ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, … · The complaint registered as Complaint No....

OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM

ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009

BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, NOMINATED

MEMBER.

Complaint No. - GR-123/2016 Date of Institution - 12.07.2016

Date of Order - 05.08.2016

In the matter to Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Maloya, Chandigarh.

………………..Petitioner

Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.

……………….Respondents

Order

1. Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Maloya, Chandigarh through his

e-mail dated July 12, 2016 submitted that the electricity bill dated

28.6.2016 received by him appears to be on higher side. He requested to

provide the details of the charges levied for different items leading to a

total bill of Rs.30415/-.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-123/2016 was forwarded

to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4

vide letter dated 13.7.2016 for comments/action taken along with

consumption data. A copy was also sent to the complainant, with the

request to submit written complaint within five days as per the procedure

circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.

3. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 20.7.2016

submitted that the bill raised to the consumer was as per reading

recorded by the meter. As per request made by the complainant, he

provided the details of various elements of the bill to the complainant.

He also supplied past consumption data of the consumer.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 5.8.2016 with a copy to the

consumer alongwith the reply submitted by the Respondent AEE for his

information. The Branch Manager deputed his representative for the

hearing. The SDO along with his RA present during the hearing provided

the breakup of the electricity bill and explained the abbreviations for

various items of the bill. He specifically pointed out that the electricity bill

includes difference of Advance Consumption Deposit (ACD) amounting to

Rs.8001/- which is charged/refunded once a year on the basis of previous

one year billing amount and the amount of ACD already available. Apart

from ACD, fixed charges, FFPCA were recurring charges in addition to

basic tariff as notified with the approval of Hon’ble JERC. The

representative showed his satisfaction to the explanation provided by the

Respondent AEE.

5. The Forum observing that the breakup of the bill along with explanation

of various items was provided to the complainant to his satisfaction, the

complaint is considered as disposed.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the

Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,

Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:

09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be

sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the

consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the

record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF

mailto:[email protected]




SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, NOMINATED

MEMBER.



In the matter to Shri Anil Kumar, House No.1601, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Shri Anil Kumar, resident of House No.1601, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated July 5, 2016 apprehended that the meter

installed at his residence is defective, as the reading shown in the bill was

same. He requested to get it examined and to take further action in the

matter.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-121/2016 was

forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’

Division No. 1 vide letter dated 6.7.2016 for comments along with

consumption data with a copy to the complainant. In response, Shri

Anil Kumar submitted the written complaint on dated 13.7.2016,

received in the office of CGRF by post on 22.7.2016.

3. The Nodal Officer, i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1

vide his letter dated 25.7.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by AEE

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 duly countersigned. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’

Sub Divn.No.2 submitted that the defective meter of the complainant

was replaced on 18.7.2016. The copy of MCO was also attached with

the reply. He further submitted that the account of the complainant

will be overhauled for the period his meter remained defective on the

basis of previous consumption available with the office after issuing

proper notice to the consumer.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 9.8.2016. In the meanwhile,

the complainant through his e-mail dated 1st August 2016 conveyed his

thanks for promptly replacing his defective meter. He did not appear on

the date of hearing. The AEE present during the hearing submitted that

the grievances has already been redressed by replacing the defective

meter.

5. The Forum observing that the grievance has already been redressed,

the complaint is considered as disposed as being fully satisfied.



Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month

from the date of receipt of this order.”

6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy

be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the



(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)

MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF




BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 761 Date of Institution - 14.5.2015


In the matter to Shri Labh Singh, S/o Lt. Sh. Ishar Singh, House No.1215, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.


As per the Chairman CGRF, Er R. K. Arora.

Order

7. Shri Labh Singh S/o Late Sh. Ishar Singh, resident of House No. 1215,

Sector 8-C, Chandigarh submitted a complaint dated 14.5.2015 through

Shri V.B. Khanna, his authorised representative. The applicant

submitted that he is legal heir of Late Sh. Ishar Singh, and a resident of

House No.1215, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. He took the possession of

ground and top floor of the said house on December 9th, 2013 through

Court orders under Police protection. Thereafter he applied for a new

connection for ground and top floor vide application dated 23.4.2014.

The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 directed him to first clear the

outstanding amount of Rs.39,200/- in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh.

The detail of this amount was provided to the applicant on his demand

by the Sub Division. It was noted that Shri Bimaljeet Singh (occupant of

Ground Floor and Top Floor) stopped making payment for the bills

issued for the period 27.5.2009 onwards, but the connection was

allowed to continue till July/August 2010. The PDCO was ultimately

affected with total outstanding amount of Rs.33,092/-. The applicant

stated that the Licensee neither bothered to recover the outstanding

amount from the consumer in whose name the connection stood or from

the person(s) who gave surety at the time of release of connection in

the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh. He also stated that as per Section 56

of the Electricity Act, the amount could not be recovered from him at the

time of request for new connection in the year 2014. As this amount was

not deposited by the applicant, the release of electricity connection was

refused and the file was returned back. To get the information relating

to Shri Bimaljeet Singh, from the Licensee, the applicant filed an

application under RTI Act.

The applicant further submitted that subsequently in violation of

Electricity Act as well as JERC Guidelines, a new connection was released

in the name of Shri Manmohan Singh illegally without getting deposit the

dues of the bill amount and arrears pending against A/c No.

102/0844/121500X (in the name of Shri Ishar Singh) amounting to

Rs.54,625/- from 27.9.2011 to 27.11.2014. This fact came to his notice

when fresh bill for the period 27.11.2014 to 27.1.2015 was received by

him. The bill for this period was amounting to Rs.65,402/- including

arrears of Rs.54,632/-. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 when

contacted, asked for making the payment of current bill amount.

Payment of Rs.12000/- was made on 1.4.2015. The SDO did not

overhaul the account but issued a fresh bill for Rs.68,943/- including

arrears of the last bill.

With above background, the applicant approached the CGRF with

the following specific grounds.

a) The Licensee did not issue PDCO for 10 months with malafide

intension resulting into accumulation of defaulting amount to

the tune of Rs.39,200/- during the period of five years.

b) That the SDO did not bother to recover the amount of

Rs.54,632/- against the electricity connection in the name of

Shri Ishar Singh for a long time.

c) That the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 released a new connection in

the name of Shri Manmohan Singh, occupant of first floor

without obtaining the consent of the legal heir/landlord in

violation of guidelines issued by JERC as well as without

insisting for depositing the arrears amount of Rs.54,632/-.

Alleging that the actions of the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.NO.2 and his

officials were with malafide intention putting state ex-chequer to a

financial loss, he prayed for initiating departmental action against them

While concluding his application, he also prayed for recovery of

Rs.68,943/- from Mr. Manmohan Singh who was actual user of the

electricity at that time. He further prayed for allowing to deposit the

current bill charges till finalisation of the case and disconnection of

electricity connection released in the name of Mr. Manmohan Singh.

He attached supporting documents such as Court orders, application

for new connection, copies of electricity bill etc. etc. and authority letter

in favour of Shri V.B. Khanna to represent his case before the Forum.

8. The complaint registered as Complaint No. T-24 / Comp. No.761 of 2015

was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’

Division No. 1 for submitting parawise comments/action taken report by

25.5.2015 vide letter dated 18.5.2015. Directions were also issued for

acceptance of current payment charges against electricity connection in

the name of Shri Ishar Singh till disposal of the case.

9. Though the reply from the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 was

not received even after 2 months, the complaint was notified for hearing

on 12.8.2015. The complainant along with his authorised representative,

Nodal Officer and concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2 were present. The

authorised representative of the complainant, Shri V.B. Khanna raised

that the Nodal Officer did not submit the reply within 10 days as per

procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC. He requested for award of

compensation and action against the Licensee on this account.

The SDO submitted that he had already submitted his comments to be

division office on 4.6.2015. The Nodal Officer on the other hand stated

that some shortcomings were noted and modifications were proposed in

the draft reply by the SDO. On the assurance that the reply would be

furnished soon, it was decided to conduct further hearing on 27.8.2015.

10. on 27.8.2015, the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2 requested for adjournment

stating that Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 was busy in connection with some

other unavoidable last minute meetings. The complainant’s

representative Shri V.B. Khanna again raised that the reply has not yet

been submitted and as such the case may be decided on the basis of

facts submitted by the complainant. It was, however, agreed to give

one more chance to the Nodal Officer and the next date of hearing was

notified as 6.10.2015. On this date the complainant along with his

representative and RA of the Sub Division were resent. The concerned

SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 was on training to Hyderabad and SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Divn.No.4 present on his behalf requested for adjournment on the plea

that concerned SDO was out of town. The representative of the

complainant Shri V.B. Khanna again pointed out that the reply has still

not been received and requested for submission of the reply by the

Nodal Officer. It was mutually agreed for holding the hearing of the

complaint on 28.10.2015 and issuance of directions to the Nodal Officer

for filing the reply within next 10 days positively failing which the case

would be decided on the basis of submissions made by the complainant.

Notice vide letter dated 7.10.2015 in this respect was served to the

Nodal Officer.

11. The Nodal Officer ultimately vide his letter dated 28.10.2015 (the

notified date of hearing) forwarded the reply submitted by AEE ‘OP’ Sub

Divn.No.2 duly countersigned by him. In the reply brief history was

given that in the said premises there were two electricity connections,

one in the name of Shri Ishar Singh with A/c No. 0844/121500X (herein

after referred as Connection No.1) and 2nd in the name of Sh Bimaljit

Singh with A/c No.0844/121501Y (herein after referred as Connection

No.2). The Electricity connection 2 was disconnected due to non

payment vide PDCO dated 2.6.2010 and the amount accumulated to

Rs.39,200/-. After PDCO of Connection No.2, all the three floors of the

house started using the electricity from the meter of electricity

connection No.1. Shri Labh Singh S/o Late Sh Ishar Singh approached

the Sub Division in the month of May 2014 for separate electricity

connection for ground floor. He was requested to first clear the

outstanding amount of Rs.39,200/- before considering his application for

new connection but he did not deposit the requisite amount. In the

mean time Shri Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh approached the

office in the month of Nov. 2014 for a separate connection as an

occupier of first floor of the said house and agreed to clear outstanding

amount of Rs.39,200/-. The connection of first floor was released on

26.11.2014. The SDO in his reply pointed out that on 26.11.2014, the

date of release of connection to Shri Manmohan Singh, the outstanding

amount against the electricity connection No.1 was Rs.3961/- only.

After release of connection to Shri Monmhan Singh, the complainant

started using independently meter owned by Shri Ishar Singh against

Electricity Connection No.1 for his portion i.e. Ground and top floor.

This position was verified when the official of his office visited the house

on 11.3.2015 to check the accuracy of the meter and portion of the

house being fed through his connection on the request of the

complainant. The working of the meter was found O.K. and the same

was conveyed vide letter date 18.3.2015. The SDO further stated that

no payment was made against electricity connection (Connection No.1)

in the name of Shri Ishar Singh after 6.10.2014. However, on

pursuance, a part payment of Rs.12,000/- was made on 1.4.2015 out of

total outstanding amount of Rs.71699/- against this connection.

Thereafter the complainant was making payment of current bill amount

as per CGRF orders dated 18.5.2015. The SDO specifically pointed out

that the disputed amount is only accumulation of the amount built in the

past and no sundry charges have been levied to the complainant. He

conveyed the pending amount as on date as Rs.66,988/- including

arrears of Rs.63,344/- as on 6.11.2015. Along with reply, he enclosed

PDCO in respect of Electricity Connection No. 2, letter written to Shri

Labh Singh asking to deposit the outstanding amount before considering

his application and the details of the bills issued and payment made

during the year 2014-15 and consumption data for last three years in

respect of Electricity Connection No.1.

12. On the notified date of hearing ie on 28.10.2015, the complainant, his

authorised representative and SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 were present.

Shri Manmohan Singh along with his advocate also came to attend the

hearing. The advocate stated that they appeared after receipt of

communication from the SDO. The Advocate was informed that he can

not make submissions as per “Procedure” circulated by Hon’ble JERC.

Thereafter Sh. Manmohan Singh left the hearing along with his

advocate. The complainant raised the issue of calling Shri Manmohan

Singh to the hearing. The SDO stated that as the complainant had filed

complainant for recovery the arrear amount of his bill (Rs.68,493/-)

from Shri Manmohan Singh, it was thought appropriate to have his

views in the matter as the proceedings were likely to affect him.

A copy of reply submitted by the Nodal Officer was handed over

to the complainant who after pointing out that the documents attached

with the reply were not in order desired to file a rejoinder after

collecting information under RTI. As he did not commit any time limit

to file rejoinder, it was decided to notify the next date after receipt of

rejoinder.

After waiting for sufficiently long time, a reminder was issued on

11.02.2016 to the complainant for filing the rejoinder as promised by

him during the hearing on 28.10.2015.

13. On 06.01.2016, Shri V.B.Khanna, the authorised representative of the

complainant filed a fresh application for initiating action against the SDO

‘OP’ Sub Division No. 2 for disconnecting the electricity connection of the

complainant despite interim orders of CGRF staying the disconnection in

case the current consumption charges are paid. Stating that CCTV

Cameras are installed in the premises for the safety and disconnection of

supply may lead to some mis-happening for which the responsibility

would lie on the Electricity Deptt. He pleaded for considering the action

by the respondent SDO as contempt of orders of CGRF.

14. In response to CGRF letter dated 08.01.2016, inviting comments on the

application dated 06.01.2016 by the complainant, the AEE ‘OP’ Sub

Division No. 2 vide his reply dated 22.01.2016 submitted that the

connection of the complainant was wrongly disconnected due to

communication gap between the officials of his office. The meter of Sh.

Manmohan Singh was to be removed for default in payment but the staff

inadvertently disconnected the supply of the complainant. As soon as

the office realized the mistake, the electricity meter of the complainant

was re-installed without any delay. He regretted the mistake committed

by the officials of his Sub Division and prayed that the contempt

application of the complainant be dismissed.

Subsequently, the Nodal officer vide his letter dated 01.02.2016

also regretted the mistake stating that disconnection of electricity

connection of the complainant was due to communication gap and he

regretted the same on behalf of officials of his office.

15. The case was taken up for further hearing on 02.02.16 but the

complainant sought adjournment stating that he thought that only his

contempt application would be discussed. The copy of reply submitted

by the SDO was handed over to the complainant while fixing the next

hearing on 09.02.2016.

In the meantime, the complainant vide his letter dated 03.02.2016

requested the Forum to supply following documents required for

arguments.

1) Certified copy of the reply given by the Nodal office cum Xen ‘OP’

Division No. 1 Chandigarh against letter No.

CGRF/Complaint/761/2016/69 dated 08.01.2016. 2) Certified copy of the memo no. 3815 dated 12.11.2015 of AEE ‘OP’

Sub Division No. 2 Chandigarh addressed to the CGRF along with the annexure containing four pages.

3) Certified copy of orders of the competent authority showing meter No, A/c and address of the consumer whose connection was to be

disconnected in House No. 1215 Sector 8-C as stated in the reply sent by AEE ‘OP’ Memo No. 334 dated 22.01.2016 addressed to

CGRF. 4) Certified copy of the orders of the competent authority against

which the electricity meter installed in the name of late Sh. Ishar Singh meter Mc No. 0844/121500R. was disconnected on

06.01.2016 after any stay order by the CGRF. 5) Certified copy of the documentary proof in the favour of Late Sh.

Ishar Singh A/c NO. 0844/12101Q that the connection is not in the

name of Sh. Ishar Singh. 6) Copy of the letter dated 11.12.2015 issued by the CGRF vide

which the submission of rejoinder by 20.01.2016 was issued to Sh. Labh Singh.

The letter was forwarded to the Nodal officer on 04.02.2016 with the

directions to supply the desired documents to the complainant through

special messenger.

16. On the notified date of hearing on 09.02.2016, the complainant stated

that he was yet to receive the documents requested by him. He also

pointed out some typographical errors in the reply of SDO letter dated

12.11.2015. Giving directions for expediting the supply of document, the

next date of hearing was fixed as 09.03.2016.

17. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 vide his letter dated 25.2.2016 supplied

the desired documents to the complainant with a copy to the Forum.

The documents included –

(i) certified copy of reply of SDO in response to CGRF letter

dated 8.1.2016,

(ii) Certified copy of letter dated 12.11.2015 along with

enclosures. He also pointed out that A/c No.844/121501Y

was existing in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh and A/c

No. 844/121502A is existing in the name of Shri

Manmohan Singh,

(iii) Photo copy of disconnection order dated 4.1.2016 and

(iv) Account Statement of all existing Electricity connections in

House No. 1215. Sector 8, Chandigarh.

18. On the next date of hearing (9.3.2016), the authorised representative of

the complainant submitted rejoinder-cum-arguments in main complaint

and also arguments/facts regarding contempt case as per his

applications both dated 9.3.2016 along with supporting documents.

During hearing he shared the facts of the case and specifically pointed

out the following:

(i) They were asked to deposit Rs.39200/- at the time of their

application for new connection where as Rs.33,000/-(around)

was got deposited from Shri Manmohan Singh. The electricity

connections were not disconnected by the SDO as per

regulations when defaulting amount occurred. He demanded

compensation of Rs.1 lac.

(ii) On the application dated 6/1/2016 filed for initiating contempt

proceeding against SDO, the complainant demanded

compensation of Rs. 1 lac. plus any other relief, the Forum may

consider appropriate for wrongly disconnecting the supply

despite stay orders. He also pointed out that the comments of

the Nodal Officer were not as per orders of the Forum and

proper information was not supplied to him. He also raised that

PDCO issued in favour of Shri Manmohan Singh was not

affected. He levelled charges against the officers of the

Licensee that they were harassing the complainant where as no

action was taken against Shri Manmohan Singh on his default.

The SDO stated that the department had clarified all the issues in

their written submissions. With regard to difference in outstanding

amount against Shri Bimaljeet Singh in the year 2010 he clarified that

the amount conveyed to the complainant was principle amount (around

Rs.33,000/-) whereas the total amount of Rs.39,200/- included the levy

of annual surcharge @ 10% on the principle outstanding amount. He

also confirmed that the amount recovered from Shri Manmohan Singh

was Rs.39200/- same as demanded from the complainant. The SDO

specifically pointed out that the defaulting amount of the complainant

against the connection in the name of Shri Ishwar Singh was Rs.3961/-

only at the time of application for a new connection whereas amount

was much more than the amount as stated by the complainant in Para 7

of their rejoinder.

With regard to disconnection of electricity connection of the

complainant on 6.1.2016, he submitted that connection was restored on

same day after mistake was detected.

19. The arguments of the complaint were finally concluded on 09.08.2016.

The authorised representative of the complainant made oral submissions

on the point of dispute and that the detailed written submissions already

submitted may be treated as final. While making oral submissions on the

Contempt application he raised a new issue that his client was a heart

patient and disconnection of electric supply might have affected his

health. The statement was at variance with the original application dated

6.01.2016 wherein he referred disruption of the CCTV cameras and

showing fears of any major occurrence of loss. However no documentary

evidence in support of any of these was provided to the Forum. The SDO

and RA of the S/Div no.2 submitted that the they have nothing more to

add to the oral / written statements already filed.

20. On the basis of written as well as oral submissions by the complainant

and the Licensee, the facts of the case along with brief history are

summarised as under:-

Sh. Ishar Singh, owner of House No.1215, Sector 8-C,

Chandigarh had an electric connection in his name (A/c No.

0844/121500X – Referred as Connection No.1). Another electric

connection was existing in the name of a tenant Shri Bimaljit Singh

bearing A/c No. 0844/121501Y (Connection No.2). This connection was

feeding occupants of Ground floor and top floor whereas connection 1 in

the name of Shri Ishar Singh was feeding First floor.

The physical possession of Ground Floor and top floor was

obtained by Shri Labh Singh S/o Shri Ishar Singh through Court of Law

on 9.12.2013 after the original petitioner Shri Ishar Singh expired

during pendency of the case. Shri Ishar Singh had two sons namely

Shri Labh Singh and Shri Gurdeep Singh. Besides the Sons, Smt.

Hukum Kaur W/o Shri Ishar Singh claimed LR of Shri Ishar Singh for

House No.1215, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

On the other hand Shri Bimaljeet Singh, tenant of Ground

Floor/top floor stopped making payment towards his electric Connection

No.2 after 3.7.2009. The defaulting amount continued to grow with

issuance of bills after July 2009. The PDCO was affected on 3.6.2010

with outstand amount of Rs.33,092/-.

From the statement of the complainant, it appeared Shri

Bimaljeet Singh absconded thereafter and they had to obtain the

possession of the Ground Floor and top floor through Court under Police

protection.

After getting the physical connection, all the floors of House

No.1215, Sector 8-C started drawing electricity connection from the

only existing electricity connection in the name of Shri Ishar Singh

initially feeding First Floor. From the application of the complainant, it

has also been noted that First Floor was occupied by Shri Manmohan

Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh the complainant.

Subsequently the complainant applied for a new electric

connection on 23.4.2014 for Ground and top floor, the electric

connection for which was disconnected on 3.6.2010 and for which

physical possession was taken under police protection. But the

connection was refused as the respondent SDO insisted for clearance of

defaulting amount against the floors for which new connection was

sought.

On 26.11.2014, a new electric connection was released for First

Floor (Initially the connection in the name of Shri Ishar Singh was for

First Floor) in the name of Shri Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh

and grandson of Shri Ishar Singh and Smt Hukam Kaur after he cleared

the defaulting amount outstand in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh for

same house No. i.e. 1215, Sector 8-C along with 10% annual surcharge

amounting to Rs.39,200/-.

From above, it is seen that the different floors of the House

No.1215, Sector 8-C, were being fed through electric connections as

detailed below:-

1) Connection in the name of Shri Ishar Singh:-

a) Till 9.12.2013 -Only feeding First Floor. b) From 9.12.13 to -Feeding all floors (Electricity being drawn

26.11.2014 by Shri Labh Singh and Sh.Manmohan Singh). c) From 26.11.14 -Feeding Ground Floor and top floor (Electricity

onwards being drawn by Shri Labh Singh).

2) Connection in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh:-

Till 3.6.2010 - Ground Floor and Top Floor –Electricity drawn by Shri Bimaljeet Singh

3.6.2010 - PDCO on default.

3) Connection in the Name of Shri Manmohan Singh:

From 26.11.2014 - Feeding First Floor –Electricity being drawn

onwards by Shri Manmohan Singh.

21. Issues raised by the Complainant in the Rejoinder-cum-Arguments:-

(A) All the issues raised in his letter dated 9.3.2016 are discussed

parawise hereunder:.

Sr.

No.

Issues raised by the complainant Factual Position

1. That the respondent officer has

failed to supply the point wise reply against the appeal dated

14.05.2015 till date.

The respondent office supplied

the reply of the issues raised by the complainant though

there was delay in each and

every submission.

2. That the respondent officer did not

bother to disconnect the supply when the defaulting amount was not

paid by the user of the connection prior to handed over the possession

Ground Floor and Top Floor of the said house to Sh. Labh Singh S/o

Sh. Late Ishar Singh through Court

of Law by the behalf (Court Man) on 09.12.2013

It is a fact that the respondent

did not disconnected the supply as soon as the

consumer became defaulter. Even the connection of the

complainant was not disconnected when default in

payment occurred. (Between

14.5.2014 to 1.4.2015. Only one payment of Rs.13,000/-

(PP) was made on 6.10.2014).

3. That the respondent officer failed to

recover the pending amount from the previous tenant/ owner of the

connection i.e. Sh. Bimaljit Singh. Who was the tenant of the Ground

Floor and Top Floor of the house no.

It is also fact that the

defaulting amount was not recovered from the defaulter

tenant / surety who signed the application form. From the

documents placed before the

1215, Sector-8, Chandigarh or from

the witness who signed the form on the basis of the electricity

connection was issued in the name of Sh. Bimaljit Singh. It is also

mentioned here that when the connection in the name of Sh.

Bimaljit Singh was disconnected and PDCO was issued in the year 2010

against the account No. 0844/121501Y and meter no. 33390

why the huge pending amount was

not recovered by the officer of the electricity department for a long

time for which he is liable to be punished under the provision of the

electricity act cause by him giving loss to State exchequer.

Forum, it has, however, been

noticed that respondent SDO submitted an affidavit that the

record of Shri Bimaljeet was not traceable despite every

efforts made by them to trace the same.

There is no loss to state exchequer as full defaulting

amount alongwith annual surcharge stands recovered.

4. That as per Electricity Act-2003

Sec.56(2) no sum due from the

consumer can be recovered after a period of two years but the

respondent officer has failed to comply with this provision of the

Electricity Act 2003, for that he is liable to be punished under the

provision of Electricity Act.

Sub Section 56(2) restrains

the Licensee for disconnection

of electric supply whereas the main Section 56 clearly

provides that the supply of the defaulter is to be disconnected

and reconnected only after the outstanding dues are paid..

The Section 56 is reproduced below:-

Section 56 (Disconnection

of Supply in Default of Payment) - (1) Where any

person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any

sum other than a charge for

electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating

company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or

wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating

company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’

notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice

to his rights to recover the charge or other sum by suit,

cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or

disconnect any electric supply

line or other works being the property of such licensee or

the generating company through which electricity may

have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or

wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or

other sum, together with any

expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting

the supply, are paid, but no longer:

Provided that supply of

electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under

protest:-

(a) an amount equal to the

sum claimed from him, or (b) the electricity charges

due from him for each month calculated on the

basis of average charge for electricity paid by him

during the preceding six months,

whichever is less, pending

disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.

(2) Notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for

the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer,

under the section be recoverable after the period of

two years from the date when such sum became first due

unless such sum has been shown continuously as

recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied

and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the

electricity.

5. That in the instant case prior to filling the present complaint the

respondent has post the petitioner to sum of Rs. 39,200/- outstanding

in the name of Sh. Bimaljit Singh whereas he is accepted the amount

of Rs.33,092/- from one of the tenant of the said house i.e. Mr.

Manmohan Singh in the name of fresh connection was issued by the

respondent against account no.

0844/121502A meter no. CHSC-18527 without obtaining the consent

of the Owner/ legal heir of Sh. Labh Singh in violation of the condition

issued by the JERC.

The respondent has clarified that as on date of PDCO, the

defaulting amount was Rs.33,092/- which grew to

Rs.39200/- in 2014 with levy of 10% annual surcharge in

2014. The respondent further confirmed that amount

recovered from Shri Manmohan Singh was also

Rs.39,200/- as demanded

form the complainant.

The respondent stated that the Electricity connection to

Shri Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh was provided on

the basis of documents submitted by Shri Manmohan

Singh which included a

Registered WILL dated 21st August 2006 by Smt. Hukum

Kaur W/o Late Shri Ishar Singh. As per this WILL, Shri

Manmohan Singh was made sole and absolute owner of

share of Smt. Hukum Kaur in the immovable and moveable

property including her share in House No.1215, Sector 8-C,

Chandigarh.

With regard to complainant’s

argument that permission of landlord was not taken, we

have gone through the Supply Code Regulations 3.5 Sub

Regulations (3) which provides as under:-

” The consumer shall furnish,

along with the application form, attested true copies of

following documents. The licensee may ask for the

following original documents,

from the consumer, if required, for verification.

(a) Proof of ownership of the premises, such as

registered sale deed or partition deed or

succession or heir certificate or will of the

owner. OR

(b) Proof of occupancy such as Power of Attorney or

latest rent receipt or lease deed or rent agreement or

copy of allotment order

issued by the owner of the property. In case of supply

to agriculture/irrigation pump set, the copy of

Land Revenue receipt giving the Revenue Plot

No. of the field for which the supply is required. In

case of tenancy permission of landlord

along with proof of ownership of the premises.

” Shri Manmohan Singh

provided WILL towards proof

of ownership.

6. That the petitioner has received two

conflicting statement supplied by the respondent against a/c No.

0844/121501Y in the name of Sh. Bimaljit Singh in one under RTI

amounting to Rs. 39,200/- and secondly vide letter memo no. 613

dated 25.02.2016 amounting to Rs. 33,092/- it is a matter of great

surprise how and under what circumstances the two different

statements was issued by the

respondents. It shows his malafide attention for which he is again liable

to be punished under the provision of Electricity Act.

As already clarified

Rs.33,092/- is the principle amount at the time of

effecting PDCO on 3.6.2010 where as Rs.39,200/- is the

outstanding amount in 2014 after applying 10% annual

surcharge.

7. That the respondent in his reply dated 28.10.2015 stated that Rs.

3961/- dues as current bill as on 26.11.2014 whereas he is failed to

supply the complete and correct

account statement in respect of account no. 0844/121500X of Sh.

Ishar Singh House No. 1215, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh, whereas

the detail shown as unpaid amount is amounting to Rs. 97766/- as on

27.01.2014, Rs. 113682/- as on 27.07.2014 and Rs. 298843/- out of

which Rs. 12000/- has been deposited by the plaintiff vide

receipt no. 61236533 dated 01.04.2015 it is also mentioned

here the respondent did not approach to the Hon’ble CGRF with

clean hand. He is misleading the

plaintiff as well as this Hon’ble Forum by mentioning Rs. 3691/-

due on current bill as on 26.11.2014 whereas in the reply dated

28.10.2015 submitted under his signature the concealing the facts of

amounted to Rs. 12434/- during the period from 27.07.2014 to

27.09.2014, Rs. 44596/- for the period from 27.09.2014 to

27.11.2014 and Rs. 54632/- for the period from 27.11.2014 to

27.01.2015 copy of the statement supplied by the respondent vide is

letter dated 25.02.2016 in response

to the contempt petition filed against him.

The Forum could not reconcile the figures as stated by the

respondent or the complainant. However, it is

pertinent to mention here that

it does not matter what was the amount on a particular

date and will not affect the merits of the case whether the

amount was Rs.3961/- or something else. From the

details of payments made by the complainant and the

electricity bills raised against connection in the name of Shri

Ishar Singh, it has been noted that Rs.3961/- was

outstanding on 14.5.2014 i.e. around the time the complaint

approached the SDO for

release of a new connection for Ground and top floor and

not in Nov 2014 when a new connection was released to Sh

Manmohan Singh...

8. That it is very strange when the

Electricity user of house no. 1215, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh, Prior to

handed over the possession of 1st Floor and Top Floor of the said

There is a laxity on the part of

the respondent in issuing/ affecting the PDCO when Shri

Bimaljeet Singh defaulted in payment of the electricity bills.

house through court 09.12.2013 did

not pay the electricity bill regularly why the disconnection of the said

house was not done by the respondent officer which clearly

shows the malafide intention and put the loss to state exchequer only

with a view to give the benefit to the user of electricity connection i.e.

Manmohan Singh against account no. 0844/121502A or resigns best

known to the respondents for which

he is reliable to punish under the provision of electricity act.

It is, however, as per record

that the defaulting amount along with 10% annual

surcharge was ultimately recovered from Shri

Manmohan Singh when he demanded a new connection

at the same premises. The action of the respondent SDO

for demanding outstanding dues of Rs.39,200/- was right

as the new connection was

applied for the premises where defaulting amount was

outstanding. The same principle was followed in

respect of the complainant as well as Shri Manmohan Singh.

The complainant has himself

admitted that on denial of new connection by the Sub Division

they used the supply from the other account in the name of

Late Sh. Ishar Singh which is otherwise not permitted as per

regulations and the action was

“Unauthorised Use of Electricity” under section 126

of the Electricity Act, 2003 as the electricity connection was

extended to the premises or areas other than those for

which the supply of electricity was authorized. .

9. That further it is added to avoid the

further litigation amongst the user of Electricity connection which

stands in the name of Late Sh. Ishar Singh and on the basis of lawful

occupier of the premises being a son of the landlord an electric

connection was applied in the office of the AEE Op.2 On 23.04.2014 for

the portion in occupation of the petitioner. The connection was

refused by the said office & returned the papers on 28.05.2014 with the

objection to pay a outstanding dues of Rs. 39200/- due to the PDCO of

the connection in the name of Sh.

Bimaljit Singh which was not paid by the petitioner. Hence the papers of

the applied connection were returned. As the connection was

denied by the sub division the petitioner has no option except to

use the supply from the other a/c in the name of late Sh. Ishar Singh

The electricity department is

to recover the charges for the bills issued against the

particular connection. In case, more than one occupant uses

the same connection, it is the responsibility of the person in

whose name the connection exits to ensure that the

payments of the electricity bills are made on regular

basis. In the event of non agreement among the

occupants of the same connection and non receipt of

payments by the department,

the connection is to be disconnected. Thus inter

dispute are to be resolved by the co-occupants and owner of

the same electricity connection clearly bearing in

mind that in case of default in payment due to one reason or

which was being used by the other

occupant also i.e. Sh. Manmohan Singh. No payment was deposited

by him (Sh. Manmohan Singh). The petitioner has been making a part

payment in respect of supply used by him for the portion under his

occupation.

the other, the electricity

connection is likely to be disconnected.

10. That it is already mentioned as above the petitioner took the

possession of the portion of the house on the decision of the Court

through the belay of the court on 09.12.2013 & paying the charges of

the supply used for my portion regularly.

Keeping in view of the above facts & circumstances it is humbly request

that the award regarding non deposit of outstanding amount of

Rs. 71699/- along with other

surcharges imposed from time to time on the current bill for which

current amount of each bill has already deposited by the petitioner.

It is further requested that after perusal the After going through the

case & persuals of the documents supplied by the respondent officer

from time to time it has come to the conclusion that the respondent

office has given undue preference to the other occupant & the consumer

of 1st Floor due to the reason best known to the opposite party

(respondent) which proves the

malafide intension of the petitioner amounting to Rs. One lac may be

awarded in the interest if justice and fare practice of law. Any other

relief/ award in which is deemed by the Hon’ble Forum and against the

respondent to the causing as loss to the state exchequer by favouring

the one of the user/occupant of the Electricity connection i.e. Manmohan

Singh.

In the present case it is apparent that Shri Labh Singh

and Shri Manmohan Singh were drawing the electricity

from the Electricity Connection No.1 in the name of Shri Ishar

Singh till Shri Manmohan Singh got independent

connection in his name in the month of Nov.2014.

Thus the outstanding

amount against connection in

the name of Sh Ishar Singh has to be cleared by the

occupant(s) in order to avoid disconnection.. It has also

been noted that the outstanding amount is on

account of consumption recorded by the meter and

there is no dispute on that.

On the basis of documents placed before the Forum , it

does not appear to be a case of Malafide intension of the

respondent SDO as alleged by

the complaint

With regard to compensation of Rs.1 lac., it is stated that

Electricity Act 2003 and the Supply Code Regulations 2010

do not confer any Power on the CGRF Chandigarh to

provide these kind of compensation to the

victim/consumer.

(B) Application Dated 6.1.2016 of the Complainant regarding the Contempt of the CGRF Orders.

The complainant in his arguments submitted vide his letter 9.3.2016

has showed his dis-satisfaction to the reply submitted by the

respondent. Further he pointed out that the reply was submitted by

AEE instead of Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 from whom

the point-wise reply was sought. He also raised that on 6.1.2016, the

connection of the complainant was disconnected with malafide

intention to harass them and this was an act of contempt on the part

of respondent since they were paying the current consumption charges

regularly as per orders of the CGRF

The respondent SDO through written submissions clarified that

the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 6.1.2016 by

the official of his Sub division by mistake due to communication gap.

In fact the disconnection order was issued in respect of Shri

Manmohan Singh who defaulted in payment but the connection of Shri

Ishar Singh was disconnected. He further stated during the hearing

that as soon as the mistake was detected, the connection of Shri Ishar

Singh was restored on 6.1.2016 itself and the connection of Shri

Manmohan Singh was disconnected. It was also gathered during the

hearing that Shri Manmohan Singh subsequently cleared the defaulting

amount and his connection was restored. The respondent Xen as well

as SDO denied the allegations of the complainant that action was with

malafide intention. They regretted the same on behalf of the officials

of their office.

As per document provided by the SDO subsequently, the

connection of Shri Manmohan Singh was disconnected on 6.1.2016

and was restored on the same day after he made the payment of Rs

14,190/- through cheque.

With regard to demand of compensation of Rs.1 lac, it is pointed

out that as already mentioned above Electricity Act/ Supply Code do

not confer any such Power on the CGRF. The complainant may

approach the appropriate Courts/Tribunal within whose jurisdiction as

competency the matter relating to the compensation falls.

22. Conclusion & Decision:

Main Application:

On the basis of the facts of the case, it is seen that the defaulting

amount pertaining to Account No.0844/121501Y in the name of Shri

Ishar Singh are the consumption charges for the electricity used

against this connection. The responsibility of payment of these charges

lies with the person in whose name the electricity connection exist. It

does not matter to the respondent electricity department who is

making the payment of electricity bills being raised for the

consumption of electricity. In the present case, the defaulting amount

outstanding against connection in the name of Sh. Ishar Singh is to be

cleared, failing which the electricity connection is likely to be

disconnected. For period prior to release of independent connection to

Shri Manmohan Singh in Nov. 2014, it is among Shri Labh Singh and

Shri Manmohan Singh to divide the amount as per their use. Where

after whole of the electricity was being consumed by Shri Labh Singh,

the complainant. Thus in order to avoid disconnection of electricity, the

outstanding amount may be cleared in their own interest.

With regard to grant of Connection of Shri Manmohan Singh as

illegal (by the complainant), Forum is of the view that connection was

released after Shri Manmohan Singh cleared the defaulting amount

pertaining to premises (of Sh Bimaljeet Singh) as on date and

submitted the documents in line with the Supply Code for release of

new connection. The Forum does not find that any favour was done by

the electricity department in grant of electricity connection to Shri

Manmohan Singh vis-a vis to Shri Labh Singh. The allegations of

malafide intensions of the respondents as alleged by the complaint

could not be proved on the basis of documents placed before the

Forum.

Application of Contempt:

On the basis of submissions made by the respondent it

does not appear that the connection of Shri Ishar Singh was

disconnected with malafide intention. However, had the staff showed

disconnection order and informed the residents that their connection is

being disconnected due to defaulting payment; the mistake could have

been detected before the execution of disconnection.

The Forum has observed that the connection of Shri

Bimaljeet Singh was not disconnected immediately when he defaulted

the first payment. There is certainly laxity on the part of Sub Division

and the amount was allowed to grow. It is not an isolated case where

immediate action was not taken by the sub division. It has been seen

in many cases that the disconnection was not done promptly by the

Sub Divisions and the amount continued to grow further as the

consumer was consuming the electricity even after default. The CED is

directed to issue / reiterate instructions in line with Supply Code for

meticulous compliance.

With regard to demand of compensation, the malafide intensions

could not be proved. The complainant had not placed any evidence of

any mishap / loss due to disconnection for his connection on

6.01.2016. Generally when there is wilful disobedience to follow the

Orders, same is treated as Contempt. In present case there was no

such act on the part of respondent. They admitted that the

disconnection was by mistake and they tendered apology on behalf of

the staff. Moreover, as already stated above, CGRF has no

right/jurisdiction to award such compensation.

We have also observed that in the present case there were

some typographical errors as pointed out by the complainant. In the

present case as well as in other cases it has been seen that invariably

replies are not submitted by the Nodal Officers within 10 days as

prescribed in the Procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC. Even

sometimes the replies are filed by the SDO instead of the the

Executive Engineer who has been designated as Nodal Officer.

Accordingly, S.E. Electricity may impart suitable instructions to all

Nodal Officers to follow the Procedure Circulated by Hon’ble JERC in

letter and spirits.

23. With above observations and conclusions, the complainant is dismissed

The compliant may clear the outstanding amount against the connection

in the name of Sh. Ishar Singh within 21 days of issue of the orders

failing which the connection be disconnected by the nodal officer.









(JASWINDER SINGH) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF


OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING

UT, CHANDIGARH-160009

BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER

Complaint No. - GR-67/2016

Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016

In the matter to the Shri D.S. Khangwal, Manager, DPSP, NABARD, Sector-34, Chandigarh.

……………..Petitioner

Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,

Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.


As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.

ORDER

1. Instruction were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting

hearing vide Interim order dated 15.06.2016. The final orders could not be issued due

to lack of quorum.

2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The parties were telephonically

informed in advance. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and the

respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8.

The Forum in its sitting on 10.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by

the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.

3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the

complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 15.06.2016.

4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 15.06.2016 become final and

binding vide this majority order of the Forum.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may

make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for

JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd

Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,

Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the

date of receipt of this order.”

5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office

of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever

required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and

indexed after the same is put up to the Member.

(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri D.S.Khanagwal, Manager, DPSP, NABARD,

Sector-34, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No2,

Chandigarh. 2. AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Shri D.S. Khanagwal, Manager, DPSP, NABARD, Sector-34, Chandigarh through

his e-mail dated 4th May, 2016 stated that NABARD owns 70 flats in MNC,

Manimajra, Chandigarh. It was observed that bills are being dropped in the

respective boxes a day before/same day of the due date by cash. He stated

that this is almost regular feature and many times they faced difficulty in timely

depositing of the payment of the electricity bill.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-67/2016, was forwarded to the

Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2

vide letter dated 04.05.2016 for comments/action taken report.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 12.5.2016

submitted that the work of distribution of bills is being undertaken by M/s ATM

Services, Sector 40-D, U.T., Chandigarh. On taking up the matter with them

vide letter dated 10.5.2016, the firm informed on 11.5.2016 that electricity bills

to the houses of NABARD in Modern Housing Complex were delivered to the

consumers after appending the signatures on account of receipt of electricity

bills by the respective consumers. He attached copy of letter written to the firm

along with reply received from them and the photo copy of details of bills

delivered along with signatures of the consumers.

The SDO further stated that the bills are being issued to the consumers

as per provision in the Supply Code Regulations 2010 and further that

electricity bill are also available on the website which can be down loaded in

case of delayed delivery.

4. The reply received from the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 was forwarded to the

complainant for his information and feedback, if any.

5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.6.2016. The consumer did not

attend. The SDO submitted that the bills were being delivered to the consumers

of Manimajra through Private Firm after obtaining signatures of the consumers

and prayed for disposal of the complaint.

6. Observing that the bills were being delivered after obtaining signatures of the

consumers and not merely dropped in the boxes as stated by the complainant,

the Forum found no merit in the complaint and thus dismiss the same. The

Nodal Officer is, however, directed to ensure that the bills are delivered at least

a week prior to due date of payment enabling the consumer to make the

payment timely.

7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would

be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his

opinion.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity

Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016

(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to

the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for

compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after

having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the

Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF



ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING


BEFORE : ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON

SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.



In the matter to Shri Gaurav Garg, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1,

UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.


As per Chairman, Shri R.K. Arora

ORDER

1. Shri Gaurav Garg, resident of Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 18 May, 2016 raised his concern

about poor consulting facilities available with the Electricity Department.

He submitted that for about one hour he was trying to contact getting

busy tone when trying to contact the Customer Care No.2734014. He

requested for provision for more telephone lines for lodging the

complaints.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-78/2016 was forwarded to

the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division

No. 2 vide letter dated 18.5.2016 for comments. A copy was also sent to

the complainant, with the request to submit written complaint within five

days as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.

3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 through his letter dated

2.6.2016 submitted that there are two Customer Care Nos. 0172-2734014

and 9876018708 which are in working position at Complaint Centre of his

office and are manned 24x7 hours. With regard to allegations that the

telephone was busy for one hour, he submitted that there was remote

possibility of remaining the telephone busy for one hour. He further

added that he had already directed the concerned staff not to keep

Customer Care Telephone number busy for long time to avoid the public

harassment. However, due to large number of complaints during

rainy/storming season the Customer Care Number remains busy for most

of the time.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The complainant did not

attend. RA present on behalf of the Sub Division submitted that there are

2 telephone number for lodging the complaints. In addition, to facilitate

the general public for lodging their grievances regarding power supply

and street light, a Centralised Cell has been created at Sector-9, Head

office which is working round the clock with multiple lines with telephone

No. (0172-4639999) OPs are also directed to widely publish and display

this number for public convenience.

5. In view of the details provided by the Sub Division, the Forum considered

the complaint as disposed off in aforementioned terms, vide this

majority order.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the

Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya

Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:













In the matter to the Corporate Incentive Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 823, First Floor, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER


hearing vide Interim order dated 27.07.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to

lack of quorum.


























Date of Order - 27.07.2016 In the matter to the M/s Corporate Incentive Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 823,

1st floor, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.

2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. M/s Corporate Incentive Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SXO 823, 1st Floor, NAC, Manimajra,

Chandigarh through their application dated 26.5.2016 pointed out that they received a

bill amounting to Rs.5,35,832/- which is very much on higher side as compared to past

billing. The matter was taken up with the Sub Division and after verified of the reading,

amended the bill to Rs.51,604/-. The applicant submitted that even this amount is on

higher side as the period pertains to winter season when only light load was used. He

requested for resolving the issue of excess bill.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-90/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal

Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated

31.5.2016 for comments/action taken report along with consumption data with a copy

to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 10.6.2016,

submitted that the meter of the consumer got burnt and was replaced on 5.6.2015. In

the advice sent to Computer Centre regarding MCO, the initial reading of new replaced

meter was inadvertently shown as 00122 instead of 97213. In fact ‘00122’ was meter

number. Thereafter the energy bills for the period up to 23.10.2015 were issued on

average basis with I Code i.e. ‘n Consisting Reading.’ The next bill for the period

23.10.2015 to 23.12.2015 was issued for 107340 units due to the wrong feeding of

initial reading. When the consumer challenged the bill, the mistake was detected and the

office after verification of the reading on 29.4.2016, revised the bills and refund of

Rs.5,05,656/- was allowed vide sundry on 3.5.2016m to be reflected in the next billing

cycle. The overhauled bill amounting to Rs.51,604/- is for the period of 6 months which

is correct and liable to be paid by the consumer. Copy of MCO and consumption pattern

of the consumer was also enclosed with the reply.

4. The reply of the Sub Division was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 15.6.2016

for his information and feedback, if any.

5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the applicant did not attend. The

SDO along with his RA were present during the hearing stated that the revised bill

amounting to Rs.51,604/- is correct and required to be paid by the complainant.

6. From the consumption data, the Forum observed that the average consumption of the

complainant during summer months was in the range of 1800 units where as during the

period from April to October 2015 the bills were issued on average for 532, 962 and 609

units respectively for the period of two months. The actual consumption was however

much more as depicted in the table below:-

Period Reading Bill issued for Actual

consumption on

the basis of

recorded reading

Less units

charged.

Initial Final Units Reason/Code Units (Col.E-Col.C)

A B C D E F

April to June

2015

122

(MCO)

150 532 I (Av.) From 5.6.15

(MCO) to 23.8.16

IR-97213, New

Reading -103390

= 6177 Units.

6177 – (532+

962)=4683

Units June to

Aug.2015

150 103390 962 I (Av)

Aug to

Oct.2015

150 106252 609 I( Av) 106252-103390

=2862 Units

2862 - 609=

2253 Units

Oct. to

Dec.2015

150 107490 107340 Z (On the

basis of

reading)

107490- 106252

=1238 Units

Excess Units

(107340)

charged which

have been

adjusted after

overhauling.

7. From the above table, it is seen that from the date of MCO to 23.10.2015, the consumer

was billed for only 532+962+609=2103 Units against actual consumption of 9039

(6177+2862) units on the basis of readings taken by the Meter Reader but not used for

billing. Thus less charging of around 7000 units was found which reflected in the revised

bill for the period 23.10.2015 to 23.12.2015 amounting to Rs.51,604/-. The Forum,

therefore, concludes that the bill revised by the Sub Division is in order and dismiss the

complaint as no merit was found int he submissions made in the application.

8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put

up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.











(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Chanchal Sehdev, Shop No. 0534, Mohalla Darshani Bagh, Manimajra, Chandigarh..


Versus





ORDER



to lack of quorum.



























Date of Institution - 12.01.2016


In the matter to Shri Chanchal Sehdev, Shop No.0534, Mohalla Darhani Bagh, Manimajra,

Chandigarh.

…………..Petitioner

Versus




Interim Order

1. A Group of Persons working as the Goldsmith workers in Shop No.534, Aman Market, Main

Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh submitted representation dated 11.1.2016, received in the

office of CGRF on 12.1.2016. It has been submitted that the supply of the building was

disconnected due to non payment of inflated bill amounting to Rs.1,18,000/- which was very

much on higher side as compared to bills being received in the past. It was prayed that the

electricity supply be restored and the bill be corrected in order to avoid loss to be suffered by

the Goldsmith workers.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-06/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal Officer

i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated 14.01.2016

for comments/action taken report with a copy to the complainant.

3. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 submitted the reply duly countersigned by the

Nodal Officer. He submitted that the electricity bills of the complainant for the period

22.9.2013 to 22.11.2014 were issued on average basis as the meter became defective. The

meter was replaced vide MCO dated 30.12.2014 affected on 05.01.2015. Thereafter the

consumer applied for extension of load from 1.920 KW to 9.920 KW on 9.3.2015 and three

phase meter was installed vide SCO dated 7.4.2015 affected on 12.5.2015. He also

submitted that the electricity connection is in the name of Shri Chanchal Sehdev and he

also gave an undertaking regarding depositing the dues of the previous owner at the time,

he applied for change of name. The consumer account was overhauled for the period

22.9.2013 to 12.5.2015 on the basis of previous one year consumption from 22.9.2012 to

22.9.2013 @ 1430 units per month. As a result Rs.73178/- was charged through sundry on

24.3.2015 after adjusting the amount already paid. He enclosed copy of MCO, Copy of

SCO, Undertaking by Shri Chanchal Sehdev, consumption data of both the Accounts along

with the reply. He also pointed out that the consumer was not paying the electricity bills

regularly and only Rs.40,000/- was paid on 13.01.2016.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 16.2.2016. The complainants along with RA of

the Sub Division attended the hearing. The complainants submitted that they are tenants in

the shop and have separate sub meter out of the main electricity connection. They were

making payments to the owner regularly on the basis of consumption of their sub meter. It

was also submitted that probably payments made by them during the period meter remained

defective was not accounted for. The Nodal Officer, Addl. S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2

was directed to provide details of the bills raised along with the payments made by the

consumer before the next date of hearing fixed for tentatively on 18.3.2016 which was

subsequently revised to 28.3.2016 vide letter dated 3.3.2016.

5. In response, AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 10.3.2016 confirmed

that the amount paid by the consumer was adjusted at the time of overhauling of the

account. He also supplied a copy of Sundry Allowance Register through which the amount

of less assessment was charged.

6. On 28.3.2016, the owner of the shop namely Shri Chanchal Sehdev in whose name the

electricity connection exists appeared along with some of the tenants who submitted the

complaint. After deliberations, on the issue of reconciliation of payments made by the

complainants and the bills issued by the Electricity Department, no consensus could be

reached. In order to reconcile the bills issued by the department and the payments made by

the owner/complainants, the SDO was directed to provide the details of the payment

received. The complainants were also directed to provide the details of the bills received

from July 2013 onwards. The owner/complainants also agreed to pay the current bill

charges along with Rs.50,000/-out of disputed amount.

7. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his subsequent letter dated 2.6.2016 supplied the

account statement in respect of payments made w.e.f. Nov. 2004 to March, 2016. He also

stated that the account statement was handed over to the consumer’s representative on

29.3.2016 as per directions given during the hearing on 28.3.2016. The payments

made/bills issued were reconciled and thereafter the consumer deposited a sum of

Rs.70,000/- on 20.4.2016.

8. On the next date of hearing on 27.7.2016. some of the complainants attended the hearing

and requested for wavier off surcharge. They stated that they are tenants and were paying

their share as per the sub meter reading to the owner during the period electricity meter of

the department was defective. The average being charged in the bills was quite on lower

side as compared to actual consumption in the past. The owner was supposed to make the

payment of the amount being charged through sundry after overhauling of the account

during the period meter remained defective but he did not pay and they were forced to pay.

Since they would have suffered in the event of connection getting disconnected due to non

payment of the electricity dues. Though they had already paid the amount of short

assessment to the owner yet they again paid same amount to the electricity department.

The owner did not attend the hearing as such it was not possible to have his comments on

the submissions made by the complainants. The SDO and RA present on behalf of

respondent licensee submitted that there was some amount still to be cleared against the

electricity connection. The complainants promised to clear the pending amount of the

electricity department. The SDO/RA in response to query by the complainants confirmed

that the part payment was being deposited by the complainants and not by the owner.

9. The Forum on the basis of data provided by the Sub Division observed that the Sub Division

overhauled the account up to 12.5.2015, the date on which the Single Phase connection

was converted to 3 phase connection and not up to date of MCO i.e. 5.1.2015. After

affecting the MCO, the bills were being issued on the basis of readings and as such unless

the replaced meter is declared defective. The overhauling of account from 15.1.2015 to

12.5.2015 is not in order. On perusal of the SCO, it has been seen that there are no

remarks about replaced single phase meter being defective. The base adopted for

charging i.e. consumption recorded during the past one year from 22.9.2012 to 22.9.2015

for overhauling the period however is in line with the Supply Code Regulations.

10. In view of above observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled

again for the period from 22.9.2013 to date of MCO i.e. 5.1.2015. For the period 5.1.2015 to

12.5.2015, the billing already done on the basis of meter reading be considered as final. The

Forum also noted that the complainants had to make double payment as the owner though

agreed before the Forum in one of the hearing, did not make the payment and forced the

complainants to make the payment in order to avoid disconnection. The Forum considered

the request made by the complainants for waiver off the surcharge amount and allow the

same on sympathetic ground. The Nodal Officer is directed not to levy any surcharge on the

amount charged. However, the refund/reversal of surcharge is to be considered only after

defaulting amount against this connection is cleared.

11. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put up

to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”





(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Vinod Kumar, Khokha No.16A, Main Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER



to lack of quorum.


























Date of Order - 27.07.2016 In the matter to Shri Vinod Kumar, Khoka No.16A, Main Bazar, Manimajra,

Chandigarh.

…………..Petitioner

Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Vinod Kumar, Khokha No.16A, Main Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his

representation dated 7.6.2016 submitted that his bills for tailoring shop in the past were

quite on higher side. He deposited fee of Rs.10/- on 10.4.2015, again RS.10/- on

8.10.2015 and Rs.250/- on 27.1.2016 for challenging the bill/meter. Despite his

depositing the fee, the bills being issued to him are on higher side and have not been

corrected by the Sub Division.


Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated

8.6.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016 provided

the details of the bills issued for the period 25.4.2015 to 25.12.2015 as under:-

Period Meter Reading Unit SOP ED Status

of

meter

Remarks

From To Old New

25.4.15 25.6.15 5629 6532 903 4024 99 Z

25.6.15 25.8.15 6532 7208 1455 6784 160 Z

25.8.15 25.10.15 7208 - 703 3104 77 D

25.10.15 25.12.15 6 35 29 125 3 Y New Meter No.

CHIE224728

He further submitted that the meter was replaced on 18.11.2015 with the final

reading of the removed meter as 6063. Based on the actual reading of the removed

meter as per MCO, the consumer account was overhauled from 25.4.2015 to 18.11.2015

and refund of Rs.13182/- is to be allowed to the complainant, to be reflected in the next

billing. Copy of MCO as well as consumption details were also enclosed with the reply.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the applicant as well as SDO along

with his RA were present. The SDO explained that the account of the complainant was

overhauled as per the final reading of the removed meter. He also submitted that the

complainant did not make any payment after June 2015. The complainant appeared to

be satisfied but requested for the refund of fees deposited by him towards challenge of

bill/meter amounting to Rs.270/-. He also requested for non levy of surcharge during

disputed period as wrong bills were being issued to him on fictitious readings for which

he deposited requisite challenge fees. During deliberations, it was also noted that in the

new bill to be delivered to the complainant, the additional amount of ACD has also been

included. The SDO was directed to ensure that the revised ACD is calculated on the basis

of actual consumption and not on the basis of wrong bills issued to the complainant.

5. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to ensure:-

i) That the fee deposited by the complainant is refunded.

ii) Correct amount of ACD on the basis of overhauled account is charge.

iii) No levy of surcharge during disputed period.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which

the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity

Act 2003.

6. With above directions, the complaint is considered as disposed.

7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put

up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.











(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Branch, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER



lack of quorum.























UT, CHANDIGARH-160009 BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON



In the matter to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Branch, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Brach, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his e-

mail dated May 18, 2016 pointed out that there was serious phase problem and

short circuits in the electrical system. A complaint was lodged on 17.5.2016 and

thereafter they continued to call since 11.00 AM but nobody came to attend the

problem. On 18th May 2016, they again lodged a complaint but in vain. On

night of 17.5.2016 there occurred a short circuit due to phase problem. It was

requested to direct the electricity department to attend the problem on priority.



vide letter dated 18.5.2016 for comments/feedback, with a copy to the

Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Branch, Manimajra, with the request to submit

a written complaint within five days as per the procedure circulated by the

Hon’ble JERC.

3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 08.6.2016,

submitted that the complaint by the applicant was received on 17.5.2016 at

14.10 hrs. as per Complaint Register. Due to heavy storm and rain which had

occurred during last night, there were number of breakdowns for which

complaints were lodged at the Complaint Centre. On 17.5.2016 itself, 55 Nos.

complaints were lodged. The complaint staff on reaching premises of the

complainant at 15.30 hrs noted that one No. phase was missing from the pole.

For attending the fault the street light boom ladder was required. The same was

not available at that time as it was attending another breakdown. On early

morning of 18.5.2016, maintenance staff set right the problem with the help of

boom ladder and the proper supply was restored. The SDO further submitted

that he had already directed the complaint centre staff not to keep any

complaint pending to avoid public harassment. In the present case the delay in

attending the complaint probably occurred due to large number of complaints

occurring simultaneously due to rain/storms.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the applicant did not

attend. The applicant had not submitted written complaint as already requested.

The SDO re-iterated his written submissions. On going through e-mails of the

complainant, it has been observed that time taken to attend the faults was on higher side. On

the basis of these observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to look into the

existing system and take effective steps including deployment of additional staff

on temporary basis particularly during summer period to ensure that the

complaints regarding power supply failure are attended promptly.



opinion.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC

Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-

[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF




BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON

SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER



In the matter to Sh. Anil Kumar Chopra, House No. 3113, Sector 32-

D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

6. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting


lack of quorum.

7. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The parties were informed in

advance vide letter dated 9.08.2016 On the date of hearing, the complainant did not

appear and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub

Divn.No.8.

















(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)



From

The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum,

Room No. 531, 5th Floor,

U.T., Secretariat, Deluxe Building,

Sector 9-D, Chandigarh

To

The Addl Superintending Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,

Chandigarh.

Memo No. CGRF/GR-55/2016

Dated Chandigarh, the

Subject:- Complaint regarding Exorbitant Electricity Bill dated

6.4.2016 of House No. 5607, MHC, PH-III A/C No.

208/MA71/560700E of Sub Division No.8.Proceedings of

hearing conducted on 5.5.2016 – Interim Order.

The subject cited case was deliberated on 5.5.2016 in the

presence of SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and the complainant Shri Anil Kumar

Chopra.

The SDO submitted written reply to the complaint dated

20.4.2016. The SDO submitted that for period of one year during 2013-14,

the meter remained defective, average was charged on the basis of

sanctioned load i.e. 23.720 KW @ 50 units per month/Per KW =1200 Units

Per Month by the Internal Auditor of the Sub Division (for 12 months of

meter remaining defective). A notice was also served to the consumer on

29.2.2016 for depositing the assessed amount of Rs.58,431/- charged by

the Internal Auditor.

The complainant objected to the charging done on the basis of

connected load and submitted that the same should be charged on the basis

of past consumption.

The Forum observed that the Supply Code Regulation does not

provide overhauling of the account on the basis of sanctioned load during

the period meter remained defective. SDO’s attention was invited towards

the relevant regulation 8.1(16). Respondent SDO was directed to overhaul

the account on the basis of corresponding/past consumption. The SDO,

however, submitted that the past consumption is not consistent/reliable and

as such requested for overhauling the account on the basis of future

consumption. The complainant stated that during the period meter was

defective, the premises was occupied by a different tenant and as such

overhauling should be done on the basis of his consumption prior to meter

becoming defective and not on the basis of future consumption which

pertains to a different tenant. With a view to settle the case, the

complainant, however, ultimately agreed for overhauling the account on the

basis of future consumption as suggested by the SDO.

In view of above, the amount already charged to the consumer

is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate the amount to be

charged for 12 months the meter remained defective on the basis of future

consumption during the corresponding period. The Forum also noted that as

per directions of the CGRF issued vide letter dated 20.4.2016, the

complainant made payment of Rs.30,000/- out of the disputed amount of

Rs.58,431/-. Compliance be reported within 21 days.

DA/ - CHAIRMAN (CGRF)

Endst.No : CGRF/Comp-GR-55/2016/ Dated :

1. Copy is forwarded to the SDO, Elecy.’OP’ Sub Division No.8, Chandigarh for

information and necessary action please.

2. Copy is forwarded to Shri Harish Tandon, Duplex No.5607, Modern Housing

Complex, Phase-III, Manimajra, Chandigarh for information please.

3. Copy is forwarded to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, House No.3113, Sector 32-D,

Chandigarh for information please.







In the matter to Shri Ram Kumar, House No.31/19, Manimajra Town, Chandigarh.


Versus




As per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.

ORDER



lack of quorum.



























In the matter to Shri Ram Kumar, House No.31/19, Manimajra Town,

Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,

Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Shri Ram Kumar, resident of House No. 31/19, Bank Colony, Manimajra

Town, Chandigarh through his complaint dated 4.4.2016 submitted that

he has been receiving bills on average basis since December 2015.

Despite his visit to the Sub Division, his bills were not corrected as per

reading and amount already deposited was not adjusted.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-47/2016, was forwarded

to the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’

Division No. 2 vide letter dated 18.4.2016 for supplying para-wise

comments with a copy to the complainant.

3. In response, Asstt. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8

vide his letter dated 18.4.2016 submitted that the bill for the period

18.10.2015 to 18.12.2015 was issued on average due to in consistent

reading. The next bill was issued on actual reading which was challenged

by the consumer. The reading was got verified and found to be 11044 on

19.3.2016. Though in the bill the current reading was indicated as

16919. Based on the verified reading the electricity bill of the consumer

was rectified and refund of Rs.28306/- was allowed through sundry dated

18.4.2016.

4. The reply of the Sub Division was forwarded to the complainant for his

information and feedback.

5. The complainant vide his letter dated 3.5.2016 showed his satisfaction to

the action taken by the Sub Division, with regard to redressal of his

complaint.

6. The complaint was notified for hearing n 18.5.2016, the complainant did

not attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the

grievance of the complainant has already been redressed.

7. The Forum observed that the complaint of the complainant had already

been redressed by the concerned Sub Division to his satisfaction

promptly.

8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put

up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is

finally disposed.








record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the

same is put up to the Member.

(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON, CGRF




BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.



In the matter to Shri Deepak Jain, SCO No.825, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT,

Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.


As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.

ORDER

1. Shri Deepak Jain, resident of House No. 20, Sector 8, Panchkula vide his letter

dated 9.6.2016 stated that he had filed a complaint against Electricity

Department for charging arrears from 23.6.2000 to 23.5.2002 for SCO No.825,

NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh. An Arbitrator was appointed but no relief was

provided, resulting into levy of surcharge on the charged amount.


the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.

2 vide letter dated 13.6.2016 for supplying parawise comments and

feedback along with consumption data with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 21.6.2016

submitted that the electricity connection for SCO No.825, NAC, Manimajra

stands in the name of Shri Rajinder Jain with sanctioned load of 8.650 KW

under NRS category. The dispute raised by the complainant relates to

average charges for the period 23.6.2000 to 23.5.2002 @ 702 units per

month on the basis of consumption recorded during the period June 1999 to

2000 with short assessment of RS.90155/-. The case was referred to

Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer, Electricity Operation Circle, U.T.,

Chandigarh vide order dated 29.8.2012. As per the order the bill was

revised, the outstanding amount was transferred to the present connection

being same consumer at the same premises. He also supplied the

consumption data for the period 23.12.1999 to 23.8.2004 and the arbitration

orders.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 27.2.2016. Though SDO and RA

were present, the complainant did not attend. As such a fresh opportunity

was given to the complainant and the case was renotified for hearing on

10.8.2016.

5. On the date of hearing on 10.8.2016, the complainant as well as RA of the

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 were present. The complainant submitted that

though he represented on charges levied vide an application dated 22.3.2005

before S.E. Electy. ‘OP’ Circle, U.T., Chandigarh, his case was disposed off by

the Arbitrator vide order dated 29.8.2012. Subsequently he filed an

application with the CGRF on 6.2.2014. After waiting for about more than

one year he again filed a fresh application on 9.6.2016. He raised the issue

of levy of surcharge during the period his application remained pending with

the Arbitrator or with CGRF.

6. The Forum after going through the records observes as under:-

i) The order of the Arbitrator confirmed that an application was filed on

22.3.2005 on the charges levied on account of overhauling of the

account during the period meter remained defective.

ii) The Arbitration order also indicates that the concerned file of the

Arbitration was misplaced and could be traced only in the month of

August 2012 where after the case was disposed off on 29.8.2012 with

the following order.

“Therefore, from the above submission, I do not find any merit

in the plea of claimant. The average charged is appropriate and correct and accordingly, the issue no (ii) is decided in

favour of the respondent. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of cost. If consumer has paid the current electricity bill in time, no surcharge should be levied and the

account of the consumer be overhauled accordingly.”

The applicant along with his application supplied copy of letter of CGRF

dated 6.2.2014 inviting para-wise com

ments/action taken report on the representation of the consumer

dated 6.2.2014. This representation also appears to be misplaced.

iii) The short assessment charged through sundry was Rs.90155/- out of

which the complainant deposited Rs.49000/- under protest. Where

after it was agreed to refer the matter for arbitration.

7. The Forum on the basis of above facts of the case and the consumption data

submitted by the SDO, concludes that the charges levied by the Sub Division

after overhauling of the account during the period meter was defective are

appropriate. However, the Forum finds merits in submissions made by the

applicant that exceptionally long time was taken by the Arbitrator/CGRF to

dispose off his representation, resulting into the levy of bi-monthly

surcharges which has become huge amount on date. This Forum decides

that no surcharge be levied from the date, the complainant first filed his

representation on 22.3.2005 as mentioned in the orders of the Arbitrator.

However, in case applicant defaulted in making payment of the current cycle

charges during the period 22.3.205 to date, surcharge be levied only on the

arrears of the current cycle charges. Compliance be reported within 21 days

after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by

Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003

8. With above decision and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed

off in aforementioned terms.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum

may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016

(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this

order.”

9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent

to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for


having it properly numbered and indexed.








In the matter to Shri Davinder Pal Singh Brar, House No. 301-C, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.

2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.


As per Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.

ORDER

1. Shri Davinder Pal Singh Brar, resident of House No.301-C, Sector 51-A,

Chandigarh through his application dated 4.5.2016 stated that for the last one

and a half year his electricity meter was defective, which has now been

replaced. The old defective meter recorded the consumption of 11506 units

during the period Jan. to July 2014 which was much more than his average

consumption of 500-700 units for a cycle of two months. He apprehended that

this inflated consumption could be on account of meter jumping. The Sub

Division after overhauling the account for the period meter remained defective

levied sundry charges of Rs.84911/-. He stated that the inflated consumption

due to jumping of meter was also included resulting into higher sundry charges

much more than the average consumption. He prayed for reversal of sundry

charges of Rs.84,911/-.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-64/2016 was forwarded to the

Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter

dated 4.5.2016 for comments and feedback along with consumption data

with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was allowed to make the

payment of Rs.30,000/- of the disputed amount plus current cycle charges.

Suitable directions in this regard were also imparted to the Nodal Officer i.e.

not to disconnect the connection till disposal of the case.

3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated

2.6.2016, with a copy to the Nodal Officer, submitted the reply. He stated

that defective electricity meter was replaced on 25.1.2016 being dead stop.

The average for the period meter remained dead/stop has been charged

w.e.f. 16.7.2014 to 25.1.2016 @ 1109 units per month on the basis of

previous consumption of one year from 7/2013 to 7/2014. The short

assessment of Rs.84911/- was charged through sundry. He enclosed photo

copy of MCO, consumption data and details of assessment.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.6.2016 but the complainant did

not attend. Another opportunity was afforded on 21.7.2016 but again

complainant did not attend. On the next date of hearing on 11.8.2016, the

complainant, SDO and RA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant

raised that the consumption of 11506 during the period Jan. to July 2014

was on account of meter jumping and should be excluded for calculating the

average. The SDO on the other hand stated that recorded consumption of

11506 units could be due to accumulation or inadvertently wrong recording

of reading by Meter Reader/typing error.

5. From the consumption data supplied by the respondent, the Forum noted the

readings recorded by the Meter reader on various dates as under:-

Period Initial Reading

Final Reading

Consumption Code

7/2014 to 9/2014 42722 42528 194 Z

5/2014 to 7/2014 42528 31022 11506 Z

3/2014 to 5/2014 - 31022 602 4 Months A

1/2014 to 3/2014 42096 31022 602 I

11/2013 to 1/2014 31022 30488 534 Z

6. From the above, it is clear that the meter recorded consumption of 11704

units during Jan 2014 to March 2014 (Final Reading 42096-iR 31022).

However, as the consumption was much more than the average consumption

of 600-700 units, the reading was ignored and bill was prepared on average

units 602 units considering reading as ‘Inconsistent’. The next bill for the

period March to May 2014 was again prepared on average basis. The

reading in July 2014 (as recorded by Meter Reader) was 42528 which

indicates that from march 2014 to July 2014 (4 months) the meter recorded

432 units only (42528-42096). From the above analysis, it is clear that

during the period Jan. to March 2014 inflated consumption of more than

11000 units were recorded where as during next 4 months only 432 units

were recorded during summer period when normal consumption is generally

1.5 times average consumption. This clearly indicates that the meter

became defective during the period Jan 2014 to March 2014.

9. In view of above, sundry charges levied by the Sub Division are set aside.

The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account again for the period

1/2014 to date of MCO on the basis of consumption recorded during the

period 1/2013 to 1/2014. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the

receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble

JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.


off in afore mentioned terms.


may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC

Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this

order.”













In the matter to Shri Jatinder Kumar, House No.2419, Sector 52,

Chandigarh.


Versus




As per Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora

ORDER

1. Shri Jatinder Kumar, resident of House No.2419, Sector-52, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 21.7.2016 submitted that his domestic bill is

increasing with passage of time and desired to know about ACD charges

levied in the bill.



Division No. 4 vide letter dated 21.7.2016 for comments and feedback

along with consumption data with a copy to the complainant. The

complainant through e-mail, with the request to submit written

complaint as per the procedure followed by Hon’ble JERC.


9.8.2016 with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that Rs.833/- was

charged in the bill on account of difference in existing and new ACD.

He also provided the details of calculation of ACD and reason review of

ACD every year.

4. The complainant through his e-mail dated July 22, 2016 after visiting

the Sub Division showed his satisfaction and conveyed his thanks for

information provided to him.

5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant

did not attend. The concerned SDO along with RA present during the

hearing re-iterated his written submissions.

6. The Forum considering that the complainant showed his satisfaction to

the explanation provided by the SDO, the complaint is considered as

disposed of being fully satisfied.



Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,














Complaint No. - GR-110/GR-115/2016


In the matter to Smt. Diksha Dutt, House No. 3091/2, Sector 44-D,

Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Smt. Diksha Dutt through her e-mail dated June 21, 2016 informed that

the voltage in House No. 3091/2, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh is generally

very low. She requested for taking appropriate action for improving the

voltage in the area.



Division No. 4 vide letter dated 22.6.2016 for comments and

feedback. A copy of the complaint was sent to the complainant, with

the request to submit written complaint as per the procedure followed

by Hon’ble JERC. The complainant subsequently through her e-mail

dated June 24, 2016 again sent a similar e-mail without giving

reference of her earlier e-mail dated June 21, 2016. Inadvertently, the

complaint is registered as Complaint No.115 which be read along with

GR-110/2016 and was forwarded to the Nodal Officer on 28.6.2016 for

comments.


8.7.2016 with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that the low

voltage problem of the consumer was due to burning of feeding service

cable and loose ‘T’ Joint. The same was set right and consumer

showed her satisfaction to the service provided by the department.


did not attend. The concerned SDO along with RA present during the

hearing submitted that the problem of the consumer was set right and

consumer showed her satisfaction.

5. The Forum observed that the problem of the consumer has already

been solved, the complaint is considered as disposed, as being fully

satisfied.


Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the














Complaint No. - GR-112/2016 Date of Institution - 22.06.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016 In the matter to Shri Madan Lal, House No.2320-B, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



As per Member, Shri Jaswinder Sidhu

ORDER

1. Shri Madan Lal, resident of House No.2320B, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh vide his

representation dated 21.06.2016 submitted that he received electricity bill dated

12.8.2015 where in penalty of RS.12016/- was imposed. The complainant has

claimed that meter was burnt out, therefore, and was running fast. Requesting the

reverse of excess amount collected by the department shown as arrears and

penalty.


Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated

21.7.2016 for comments and feedback along with consumption data with a copy

to the complainant. In the mean time, the complainant through his e-mail dated

July 14, 2016 enquired about the latest development in the case.

3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 21.7.2016

with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that the complainant had challenged

the working of the meter installed at his premise. Accordingly vide SJO

No.303/379 dated 21.10.2015 a check meter was installed which showed the

meter of the complainant was registering 29.25% excess readings. The

necessary analysis of meter change order as well as detailed consumption since

2013 have been annexed with the reply. The respondent has also asked the

complainant to pay the electricity energy charges till the completion of one year

period after which account of the complainant would be overhauled on the basis

of last six months billing cycle.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant attend the

proceedings. The SDO along with his RA were also present. The matter was

deliberated at length and it was agreed that overhauling of the account of the

complainant be made after completion of one year of replaced meter. The

complainant was also directed to deposit Rs.5000./- in addition to current cycle

charges as per his consumption for remaining two cycles of completion of one

year of the MCO.

5. In view of above, the Nodal officer is directed to get the account overhaul

immediately after one year consumption of the replaced meter is available. The

connection of the complainant should not be disconnected in case the

complainant makes payment of current consumption charges plus Rs.5000/- per

bill.

6. The complaint is considered as disposed off in aforementioned terms.

The Forum considering that the complainant showed his satisfaction to the explanation provided by the SDO, the complaint is considered as disposed.“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”













In the matter to Dr. Geeta Gahlawat, House No.157-A, Sector 42-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Dr. Geeta Gahlawat, resident of House No. 157-A, Sector 42-A,

Chandigarh through her e-mail dated July 15, 2016 stated that they have

been receiving erratic power supply since last few weeks, with situation

becoming worse after 10.00 PM. When she called the Complaint Office in

Sector-43 on 15th July 2016, she was told that problem could be due to

over loading. She requested for taking appropriate action to improve the

quality of power supply.



Division No. 4 vide letter dated 18.7.2016 for comments and feedback

along with consumption. A copy was also sent to the complainant, with

the request to submit written complaint as per the procedure followed

by Hon’ble JERC.


27.7.2016, with a copy to the Nodal Officer, submitted that the voltage

fluctuation problem at the residence of the complainant was due to the

burning of red phase contact of the main switch installed at the

consumer premises. As this was the internal fault which was to be

rectified by the consumer herself but the same was rectified and the

problem of consumer was resolved. Consumer gave her written

consent in this regard showing her satisfaction.


did not attend. The fact of attending the fault to her satisfaction by the

sub division has not been controverted by the complainant. The

concerned SDO along with RA present during the hearing stated that

the grievances of the consumer have already been redressed.

5. The Forum observed that the grievances of the consumer has already

been resolved, the complaint is considered, as being fully satisfied.















Complaint No. - GR-109/2016 Date of Institution - 20.6.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016 In the matter to Shri Pritam Singh Saini, House No.1219, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER

1. Shri Pritam Singh Saini, Additional Advocate General Haryana, Punjab & Haryana

High Court, Chandigarh through his representation dated June 20, 2016 submitted

that the bill dated 20.4.2016 included an amount of Rs.9775/- as sundry charges.

He requested for providing the details of the charges levied stating that the same is

not payable by him and the possession of the house is Jan. 2000, after he

purchased the said house from Shri K.G. Chaudhary.



21.7.2016 for comments and feedback along with consumption data with a copy

to the complainant.


with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that the electricity connection stands in

the name of Shri K.G.Chaudhary under domestic category. With regard to

sundry charges levied in the bill, he stated that Sri P.D. Aggarwal got a

temporary connection 14.5.2014 for construction of boundary wall, garden of

spring, Sector-53, Chandigarh. He did not pay the full amount and temporary

connection was disconnected on 29.5.2016 with defaulting amount of Rs.9775/-.

While resulting the temporary connection, Shri K.G. Chaudhary was a witness to

the agreement and as such the defaulting amount was transferred to the account

of Shri K.G.Chaudhary.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant’s son was

present along with SDO and RA of the Electy. Sub Divn. No.9. The SDO

submitted that recently a new permanent connection has been released at the

premises to which the defaulting amount of the temporary connection pertains.

Accordingly, the defaulting amount of the temporary connection amounting to

Rs.9775/- which was charged to the complainant is being transferred to the

permanent connection released at the premises of temporary connection. Since

amount is transferred, a sundry allowance will be allowed to the complainant

thereby redressal to his grievances.

5. The Forum observing that the electricity department would reverse charges

levied to the complainant, considered the complaint as disposed as complainant

showed his satisfaction to the proposed action. The Nodal officer is, however,

directed to submit compliance report within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing

which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the

Electricity Act 2003.

The Forum considering that the complainant showed his satisfaction to the explanation provided by the SDO, the complaint is considered as disposed.“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”













In the matter to M/s Jaycon Infrastructure Limited, House No. 1464,

Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,

Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.



ORDER

1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after

conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 12.07.2016. The final orders could not be

issued due to lack of quorum.

2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The parties were informed in advance

vide letter dated 9.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and

the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6.






















Complaint No. - GR-87/2016 Date of Institution - 23.05.2016 Date of Order - 12.07.2016 In the matter to M/s Jaycon Infrastructure Ltd., House No.1464, Sector 43-B, Chandigarfh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. M/s Jaycon Infrastructure Ltd. vide their letter dated 19.5.2016 received in the office of

CGRF on 23.5.2016 submitted that they had a temporary connection which was got

permanently disconnected on 16.3.2016 on their request dated 15.3.2016. Now they have

received the bill for the period 8.11.2015 to 16.3.2016 on average basis, where as they were

receiving the bills on reading basis on regular intervals. They enclosed copies of the bills

from November 2015 onwards in support. It was also submitted that they completed major

works during the month of October 2015 and got the completion in the month of December

2015 for which they supplied copy of the letter issued by M/s H.S.C.L also. It was

submitted that the issuance of bills on average is not in order.


i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 25.05.2016 for

comments/action taken report, with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated 09.6.2016 submitted that

the meter was defective since 8.11.2015 and accordingly the account was overhauled on

past consumption basis from 3/2015 to 11/2015. Accordingly short assessment of

Rs.42,870/- was assessed and debited to their account. It was further submitted that the

consumer had requested for extension of the temporary connection for three months vide

letter dated 7.1.2016 which indicate that the work for which the temporary connection was

taken was continuing. The meter when removed on 16.3.2016 was found with meter

terminal block burnt. On the basis of this report coupled with low consumption after

11/2015, the account was overhauled. A copy of request by the complainant for extension

of the temporary connection, copy of MCO and consumption details from 11/2013 to 4/2016

were supplied.

