingly, written submissions were filed by the appellant on 30-12-2006.

 

10.       In the written submissions, the appellant stated that the platform between the drain and wall does not constitute premises and such constructions require permission from statutory authority i.e., Municipal Corporation or Gram Panchayat.  He quoted the provisions under sections 46, 299, 401 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Section 99 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in this regard.

 

11.       In the background of the position stated above, the point for consideration is

(i).        Whether the action of the appellant in shifting the meters is in accordance with the provisions of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS)?

(ii).       Whether the consumers are absolved from the responsibility of protecting the meters fixed outside the premises.

 

12.       The relevant provisions of the GTCS as existing at the time of the shifting of meter and as on today are extracted hereunder:

 

Prior to 06-01-2006:

Sub-clause 8 of Annexure under clause 6.2(g) of GTCS of erstwhile APSEB / APTRANSCO:

            “The Meter Box should be fixed at a height not more than about 5’ feet in the first room/verandah etc., to enable easy reading of the meter, and located at the entrance of the building”

 

From 06-01-2006

Clause 7.1.4 of GTCS approved by APERC:

 

“7.1.4 - Meters shall be installed according to the convenience of accessibility for reading and inspection at any time. 

            To enable easy accessibility, reading and inspections and to enable issue of bills to the consumers promptly, the Licensee shall have a right to install meters for LT consumers at a suitable location as the Licensee considers it necessary, including in the boxes mounted on the poles. This shall be subject to the provisions of the Regulation of the CEA under section 55 read with Section 177 (2) (c) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

            In respect of meters boxes mounted on the poles, the authorised officer of the Licensee should inform the consumer at the time of meter reading so that the consumer has the opportunity to be present and see the meter reading.

            In respect of the meters installed within the premises of the consumers, the meter box should be fixed at a height of not more than about 5' in the first room/verandah etc., located at the entrance of the building to enable easy reading of the meter.  In such cases, it shall be the consumer's responsibility to ensure the safety of the main meter as well as the check meter, if any.”

 

13.       The CEA has since notified the Regulations u/s 55 of the Act 2003, vide Notification dated 17-03-2006 (No.502/70/CEA/DP&D).  The relevant provisions of this Regulation is extracted hereunder:

 

            “Clause 7 - Locations of meters.-

(1) …….

(a) Interface Meters

(i) ……

(ii) ……

(iii) ……

(b) Consumer meters

(i)         The consumer meter shall be installed by the licensee either at consumer premises or outside the consumer premises:

Provided that where the licensee installs the meter outside the premises of the consumer, then the licensee shall provide real time display unit at the consumer premises for his information to indicate the electricity consumed by the consumer:

Provided further that for the billing purpose, reading of consumer meter and not the display unit shall be taken into account.

 

(ii) ……….

 

14.       In view of the provisions cited by the appellant in his written submissions dated 30-12-2006, it is to be construed that the said platform between the wall of the premises and the drain along the public road cannot be considered as the premises of the consumer (whether it was permitted by the local authority or not) unless it is constructed on the land owned by the individual.  It is not necessary to go into the aspect of ownership of the land for this purpose.  Suffice to say that it does not form a part of the premises of the consumer as per the written submissions of the appellant.

 

15.       It may be seen from the provisions of the TCS of APSEB continued till 05-01-2006, that, the meters are to be erected in the premises of the consumer as there is no express provision to erect the meters outside the premises.  Though the meters are fixed to the wall of the building, it cannot be considered as “within’ the premises.  However, in the GTCS approved by the Hon’ble Commission which came into force w.e.f. 06-01-2006, the licensee is entitled to locate the meter at a suitable location as the licensee considers it necessary including in the Boxes mounted on the poles, subject to the provisions of Regulation of CEA under the Electricity Act, 2003.  The CEA has since notified the regulation, the relevant proviso of which was extracted at para 13 above.

 

16.       Regarding the aspect of safety of the meters, it is to be stated, that clause 13(3) of CEA Regulation, which is extracted hereunder governs this aspect:

“13. Safety of meters. -

(1) ………..

(2) ………….

(3)       Licensee shall be responsible for the safety of the consumer meter located outside the premises of the consumer and the consumer shall be responsible for the safety of the real time display unit installed by the licensee in consumer premises.

(4) ………..

 

17.       Concluding the above discussion I decide the following award in this appeal:

(i).        The licensee has to shift the meters inside the premises, or alternately implement the provisions under clause 7.1.4 of GTCS duly complying with the requirements as per the CEA Regulation referred above.

(ii).       If the meter is installed outside the premises of the consumer, the consumer cannot be held responsible for the safety of the meter.

 

18.             Reasons for delay in award: 

            There is a delay of about one week in issue of this order over the
3 months limit specified by the Hon’ble Commission in Regulation No.1 of 2004.  The delay is mainly due to the mediation efforts undertaken by Ombudsman with a view to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement, by making a recommendation in terms of clause 11 of the said Regulation.  No one is responsible for the delay.

 

 

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN