VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

Office of ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

5th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,

Hyderabad – 500 004

 

Appeal No. 36 of 2006

 

 

Between

 

The Secretary,

Gaddiannaram Consumer Council,

1-43, Prabhat Nagar,

Chaitanyapuri,

Ranga Reddy Dist - 500060                                                                                                                                 …           Appellant

                         

 

and

 

 

1. Additional Assistant Engineer / Operation / Kothapet

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer / Operation / Saroornagar

3. Assistant Accounts Officer / ERO / Saroornagar

4. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Saroornagar

5. Superintending Engineer / Operation / R.R. South Circle

6. General Manager / Customer Service / Corporate Office                                                                               …          Respondents

 

 

This representation (appeal) dated 27-12-2006, from Sri. N.Venkateswarlu, Secretary Gaddiannaram Consumer Council, (hereinafter called the appellant) filed on behalf of Smt. N. Nageswari and her son Sri. Siva Senani (hereinafter called the consumer) against the order dated 16-12-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (hereinafter called as CGRF or Forum) of CPDCL, in CG No. 58/2006-07, Ranga Reddy (South), coming up before the Ombudsman for consideration and having stood over till this day, the Ombudsman issues the following:-

 

 

O R D E R

 

2.         The facts on record in this case are briefly narrated herein.  The consumer is availing supply for Domestic purpose under SC No. 1603-4802, at Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District.  In August 2006, the consumer received bill for Rs. 11,077 as against normal bill of less than Rs. 500.  The consumer protested for this abnormal bill and approached the Additional Assistant Engineer, Kothapet on 05-08-2006, who insisted for payment of the amount first and the consumer paid the amount under protest.  The meter was then tested and found ok but the digit ‘7’ of the dial in thousands place is looking like ‘9’.  Hence the Additional Assistant Engineer advised for revision of bill.  The consumer personally carried this communication to the Electricity Revenue Office (ERO) who have to issue revised bill.  As the ERO did not issue revised bill even after continued pursuation by the consumer for a period of about 3 months, the consumer approached the appellant and they filed a compliant before the CGRF, CPDCL on 06-11-2006, with a prayer to return excess amount with interest, exemplary compensation for mental agony, loss of wages due to personal pursuance with officers of CPDCL and actual expenses for all the trips made to the offices of Licensee.  The learned Forum ordered for refund of excess amount with interest, but did not give specific order on the other reliefs sought.  Hence the appeal.

 

3.         The Appellant raised the following main contentions in the appeal.

(i)                 The deficiency in service was established by the CGRF, CPDCL (vide para 5 in page 4 of the Order of Forum) and hence the consumer is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 2150/- as per Regulation No. 7 of 2004).

 

(ii)               Compensation of one week’s salary of the consumer (Sri. Siva Senani) towards wastage of time in pursuing with Licensee.

 

(iii)             Reasonable compensation for the mental agony for 3 months period of pendency of their grievance.

 

(iv)              Reasonable expenses incurred.

 

The Appellant also filed an annexure with his appeal which contains day to day description of the pursuance made with different officers of CPDCL from             04-08-2006 to 06-11-2006 (about 27 events).

 

4.         As per clause 8(1) (c) read with clause 11 of the Regulation No. 1 of 2004, the Ombudsman is required to promote settlement by mutual agreement, and accordingly a conciliation meeting was held for this purpose on 05-02-2007 in the office of the Ombudsman.

 

5.         During the meeting it was brought to the notice of the Ombudsman that the respondents have decided to refund the excess amount only by adjustment against future CC bills and that it will take about 8 years for full adjustment.  Hence the appellant / consumer wanted refund by cash instead of adjustment against future bills.  The respondents have stated that refund is only by adjustment against future bills and cash refund is not possible.  However having regard to the specific circumstances of this case (involving huge period of 8 years for full adjustment) the Ombudsman felt that there is scope for settlement by mutual agreement and accordingly in terms of clause 11 of the Regulation No. 1 of 2004, the Ombudsman made a recommendation for settlement as indicated in the Annexure to this Order.

 

6.         The above settlement proposal was communicated to the parties in proceedings dated 06-02-2007 and they have been requested to confirm their acceptance within 15 days.  The appellant has communicated his consent in his letter dated 19-02-2007 proposing a modification to para 3 of the proposed settlement, to provide for payment of interest @ 24% for the excess amount held by the Licensee.

 

7.         However, the respondents did not communicate any reply.  Hence the Ombudsman took up further proceedings and by notice dated 26-02-2007 the respondents were required to file counter by 09-03-2007 with copy to the appellant, and the appellant was required to file his rejoinder by 24-03-2007 with copy to the respondents.  The hearing was fixed on 31-03-2007.

 

8.         The hearing was attended by the appellant Sri. N. Venkateswarlu, Secretary of the Gaddiannaram Consumer Council and Sri. Siva Senani, Consumer, on behalf of the appellants.  Sri. I. Madan Mohan, SE/O/RR (South), Sri. K. Hanuma, AAO/ERO/Saroor Nagar, Sri. Krishna Reddy, AE, Kothapet, have attended on behalf of the respondents.  The appellant and consumer have stated that as the respondents have not communicated acceptance for the proposed settlement, they (appellants) are not bound by the acceptance earlier communicated for the proposed settlement and hence the prayers in their appeal stand intact and may be granted.  The SE / Operation /Ranga Reddy (South) (Respondent No. 5) has stated that proposed settlement was referred to Corporate Office and requested for one week time to file their response on the proposed settlement.  This request is confirmed in writing by letter dated 02-04-2007 from Divisional Engineer / Operation / Saroornagar (Respondent No. 4).  As on the date of hearing, about 7 weeks have elapsed and any further time is perhaps un-warranted.  In any case, no report is received as on this date. The Ombudsman therefore treats the proposed settlement as not acceptable to the respondents and proceeds further to discuss the issues in detail for determining the award.

 

9.         In the background of the above facts on record, the issues for consideration in this case are:

 

(i)                 Whether the consumer is entitled for refund of excess amount in cash instead of by adjustment in further bills?

 

(ii)               Whether the consumer is entitled for interest on excess amount collected by Licensee @ 24% pa.

 

(iii)             Whether the consumer is entitled for the other reliefs sought?

 

10.       The respondents have not disputed the excess collection.  As the respondents have failed to file any counter there is no possibility to consider the objections if any, other than those orally told during the conciliation meeting held on 05-02-2007, regarding the no-feasibility of refund / by cheque / cash of excess amount.  The contention of the respondents that the refund of excess amount is always by adjustment in future bills is not convincing.  By no strech of imagination a Licensee can recover the excess amount and keep it for next 8 years in the name of adjustment.  Since this is an extraordinary event, the normal procedure ought to have been relaxed, more so at least when the Ombudsman made a recommendation in terms of the Regulation No. 1 of 2004.

 

As stated earlier the Licensee is not entitled to keep the consumer’s money with it, which would take 8 years for adjustment in future bills.  Hence the excess amount should be returned directly by cash / cheque.

 

11.       Further the learned Forum has already decided that the Licensee shall pay interest @ 24% pa on the excess collection.  I confirm the same.

 

12.       Other reliefs

 

(a) compensation for default in standards of service

 

 

The Licensee is required to pay compensation of Rs. 1975/- as per the calculation given in the Annexure to this Order, in terms of Regulation No. 7 of 2004 of Hon’ble APERC.  This compensation is payable within 90 days from the date of failure to comply with the service standard.  The Licensee is entitled to pay this compensation amount by adjustment in future CC bills as per the said Regulation No. 7 of 2004.  The payment by adjustment in CC bills shall commence from the billing month of April 2007.

 

(b)    Expenses incurred (on transport)

 

 

The appellant / consumer claimed reasonable expenses incurred in seeking redressal of the grievance.   The consumer stated that he made about 20 trips to various offices in the 3 month period from 4th August 2006 to 6th November 2006.  The Ombudsman considers it just and fair to allow Rs. 25 for each trip as a token of re-imbursement though the actual expenses may be less or more.  Accordingly the Licensee shall pay Rs. 500/- on this account.

 

(c) The appellant / consumer also claimed one week’s salary towards loss of wages and further amount as may be deemed fit by the Ombudsman towards mental agony suffered by the consumer for the 3 month period.  I am unable to grant these reliefs in the absence of any enabling provisions for granting such reliefs in the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Commission in Regulation No. 1 of 2004.

 

 

13.       Concluding the above discussion, I decide the following award in this case,

 

(a)               The excess amount collected from the consumer in August 2006, less the amount already adjusted in subsequent bills, shall be refunded by the respondents by cash / cheque with interest of 24% pa.

 

(b)               The Respondents shall pay compensation of Rs. 1975/- by adjustment in CC bills commencing from billing month of April 2007.

 

(c)               The Respondents shall pay Rs. 500/- towards expenses incurred in pursuing this matter over a period of 3 months by making about 20 trips to various offices of the Licensee.

 

14.       The appellant / consumer is required to communicate within one month, his consent for this award in full settlement of his claim to the respondents.  The respondents are required to implement this award within 15 days of receipt of such acceptance from the consumer as required under clause 12 of Regulation No. 1 of 2004 of Hon’ble Commission.

 

 

15.       Reasons for delay

            There has been a delay of about two weeks over the 3 months period specified by the Hon’ble Commission in Regulation No. 1 of 2004.  The main reason is the schedule of work pertaining to the filings of DISCOMs for ARR / Tariff for 2007-08 in February and March, due to which, the hearing had to be scheduled at the end of March 2007.  No one is responsible for the delay.

 

 

This order is signed on this 7th day of April, 2007.

 

 

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

 

 

1.         The Secretary,

Gaddiannaram Consumer Council,

1-43, Prabhat Nagar,

Chaitanyapuri,

Ranga Reddy Dist - 500060

                                             

 

2.         Additional Assistant Engineer / Operation / Kothapet

3.         Assistant Divisional Engineer / Operation / Saroornagar

4.         Assistant Accounts Officer / ERO / Saroornagar

5.         Divisional Engineer / Operation / Saroornagar

6.         Superintending Engineer / Operation / R.R. South Circle

7.         General Manager / Customer Service / Corporate Office

 

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURE

 

Copy of the Proposal of settlement by mutual agreement in Appeal No. 36 of 2006

 

7 x Rs. 50 = Rs. 350.
 
1.         The Licensee will pay compensation to the consumer of SC No. 1603 – 4802 for the delay in attending the meter compliant and for delay in rectifying the wrong bill issued in August 2006 as follows:

(i)                  For not attending meter compliant dated 14-07-2006 within

7 days from 21-08-2006 to 28-08-2006 @ Rs. 50 / day

           

Rs. 1625.
 
            (ii)        For not resolving wrong bill compliant dated 28-08-2006

within 7 days (as information is required in this case) from

05-09-2006 to 09-11-2006 – 65 days @ Rs. 25/day

                       

The compensation will be paid by way adjustment

against CC bills as per Regulation No. 7 of 2004.          Total          Rs. 1975

 

2.         The Licensee is agreeable to adjust part of the excess amount paid by consumer in respect of August 2006 CC bill, towards the amount payable for conversion from single phase to 3 phase supply on receipt of application from the consumer for such conversion, subject to feasibility and compliance with the General Terms and Conditions of Supply.

 

3.         As per the Regulation No. 5 of 2004, the Licensee has to refund the excess amount paid by a consumer towards any wrong bill by adjustment against future CC bills.  However in this case it will take about 8 years for adjustment of the full excess amount at the present level of consumption.  Hence it is just and reasonable that the consumer gets refund directly instead of by adjustment in future CC bills.  The Licensee therefore agrees to refund the balance excess amount available against SC No. 1603-4802, after adjustment of the amount as per para 2 above, by cheque, within 15 days from the date of receipt confirmation from the Ombudsman.

 

4.         In case of any difficulty in implementing para 2 above, the Licensee shall refund the full excess amount as indicated in para 3 above without any adjustments.