4. The Case was notified for hearing on 12.7.2016 vide letter dated 23.6.2016. The

Complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant insisted that

the amount be charged on the basis of reading recorded by the meter and not on average

basis as they had completed major works by December 2015 and only minor left over works

were being undertaken thereafter with regard to renovation of the CSIO building. The RA

submitted that the meterl was found to be burnt at the time of PDCO and accordingly the

account was overhauled w.e.f. 11/2015 when the consumption dropped exceptionally on the

instance by the Internal Auditor. She stated that the electricity bills during February as well

as March 2016 were issued on average basis as the consumption was found to be

extremely low compared to their past average consumption.

5. The Forum from the consumption data observed that the average consumption up to Nov.

2015 was in the range of 2000 units per month which dropped to 206 units in the bill issued

on the basis of reading on 8.1.22015. The consumption was found to be 625, 28 and 47

units only in the bills issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter on 8.1.2016,

8.2.2016 and 8.4.2016 respectively. It was however, found that though the reading

recorded by the meter on 8.2.2016 was indicated in the bill, the bill was issued for 800 units

and not for 28 units. Similarly recorded consumption for next 2 months was only 47 units.

Certificate issued by HSCL indicated that the contractor commenced the work of

modernisation of ISTC building at CSIO on 18.3.2011 with the scope of work up to

15.01.2016. The various structures were completed at regular intervals from 24.9.2011

onwards and the last structure was completed on 10.12.2015.

6. Conclusion and Decision:

On the basis of certificates dated 15.1.2016 issued by M/s Hindustan Steel

Works Construction Ltd. (HSCL) that last structure was completed on 10.12.2015, it is clear

that the consumption of the Company would drop thereafter as the company would be

undertaking only minor works as per observations of the client. Thus charging by the Sub

Division on the basis of average of consumption recorded during the period 3/2015 to

11/2015 when major works were being undertaking is not in order and thus set aside. On

the other hand it has also been noted that the consumption fell extremely low during the

disputed period. Some minor left over works were yet to be completed and the company

accordingly made a request for extension of the temporary connection beyond Jan. 2016.

The meter was found burnt when removed. As stressed by the Sub Division, the meter

getting burnt could be the reason for recording of extremely low units. The Forum also

noted that the Sub Division charged average consumption of 800 units per month in the first

instant but subsequently raised to 1865 units per month. The charging at 800 units per

month after completion of major works appeared reasonable.

7. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled during the

disputed period with 800 units per month and not with 1865 units as done by the Sub

Division. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which

the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity

Act 2003.




9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office of

XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever required.

File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after

the same is put up to the Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF








In the matter to Miss Neelam Dhiman, House No. 1031, First Floor,



Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.




ORDER





vide letter on dated 09.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear

and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6.



3. As the complainant did not turn up, so it can be safely presumed the grievances of the


4. The instructions issued vide interim orders dated 09.06.2016, therefore, become final

and binding vide this majority order of the Forum.

















Complaint No. - GR-88/2016 Date of Institution - 25.05.2016 Date of Order - 09.06.2016 In the matter to Ms. Neelam Dhiman, Hoiuse No. 1031, First Floor, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Miss Neelam Dhiman, resident of House No. 1031, First Floor, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh

through her representation received in the office of CGRF on 25.5.2016 submitted that they

received high amount of electricity bill amounting to Rs.65,631/- for the period 11/2015 to

3/2016. She stated that no AC/Cooler was being used during the period. She requested for

verification and rectification of the bill.


i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 25.05.2016 for

comments along with consumption data and actual connected load. It was also notified the

case would be heard on 9.6.2016 in the office of CGRF.

3. On the date of hearing on 9.6.2016, the complainant as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.6 were present. The SDO submitted that the premises was got checked and it was

noted that the commercial activity (Stitching/Tailoring) was being undertaken in the flat. He

also informed that the meter was found dead stop at the time of verification/checked. He

also showed the consumption data for last three years and that the connected load checked

was around 6 KW.

4. From the consumption data, it was observed that consumption recorded by the meter after

9/2015 increased considerably (more than 9000 units per cycle) from the earlier

consumption in the range of 100-150 units per cycle. The SDO agreed that the

consumption recorded after 9/2015 was not possible with the sanctioned load/checked

connected load and the inflated consumption may be on account of meter becoming faulty.

The meter ultimately became dead stop.

5. The complainant with regard to commercial activity stated that after obtaining Degree in

Fashion Designing in July 2015, she along with her friend has undertaken stitching work

with a view to display the articles during exhibition only during in the last six months or so.

6. On the basis of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to:

i) Get the defective meter replaced immediately.

ii) To overhaul the account of the consumer from 9/2015 onwards on the basis of future

six months consumption recorded by the replaced meter.

iii) The Electricity connection be treated as NRS connection and the difference in tariff

of NRS to DS connection may be recovered for last one year.

iv) Henceforth with the NRS tariff be charged instead of domestic.




8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office of

XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever required.

File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after

the same is put up to the Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Anil Salwan, Manager, Flat No. 648, RBI

Colony, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.




ORDER





advance. vide letter dated 9.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not


Divn.No.6.
























In the matter to Shri Anil Salwan, Manager, Flat No. 648, RBI Colony, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Anil Salwan, Manager RBI through his letter dated 4.4.2016

submitted that the electricity bill for Flat No.648, RBI Colony, Sector 30,

Chandigarh for the period 26.12.2015 to 28.02.2016 included sundry

charges. He also stated that the meter of the flat was defective and bill

was being raised on average basis which was being paid regularly. He

requested for verification of the bill enabling the occupant to make the

payment.


to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3

vide letter dated 08.4.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a

copy to the complainant.

3. In response, SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated

20.4.2016 submitted that the defective meter was replaced on

26.12.2015 and thereafter account of the consumer has been overhauled

and average @ 286 units per month was charged for the period

28.10.2014 to 26.12.2015 on the basis of past consumption from

10/2013 to 10/2014. An amount of Rs.9380/- was calculated as short

assessment after adjustment of the payments already made. He supplied

the copy of MCO and consumption data.


information and feedback vide letter dated 26.04.2016.

5. During the hearing of the case on 19.5.2016, Shri Loha Singh, Present

occupant of the flat stated that he occupied the flat on 20.5.2015. The

earlier occupant Shri Bharat Lal vacated the flat on 21.4.2015 and thus

the flat remained vacant for one month from 21.4.2015 to 20.5.2015.

He submitted that average for the period of one month flat remained

vacant, should not be charged. Shri Karan Singh, representative of the

complainant (Manager RBI) provided the photo copy of inventory register

being maintained which clearly showed that Shri Bharat Lal vacated the

flat on 21.4.2015 which was taken over by Shri Loha Singh on

20.5.2015. It also contained remarks that the electricity meter was not

working. The applicant was provided the details of the charging done by

the Sub Division and they got convinced that charging done by the Sub

Division was in order. However, following two issues were raised:

i) No charging should be done for one month, the flat remained

unoccupied.

ii) The charges related to period the flat was occupied by Shri Bharat

Lal needs to be recovered from him. Shri Loha Singh, present

occupant also informed that he had already made the payment of

ful amount of the bill including the amount of sundry charges raised

by the electricity department. Shri Karan Singh on behalf of RBI

conveyed that the amount related to Shri Bharat Lal would be

deducted from his salary & would be credited to the complainant.

The SDO on the basis of inventory register agreed to give refund for

the period 21.4.2015 to 20.5.2015 when the flat remained vacant.

6. On the basis of above. the Nodal Officer is directed to:-

i) Not to charge any amount for the period 21.4.2015 to

20.5.2015.

ii) To provide breakup of charging from 28.10.2014 to 21.4.2015

and from 20.5.2015 to 26.12.2015 to the complainant, enabling

him to recover the charges upto 21.4.2015 from the salary of

Shri Bharat Lal.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing

which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of

the Electricity Act 2003.



finally disposed.



















In the matter to Shri Saroj Goel, Vijay Flour Mill Bay Shop No. 17-18,

Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER



lack of quorum.



























In the matter to Stm. Saroj Goel, Vijay Flour Mill, Bay Shop No.17-18, Sector-20, Chandigarh..


Versus




Interim Order

1. A complaint was received from Smt. Saroj Goel on 18.3.2016 on behalf of

Vijay Flour Mills, Bay Shop No.17-18, Sector 20, Chandigarh. It was

stated that the bill for the period Jan. to Feb. 2016 contained sundry

charges of Rs.55886/- for which no details were provided.






30.03.2016 submitted that the electricity meter got burnt and was

replaced on 21.1.2016. After replacement of the burnt meter, the

account of the consumer has been overhauled for the period 10.4.2015 to

21.1.2016 (Date of MCO) on the basis of average consumption during the

corresponding period from April 2014 to April 2015 @ 1333 units per

month. An amount of Rs.55886/- has been calculated to be charged less

which has now been debited through sundry. He enclosed copy of MCO

and the Consumption data.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 19.5.2016, the representative of the

complainant appeared. He was shared with the details of charging and he

got convinced that the sundry charges levied in the bills were in order. He

also stated that he has already made the payment of the disputed

amount.

5. The Forum observed that the charging done by the Sub Division was in

order and further that consumer was satisfaction with the amount

charged.



finally disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Ved Parkash Mehta, House No.406/1, Sector20-A, Chandigarh


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Ved Parkash Mehta, resident of House No.406/1, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh through

his representation dated 3.6.2016 addressed to SDO submitted that they visit abroad

frequently during which period their house remains locked. However, bill during the

period of their absence was issued on average basis though they were out of India

during the period 31.8.2014 to 24.2.2015 and from 4.5.2015 to 25.9.2015. He supplied

copies of the Passport of his wife as well as self in support of his statement. He

requested for correction of his bill.

2. A copy of this representation was submitted to the office of CGRF on 4.7.2016 by

Shri Jagir Singh, resident of House No. 1448A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh for

redressal of grievances of Sh. Ved Parkash Mehta.



5.7.2016 with the directions to supply consumption of last three years as well as

factual position about occupancy of the house.


submitted that the electricity meter of the consumer was replaced on 29.2.2016 as

the meter was found dead stop. The account of the consumer was overhauled on

adhoc/connected load basis for the period 24.6.2014 to 29.2.016 - (more than 22

months) during which meter remained defective. Short assessment of Rs.8177/- was

assessed and debited to his account. He further added that the position of the

vacancy was got checked after site verification. As per report submitted by the

official no neighbour was ready to comment regarding the vacancy of the house.

However, ground floor as well as first floor were found to locked on the date of

verification. He supplied copy of MCO, consumption data and the verification report.

5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The representative of the

complainant i.e. Shri Jagir Singh attended on behalf of the complainant. He

submitted that complainant again left India around 15th June 2016 and would come

back only after 6/8 months. After deliberations of the case, the Forum observed that

the first bill was issued after 16 months in October 2015 at the same reading i.e.

2015 for nil consumption. The meter was removed on 29.2.2016 at the same reading

i.e. 2015 with remarks as ‘dead stop’. From the copies of the Passport, it was noted

that complainant namely Shri Ved Parkash Mehta along with his wife left India on

30.8.2014, came back on 24.2.2015 and again left on 4.5.2015. They returned back

to India on 25th September 2015.

6. On the basis of above facts, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account on

the following lines.

i) From 24.6.2014 to 31.8.2014, from 24.2.2015 to 4.4.2015 and from

25.9.2015 to 29.2.2016 --- on the basis of consumption recorded during the

period 29.2.2016 to 24.6.2016.

ii) From 31.8.2014 to 24.2.2015 and from 4.5.2015 to 25.9.2015 – on the basis

of consumption to be recorded during the period 24.6.2015 to 24.12.2016.

7. The complaint is considered disposed off with aforementioned directions.







8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the

office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance

wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly

numbered and indexed.






BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON. ER. A.K. JAIN, MEMBER.

SH.J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.

Complaint No. - GR-119/2016 Date of Institution - 04.07.2016 Date of Order - 06.10.2016

In the matter to Shri Ved Parkash Mehta, House No.406/1, Sector20-A,

Chandigarh


Versus



Briefly mentioning that the complainant GR-119/2016, was disposed off vide order dated 17.08.2016, with

directions to the concerned Nodal officer as mentioned in Para 6 of the afore mentioned order.

However the concerned respondent SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div.6 vide memo no. 4168 dated 06.09.2016,

expressed difficulties in complying with the orders and sought clarifiaction and necessary directions in this

regard.

Keeping in view the interest of the complainant as well as maintaining the sanctity of the order it

was felt necessary to call the contesting parties to the complaint No. GR-119/2016, therefore a hearing

was convened on 05.10.2016, and the matter was deliberated upon.

During deliberations, it came to notice that a typographical error occurred in the operative part of

the order.

In the interest of justice, and with the consent of the contesting parties, it was resolved that the

date “24.06.2015 to 24.12.2016” mentioned in second line of Para 6 (ii) of the order dated 17.08.2016.

needs to be modified to “24.06.2016. to 24.12.2016”.

According the Para 6 of the order dated 17.08.2016 be substituted as under :-

6. On the basis of above facts, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account on

the following lines.

iii) From 24.6.2014 to 31.8.2014, from 24.2.2015 to 4.4.2015 and from

25.9.2015 to 29.2.2016 --- on the basis of consumption recorded during the

period 29.2.2016 to 24.6.2016.

iv) From 31.8.2014 to 24.2.2015 and from 4.5.2015 to 25.9.2015 – on the basis

of consumption to be recorded during the period 24.6.2016 to 24.12.2016.

Copies of this order be sent to parties free of cost and the copy of this order be tag with the original file.

(J.S SIDHU) (A.K. Jain) (R.K.ARORA)

MEMBER, CGRF MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF






In the matter to Smt. Saran Kaur Sawhney, House No.3033, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Harbans Singh Sawhney, Husband of Smt. Saran Kaur Sawhney, resident

of House No.3303, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh vide his representation dated 16

June, 2016 raised the issue of levy of proposed sundry charges as conveyed by

the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide letter dated 26.5.2016 and

10.6.2016. It was submitted that they have two electricity connections, one for

ground floor and other for first floor. Though the ground floor is occupied by

them, first floor is lying vacant w.e.f. 1st August 2014 till date. The consumption

of the first floor dropped significantly after 1st August 2014. The meter of the

first floor was changed in April 2016, due to low consumption after 1st August

2014 (non occupancy), the electricity department proposed to overhaul the

account (treating meter as defective) on the basis of consumption recorded

during the period July 2013 to July 2014. It was prayed that the sundry charges

should not be levied as the replaced meter was not faulty.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-107/2016, same was

forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division

No. 3 vide letter dated 16.6.2016 for comments along with consumption

data for last three years and verification of tenancy from the neighbours with

a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated

23.6.2016, submitted that the meter of the complainant was defective/burnt

and was replaced on 4.4.2016. Thereafter the account of the consumer was

overhauled w.e.f. 22.7.2014 to date of MCO i.e. 4.4.2016 on the basis of

previous consumption recorded during the period July 2013 to July 2014.

Short assessment of Rs.47859/- was assessed. On the issue of premises

lying vacant as stated by the complainant, the SDO stated that consumer did

not inform the office about the premises lying vacant. He requested for

directing the consumer to make the payment of the amount charged through

sundry. He supplied copy of MCO and the consumption data.

4. The complainant through subsequent letter dated 9.7.2016 in reference to

remarks in the MCO that the meter was burnt, he submitted that the meter

was perfect/ fine and was recording less consumption due to non occupancy.

In support, he submitted that the consumption recorded by the new meter is

also comparable with earlier consumption supporting that the meter was not

defective/burnt. He also supplied a copy of the Lease Deed dated 15.7.2011,

photo copy of readings of new meter recorded on various dates.

5. The case was notified for hearing 12.7.2016, the wife of the complainant i.e.

Smt. Saran Kaur Sawhney and the concerned SDO were present. It was

noted that the Respondent SDO did not comment on the issue of verification

on the tenancy as specifically directed while inviting the comments on the

representation. The SDO was directed to submit a report within ten days.

Subsequently the SDO vide his letter dated 21.7.2016 submitted that the

first floor of the premises remained vacant during the period July 2014 to

July 2016 as per statement recorded by the neighbours.

6. The case was notified for hearing on 17.8.2016 , Smt. Saran Kaur as well as

concerned SDO were present. The consumer submitted that the old meter

was working fine and was recording the consumption correctly. With regard

to nil/less consumption, she stated that the first floor was now in their

possession along with ground floor after the tenant vacated on 1st August

2014. The first floor was being used for family get together, family guests

resulting in low consumption of electricity.

7. The Forum, from the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division noted

that consumption w.e..f July 2014 to March 2016 ranged between 3 to 170

units against the earlier average consumption of around 500-600 units. The

bills were prepared on reading with ‘Z’ Code i.e. meter in working order

during this period.

7. In view of statement given by the neighbours that the first floor has not been

rented out again after August 2014 and issuance of bill with ‘Z’ Code, the

Forum concludes that the billing done during the disputed period was in

order. The amount of sundry charges charged to the complainant are set

aside. The meter removed at reading of 31636 on 4.4.2016 be treated as

O.K instead of dead stop/burnt as recorded in the MCO. Compliance be

reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the

penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the


8. The complaint stand disposed off with above directions.
















In the matter to Smt. Veena Gandhi, House No. 258, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. A complaint dated 28.6.2016 was received in the office of CGRF from husband of

Smt. Veena Gandhi stating that top floor of their house No.258, Sector 46-A,

Chandigarh is lying vacant for last 5 to 6 years and is being used as store. The

sundry charges were levied treating meter as defective. The position of vacancy

was got checked by the Sub Division by deputing J.E. in December 2015. The

consumer also enclosed an affidavit in support of his statement that the first

floor was not occupied and requested for withdrawal of the sundry charges.


the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide

letter dated 28.6.2016 for comments, with a copy to the complainant.


21.7.2016, submitted that the meter was found defective and was replaced

on 25.1.2016. Thereafter the account was overhauled for the period

10.3.2014 to 25.2.2016 on the basis of connected load/adhoc basis as

adequate consumption for the past period was not available. He further

submitted that the consumer did not inform the Sub Division about the

premises lying vacant. On the basis of an affidavit submitted by the

consumer, the facts were got verified by the representative of the office. He

reported that the premises is being used for Store purpose. He requested for

issuing directions to the consumer to deposit the amount charged to them as

the meter was found dead stop. He supplied a copy of MCO, consumption

data and the report by J.E. about vacancy position.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The complainant as well as

SDO were present. The complainant submitted that as the premises was

lying vacant and was being used as store, the electricity consumption was

negligible. The SDO on the other hand stated that average @ 190 units per

month has been charged for the period 10.3.2014 to 25.1.2016 on adhoc

basis which will be adjusted after availability of consumption of the replaced

meter during next 12 months.

5. The Forum observed that the electricity bills from Nov. 2013 onwards were

being issued for Nil consumption with meter status Code as ‘Z’. The prior

consumption was also recorded as 3,3,97 and 9 units during past 4 cycles

during the period 3/2013 to 11/2013. The consumption of the replaced

meter from Jan. 2016 to May 2016 was also one unit during four months.

On the basis of past as well as new consumption recorded by the replaced

meter, the forum concludes that the average units being charged @ 190

units per month are very much on higher side. The sundry charges already

levied by the sub division are therefore set aside. The Forum directs the

Nodal Officer to overhaul the account during the period meter remained

defective from 10.3.2014 to 25.1.2016 on the basis of adhoc consumption of

50 units per month subject to adjustment on the basis of consumption

recorded by the replaced meter from 25.1.2016 to 10.1.2017. Compliance of

overhauling the account on adhoc basis @ 50 units per month be reported

within 21 days.

6. The complaint stands disposed off with above directions.




order.”
















In the matter to Shri Khushwant Rai, Flat No.1829, Nirwana Society, Sector 49,

Chandigarh.


Versus




As per The Chairman, ER. R.K.Arora.

ORDER

1. Shri Khushwant Rai, owner of flat No.1829, Nirwana Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh

through his application dated 12.5.2016 submitted that the flat is being given on rent

since its occupation. However, sometimes there is gap in renting out to a new tenant on

vacation by old tenant. The electricity meter became faulty and was changed in Feb.

2016. Subsequently the account was overhauled and RS.37,170/- were charged in the

bill issued on 22.3.2016 on account of average w.e.f. 26.10.2014. The Sub Division

informed that from this date the meter recorded negligible consumption. The bill was

challenged. The Sub Division, however, conveyed that the bill was in order and directed

him to pay the same. He submitted that the flat remained vacant during the period

2014-15 except for 2 months due to non availability of suitable tenant. The flat was

rented out only in May 2015. He also submitted that the meter was working fine but the

consumption during the period 2/2015 to 6/2015 was very less due to non occupancy of

the tenant. The meter became defective subsequently after the flat was occupied by

new tenant from May 2015. In support of his statement that flat was lying vacant, he

enclosed copy of Lok Pal Statement, giving details of Income from property and also

copy of Income Tax Return for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 indicating that the rental

income was less during the period 2014-15 as compared to 2013-14.



7.6.2016 for comments/action taken report along with consumption data of last

three years and the connected load as checked. He was also directed to accepted

Rs.15000/- out of disputed amount plus current cycle charges and not to disconnect

the connection.


submitted that the electricity meter was defective/dead stop and was replaced on

19.2.2016. He further mentioned that the meter was defective since 26.10.2014, as

the meter recorded almost Nil consumption. Therefore, the consumer account was

overhauled for the period 26.10.2014 to 19.2.2016 on the basis of previous

consumption recorded during the period 10/2013 to 10/2014 @ 674 units per month.

Rs.37,170/- was calculated as short assessment and was debited to the consumer

account. He also submitted that the consumer did not give any information regarding

the flat lying vacant during the disputed period. He supplied copy of MCO and the

details of the consumption recorded during last three years.

4. The complainant through subsequent letter dated 19.5.2016, supplied a copy of rent

agreement for the period 1.4.2013 to 28.2.2014 specified the monthly rent as

Rs.20500/-. In support of his statement that the tenant vacated the flat in April

2014, he enclosed bank statement showing the entries with regard to payment of

rent received through cheques. He elaborated that the rent was received up to April

2014 and thereafter when the flat was again re-rented out, the payment for 2 months

of advance rent plus dealer’s commission for August and September 2014 as existing

on 30.7.2014 in the bank statement. The next payment of Rs.21000/- on April 27,

2015 was advance rent of May 2015 from the new tenant where after there is regular

entry of payment received through NEFT towards the rent received in respect of the

flat.

5. The case was listed for hearing on 9.3.2016. The complainant as well as concerned

AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 were present. The AEE was directed to get the

vacancy position confirmed from the neighbours and also that no renovation was

undertaken during the disputed period.

6. The concerned AEE vide his letter dated 21.7.2016 supplied report by the J.E.

regarding the site verification. As per report, the premises remained vacant for the

period May 2014 to May 2015.

7. On the next date of hearing on 17.8.2016, the complainant as well as concerned AEE

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 were present. The complainant stated that after the

occupant vacated in April 2014, the flat was rented to a Company and advance rent

of Rs.54000/- was received from them for August and September 2014. After the flat

was vacated by this company, new tenant occupied the flat from May 2015. The

case was deliberated at length, the documents supplied by the complainant as well as

SDO were seen. It was noted from the consumption data that the electricity bills were

issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter with status code as ‘Z’ up to

August 2015 where after bills were issued for an average of 580 units with meter

status Code as defective before the meter was replaced on 19.2.2016. On the basis

of assets and liability statement submitted by the applicant under Lok Pal Act,

Income Tax Returns and the bank statement and the report by J.E. about the

verification of occupancy, it is evident that the flat was lying vacant during the period

May 2014 to March 2015. Therefore, the electricity bills already issued up to April

2015 with meter status Code Z i.e. working okay be considered as final and may not

be overhauled on the basis of average. From the consumption data, it is further

seen that the meter became defective (dead/stop) during the period May and June

2015 at reading of 33804.

8. In view of above analysis, overhauling already done by the Sub Division isset aside.

The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account from 5/2015 to 19.2.2016 (date

of MCO) on the basis of future consumption to be recorded by the replaced meter

during the corresponding period of 2016-17 and not on the basis of past

consumption as the premises was occupied by a new tenant whose consumption may

be different from previous occupant. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the

receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as

per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003

9. The complaint is considered disposed off with aforementioned directions



















In the matter to Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, House No.3482, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, resident of House No.3482, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh

through her representation dated 6.6.2016, received in the office of CGRF on

7.6.2016, represented on the average charged for the period 2014-15 to the

electricity connection for the first floor. She submitted that the first floor was

occupied by her son who left for Poland in Jan. 2014. Thereafter the first floor

was neither rented nor occupied by any one. Their account was overhauled for

the period Nov. 2015 to Jan. 2016 by the Sub Division as the meter was not

working properly. She requested for reversal of charges levied stating that the

First floor was in their possession but nobody was residing on the first floor

during the disputed period resulting into very very low consumption of

electricity. She submitted an affidavit in this regard and photo copy of fee

deposited towards bill challenging fee.


Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter

dated 7.6.2016 with the directions to supply comments along with

consumption of last three years, with a copy to the complainant.


14.06.2016 submitted that the meter of the consumer was found defective

and was replaced on 23.2.2016. The account of the consumer was

overhauled w.e.f. 27.3.2014 to 27.9.2015 and 27.1.2016 to 23.3.32016 @

190 units per month on adhoc/connected load basis. Short assessment of

Rs.9359/- was assessed and debited to the consumer account. He also

submitted that the consumer had not conveyed about the premises lying

unoccupied.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 12.7.2016. The complainant as well as RA

of the Sub Division were present. From the consumption data supplied by the

Sub Division, it was noted that the copy of MCO affected during the period

5/2015 to 7/2015 was not supplied along with the reply. The complainant

submitted that the representative of the Sub Division visited the premises to

check the factual position regarding non occupancy as per their affidavit, she

insisted for report of the official. Necessary directions were issued to the

Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 to comment

on the statement of the consumer as well as to supply the copy of MCO

affected during May to July 2015.


25.7.2016 submitted that the vacancy position was got verified from the

neighbours and he submitted the report of the J.E. on the back of Affidavit.

He also supplied a copy of MCO dated 5.6.2015.

6. On the next hearing of the case on 17.8.2016, the complainant as well as

SDO were present. From the report submitted by the J.E. with regard to

affidavit furnished by the complainant, it was noted that Shri Ramesh Chand

Goel, resident of House No.3484, Sector 46-C, authenticated statement of the

complainant. The J.E. also remarked that meter was in working order and

first floor was lying vacant on 16.5.2016 and the date of his visit. He also

supplied a copy of MCO affected on 5.6.2015.

7. From the deliberations during the hearing and documents placed before the

Forum, it is noted that the bills issued from Nov.2012 up to 5.6.2015 were

issued on Z Code with meter status Code as O.K. The reason for change of

meter was given as mechanical meter to be replaced with electronic meter.

The working of the replaced meter was declared O.K as per MCO report. It

was also seen that the consumption declined sharply particularly during

summer months of 2014 as compared to that of 2013. The Electronic meter

installed on 5.6.2015 became dead stop between July 2015 to Sept. 2015

after registering 122 units (FR 128, IR-6) during the period 5.6.2015 to 27

July 2015. The dead meter was replaced on 23.2.2016.

8. On the basis of discussions and documents placed before the Forum, it is

seen that the mechanical meter was in working order when replaced by

electronic meter on 5.6.2015. Thus the overhauling done by the Sub Division

27.3.2014 to 5.6.2015 is not in order and thus set aside. Thereafter the new

meter became dead stop after 27.7.2015 implying that billing already done

up to 27.7.2015 was also in order and is not required to be overhauled. With

above inference, the only period which needs to be overhauled is the period

between 27.7.2015 to 23.2.2016 (date of MCO). As recorded consumption

during the corresponding period during the year 2014-15 is available, the

same be taken as base for overhauling the period 27.7.2015 to 23.2.2016.

10. The Nodal officer is directed to get the account overhauled on the above

lines.With aforementioned directions the complaint is disposed off.


which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections

of the Electricity Act 2003.




order.”













In the matter to Shri Arvinder Kumar, Flat No. 3477, Sector 46-C,

Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER



lack of quorum.



























In the matter to Shri Arvinder Kumar Aggarwal, House No.3477, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Arvinder Kumar Aggarwal through his e-mail April 13, 2016 pointed

out that though the three phase meter was provided by him for

installation at his residence House No. 3477, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh,

yet the Electricity Department is charging meter rentals w.e.f. Nov. 2014.






29.4.2016 stated that necessary correction has been done after

verification. Amount of Rs.360/- has been refunded to the consumer to be

reflected in the next bill.



5. The case was listed for hearing on 19.5.2016, the complainant did not

attend. The SDO present during the hearing stated that grievance of the

complainant has already been redressed.

6. The Forum considering that the necessary relief has already been

provided by the Sub Division. Consider the complaint as redressed



finally disposed.










(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri. Ashish Kumar, House No. 3038, Second Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER





advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not

appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.9 along with RA

of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.



3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the

complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 21.07.2016.



















Complaint No. - GR-91/2016 Date of Institution - 30.05.2016 Date of Order - 21.07.2016 In the matter to Shri Ashish Kumar, House No.3038, 2nd floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9 Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Shri Ashish Kumar through his e-mail dated May 30, 2016 submitted that the complaints

regarding disruption of electricity supply were not being treated on priority. To explain he

stated that he lodge a complaint on 4.45 AM on May 30, 2016 but same was not attended till

6.30 in the morning. He did not get a satisfactory reply about the time for restoration of the

supply from the Sub Division.


Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated 31.5.2016 for

comments/action taken report, with a copy to the complainant, with the request to submit a

written complaint within five days as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.

The complainant did not submit written complaint as requested but subsequently on June

7, 2016 again through e-mail requested for updated status of his complaint dated May 30,

2016.

3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 09.6.2016 with a copy

to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, submitted para-wise reply. He stated that on verification

of the Complaint Register, it was seen that complaint was lodged at 4.45 hours regarding

failure of electricity supply of House No.3038, sector 41-D, Chandigarh. The supply had

failed from 33 KV GSS Sector 37 from 4.45 to 4.45 hours. As the electricity of Sector 41-D

is being fed from this 33 KV Grid Sub Station, it was through that the disruption of supply was

on account of failure of supply from the Grid Sub Station and the same might have been

restored when supply from the Sub Station resumed. However when the complainant again

informed that supply of his house was still disrupted, the staff was deputed at 7.55 hours and

it was found that two core PVC Service cable feeding the complainant’s house were broken.

Same was attended and the supply was restored. He regretted the inconvenience faced by

the consumer due to misunderstanding the reason of disruption of supply. He further

submitted that due to peak summer season the load on supply system is increasing gradually

causing number of power supply failure particularly during rainy/stormy days. He further

submitted that his office was trying to attend the complaints promptly to the satisfaction of the

consumers.

4. Through subsequent e-mail dated 26.6.2016, the complaint submitted that during 24 and 25

June 2016, the supply was again disrupted for about 4 hours. The telephone was not picked

up and he had to visit personally Sector 43 Office to lodge complaint. On their request the

person was called whose mobile number was provided to the complainant. Thereafter the

person came after 2 and half hours and told that the wire was found to be burnt. Another one

and half hour was taken to rectify the fault. Similar position occurred on 26th June when he

had to visit the office personally to lodge complaint as the phone was not being picked.

Through another e-mail dated 29 June, 2016, he stated that his complaint was attended after

6 hours after regular follow up.

5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the complainant did not attend. He

even did not submit written complaint as requested through the letter addressed to the

Nodal Officer for inviting comments. SDO along with his RA present during hearing

submitted that in general complaints are attended on priority but sometimes delay occurs

due to large number of complaints occurring during these months on account of heavy rains

and thunder storms. He further stated that there is shortage of staff besides the Sub

Division is being heaviest Sub Division with more than 41000 electricity connections spread

over 13 sectors and 6 villages. In the present case, the supply was restored at the earliest

possible with limited manpower and resources. He also explained that additional staff of

other sections was also being diverted to attend to the complaints when large number of

complaints are received. His office tries its best to maintain the power supply with the

existing strength. Regarding provision of telephone for receiving the complaints, he stated

that two landline phones with No. 0172-2603927 and 0172-2667859 are existing at the

Complaint Centre under his jurisdiction and are in working order. In addition, to facilitate

the general public for lodging their grievances regarding power supply and street light,

Consumer Facilitation Centre has been created at Sector-9, Head office which is working

round the clock with multiple lines with telephone No. 0172-4639999.

6. The Forum observed that the Sub Division caters to large number of consumers spread over

large area scattered over 13 Sectors and 6 villages and the frequency of power supply failure

increases manifolds during summer and rainy months. The Sub Division staff as submitted

by the SDO tried their best to maintain the power supply with limited resources. On going

through e-mails of the complainant, it has been observed that time taken to attend the faults

was on higher side. On the basis of these observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to look

into the existing system and take effective steps including deployment of additional staff on

temporary basis particularly during summer period to ensure that the complaints regarding

power supply failure are attended promptly.

7. With above observations and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed. The

complainant may note that the telephone numbers of Complaint Office as well as telephone

number of Centralised Cell to lodge such complaints















In the matter to Shri Kmwaljit Singh Sehgal, House No. 1151, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER






appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Sub Divn.No.9 along with

RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.

























In the matter to Shri Kanwaljit Singh Sehgal, House No.1151,



Versus

1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,

Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Shri Kanwaljit Singh Sehgal, resident of House No.1151, Sector 44-B,

Chandigarh vide his letter, received in the office of CGRF on 3.5.2016 submitted

that the current bill for the period 25.1.2016 to 25.3.2016 received by him is

very much on higher side (Rs.57,335/-) against his normal bill of Rs.3000-4000.


Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter

dated 04.05.2016 for comments and action taken report along with

consumption data, with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 02.6.2016

submitted the reply. He stated that the meter of the complainant was replaced

on 15.4.2015, being defective. For the period, the defective meter was in place,

w.e.f. 25.1.2014 to 15.4.2015, the account has been overhauled @ 1202 units

per month on the basis of previous consumption recorded during the period

1/2012 to 1/2013. After adjusting the bills already paid, the short assessment

is Rs.52301/- which has been charged in the current bill as sundry charges. The

SDO also mentioned that the short assessment has been pointed out by the

Internal Auditor vide Half Margin No.1443 dated 18.2.2016. He also attached

the copy of MCO, Half Margin and consumption data.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 21.6.2016. While forwarding the hearing

notice, the reply submitted by the SDO was enclosed for information of the

complainant. The complainant as well as SDO and RA were present on date of

hearing on 21.6.2016. The complainant submitted that he was never informed

by the Meter reader/Bill Distributor/Electricity Department that the meter was

defective and the bills were being issued on average basis. Had Meter reader

informed him, he would have got new meter installed. On this plea, he stated

that the amount should not be charged from him and instead the amount be

charged from the meter reader. The SDO/RA stated that the bills were being

issued on average basis with meter status Code as ‘D’, Code for the defective

meter. With regard to query by the Forum, he stated that the meter could not

be replaced earlier due to non availability of the meter with the department.

During the hearing, it was also gathered that the complainant had already paid

1/3rd of the disputed amount along with current charges while making the

payment of disputed bill.

5. On the basis of the consumption data, MCO and Internal Auditor observations, it

is observed that the average has been correctly charged by the department to

the complainant. However keeping in view, the period of the charging which is

more than 12 months and the amount involved, the complainant request for

allowing him to clear the amount in instalments without levy of any surcharge is

accepted. The Nodal Officer is directed not to levy any surcharge on the

amount of sundry charges raised in the bill issued in the month of April 2016,

despite the fact that the full amount was not paid by due date. The balance

amount is allowed to be recovered in 3 equal bi-monthly instalments without

levy of any surcharge. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt

of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per

relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.



opinion.


may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity

Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC

Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016

(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-

[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this

order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Lovedeep Behal, House No. 2224, Pepsu Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Shri Lovedeep Behl, House No.2224, Pepsu Society,

Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Lovedeep Behl, resident of House No.2224, Pepsu Society, Sector 50-C,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 30th April, 2016 forwarded a copy of

representation made to SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9, Chandigarh. He stated

that he received bill dated 20.4.2016 amounting to Rs.37612/- including sundry

charges of Rs.37642/-. The sundry charges were based on average

consumption for the period 1/2014 to 27.2.2015 @ 818 Units per month on

account of meter defective, as gathered after discussions with the Sub Division.

He submitted that the meter stopped working in August 2015, where after he

registered a complaint with Electricity Department and with CGRF on August 12,

2014. The defective meter was replaced on 3rd March 2015 after orders of CGRF

dated 19.12.2014 in Complaint No.598. The average consumption of his house

after replacement of new meter is around 180 units per month where as the

Sub Division charged 818 units per month for the period Jan. 2014 to Feb.

2015. He further stated that he took the possession of house on 29.3.2014 and

logically the average consumption of electricity for charging should be based on

the recorded consumption, after installation of new meter. He enclosed copy of

disputed bill with the request to calculate the average on the basis of

consumption by the replaced meter.



dated 04.05.2016 for comments along with consumption data and connected

load as checked with a copy to the complainant.


submitted the parawise reply. The SDO submitted that the domestic connection

stands in the name of Shri Narinder Gupta having sanctioned load of 7.980 KW.

The electricity meter was replaced vide MCO dated 9.5.2014 affected on

27.2.2015, with meter dead stop. On account of dead stop meter, average has

been charged w.e.f. 22.1.2014 to 27.2.2015 (13 months) @ 818 units per

month on the basis of consumption recorded during the period 1/2013 to

1/2014. After adjusting the amount already paid, short assessment of

Rs.37642/- was assessed and charged through sundry. Copy of MCO as well as

consumption data was enclosed with the reply.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.6.2016. Both the SDO along with

his RA as well as complainant, were present. The complainant re-iterated his

written submissions and submitted that the overhauling of the account for the

period meter remained defective on the basis of past consumption of earlier

occupant is not logical/ in order. As a proof of purchase of house, he supplied

copy of GPA dated 17th July 2014 signed by Shri Narinder Gupta, the owner.

He prayed for overhauling the account on the basis of his consumption recorded

by the replaced meter. The SDO submitted that the account has been

overhauled on the basis of provision of the Supply Code that past consumption

should be taken as a base for overhauling.

5. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant moved in the house in

the month of March 2014. He stated that as he lives alone, his consumption is

much less than that of the previous occupant. The Forum sees logic in his

argument that for overhauling the period, the meter remained defective, his

future consumption subsequent to installation of correct meter be adopted.

6. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, it has been noted that

the meter became dead stop in March, 2014 which coincide with the month

complainant shifted in the house. The meter was replaced in Feb. 2015. Now

more than one year consumption of the new meter is available with the sub

division, though not supplied in the consumption data.

7. On the basis of above facts and arguments made by the complainant, Sundry

charges levied by the sub division is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to

rework out the average on the basis of consumption of one year after

replacement of meter for charging during the period meter remained defective

i.e. from March 2014 to Feb. 2015, when the occupant of the house was the

complainant. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the

order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per

relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.



opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Rajiv Sharma, House No. 3157/2, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Shri Rajiv Sharma, House No. 3157/2, Sector 44-D,

Chandigarh.


Versus


Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9 Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Shri Rajiv Sharma, resident of House No. 3157/2 Sector 44-D, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated May 21, 2016 submitted that supply of electricity of his

house went off at around 12 O’clock in the night on 19.5.2016. He made a

complaint and got the answer that it would be rectified soon. But nothing was

done and he kept on waiting for about 4 hours before he again called the

complaint office. He got reply that the delay was on account of availability of

only one driver/vehicle which had just returned from Sector 41 after attending

the complaint. and his complaint would be attended soon. After about one hour

his power supply was restored, though the complainant was made to boil for the

whole night. On 20th May, 2016, power supply again failed at around 10 PM.

He could not contact the complaint centre as the telephone number was found

busy despite many tries. He went to the office to see large number of people

arguing with the staff for proper power supply to their residences. The

complainant had commented that though the area of 14 sectors plus villages

were being covered by the Sub Division, only 4 persons were provided to deal

with the complaints. For receiving complaints only one telephone number was

provided. He also commented that city was trying to achieve the status of

Smart City, but the state of affairs in the electricity department is at its poorest

level.



dated 24.5.2016 for comments/action taken report, with a copy to the

complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days as

per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.

3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 21.6.2016,

with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, submitted para-wise reply. He

stated that L.T. line conductor in Sector 44-D Chandigarh feeding the house of

the complainant broke down on 19.5.2016 which was attended during night

hours. On next day i.e. 20th May 2016 the supply was interrupted in most of the

area of Chandigarh due to heavy rain and thunder storms resulting into falling

of trees on the supply line. All out efforts were made to restore the supply at the

earliet possible. With regard to comments on the vehicles/staff and telephone

number in the complaint office, he submitted that the contract of 2 No. drivers

had expired, which has now been extended. The department had two vehicles

which are deployed round the clock. In addition one No. pick up jeep along

with driver (which has also been engaged through outsourcing) was used to

attend the consumer complaints promptly. The Sub Division has more than

41000 electricity connections spread over 13 sectors and 6 villages. His office

tried best to maintain the power supply with the existing strength. Additional

staff of other Sections was also diverted to attend the complaints. He further

submitted that process of outsourcing of Lineman, Assistant Lineman is already

under process at the level of higher authorities. Regarding provision of

telephone for receiving the complaints, he stated that two landline phones with

No. 0172-2603927 and 0172-2667859 are existing at the Complaint Centre

under his jurisdiction and are in working order. In addition, to facilitate the

general public for lodging their grievances regarding power supply and street

light, Consumer Facilitation Centre has been created at Sector-9, Head office

which is working round the clock with multiple lines with telephone No. 0172-

4639999.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the complainant did not

attend. He even did not submit written complaint as requested through the

letter addressed to the Nodal Officer for inviting comments. SDO along with his

RA present during hearing submitted that the in general complaints are attended

on priority but sometimes delay occurs due to large number of complaints

occurring during these months on account of heavy rains and thunder storms.

He further stated that as already explained in the written submissions there is

shortage of staff besides the Sub Division is being heaviest Sub Division with

more than 41000 electricity connections spread over 13 sectors and 6 villages.

In the present case, the supply was restored at the earliest possible and

thereafter no further complaint regarding disruption of supply was received from

the complainant,

5. Observing that the complaint was attended to the satisfaction of the

complainant, complaint is consider as disposed. The complainant may note that

the telephone numbers of Complaint Office as well as telephone number of

Centralised Cell to receive such complaints



opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Ravinder Mankad, House No. 1107/A, Progressive Coop. Society, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER






appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Sub Divn.No.9 along with

RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.

























In the matter to Shri Ravinder Mankad, House No.1107A,

Progressive Co-op. Society, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri R.K.Mankad, resident of House No.1107A, Progressive Co-op. Society,

Sector 50-B, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated March 17, 2016 submitted

that he had paid electricity bills up to date, but still the arrears were being

shown in the bill. He made last payment of Rs.22,000/- on 11.2.2016 but that

was not reflected in the recent bill issued by the electricity department. It was

further submitted that he gave an application to the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.

No.9 on 1.2.2016 that his house remains closed and thus bill should be sent on

actual basis or on minimum charges basis. The arrears in the current bill were

RS.24,166/-.




complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days.


with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4 submitted that bill issued to the

complainant was correct and prepared on actual consumption. As he was not

making the payment of the electricity bills since 24.9.2014, the arrears

accumulated to Rs.24,185/- which was reflected in the disputed bill. The

complainant cleared the arrears of Rs.24,166/- on 28.3.2016. The consumption

data was also enclosed with the reply.


attend. He even did not submit written complaint as requested earlier. SDO

along with his RA present during hearing submitted that the arrears were on

account of non payment of electricity bills since Sept.2014. The complainant

during his visit to the Sub Division was explained the reasons of arrear to his

satisfaction. Thereafter he made the payment on 28.3.2016 including arrears.

5. The Forum observed that the complainant got satisfied with the amount of

arrears shown in the bill and thereafter made the payment. The complaint is

consider as disposed in view of his making the payment of amount disputed by

him in the complaint.



opinion.








Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Sh. Vinod Kumar, House No. 383, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Shri Vinod Kumar, House No.383, Sector 45-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Vinod Kumar, resident of House No.383, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh through

his e-mail dated May 9, 2016 submitted that meter reader wrongly recorded the

reading as 6359 on 20.2.2016, though the current reading on date was much

less. He also supplied photo copy of the bill and picture of the meter showing

reading as 6229.



dated 11.05.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to the

complainant.


submitted that the electricity bill of the consumer was revised and adjustment of

Rs.1051/- was credited after verification of the reading. He also enclosed copy

of the revised bill prepared with verified reading. Copy of the letter and revised

bill was also forwarded to the consumer for information.


attend. The SDO submitted that the bill of the complainant has already been

revised and adjustment of Rs.1051/- was reflected in the bill which was issued

on 29.5.2016.

5. Observing that the grievance had already been redressed, the case is

considered as disposed. Further, in case the adjusted amount of Rs.1051/- was

not credited in the bill is issued on 29.5.2016, the complainant may again

approach to CGRF.



opinion.








Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, House No. 1076, Progressive Enclave, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Huse No.1076, Progessive

Enclave, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, resident of House No.1076, Progressive Enclave, Sector

50-B, Chandigarh through her e-mail dated April 27, 2016 stated that while

proceeding to USA, she paid Rs.3000/- as advance payment to the Electricity

Department against the bill dated 22nd July 2015. The amount was credited in

the account of previous owner of the flat and the same has not been adjusted

despite visit to the sub division.



dated 28.04.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to the

complainant.


submitted that the complainant applied for change of name on 12.12.2014. The

complainant made the payment of Rs.3000/- against old account number on

22.6.2015. Since she had applied for change of name, a new account number

was allotted and the old account was closed. He further submitted that

adjustment of Rs.3000/- has been made through sundry allowance on

20.5.2016 against her account and same would be reflected in the bill to be

issued on 24.6.2016.


attend. The SDO submitted that the grievance of the complainant has already

been redressed and the adjustment of Rs.3000/- (Disputed amount) would be

reflected in the bill to be issued on 24.6.2016.

5. Observing that the grievance had already been redressed, the case is considered

as closed. Further, in case the adjustment is not reflected in the bill to be

issued on 24.6.2016, the complainant may again approach CGRF.



opinion.








Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Smt. Silky Goyal, House No. 367, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Smt. Silky Goel, House No.367, Sector 45-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. An e-mail dated May 14, 2016 was received from “[email protected]”

stating that electricity meter of House No.367, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh was not

working and requested for replacement of the meter. It was also mentioned

that there were loose connections affecting the power supply.




complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days.


with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4 stated that the defective meter of

the complainant was replaced on 3.6.2016 being burnt meter. He enclosed

copy of MCO along with his reply.


attend. Neither written complaint was filed as requested. SDO along with his RA

present during hearing submitted that the defective meter (burnt) was replaced

on 3.6.2016, thus redressing the grievances of the complainant.

5. The Forum observing that the grievances of the complainant has already been

redressed, considers the complaint as disposed.




opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Smt. Shashi Kiran, House No.1677, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Smt. Shashi Kiran, resident of House No.1677, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh vide her

representation dated 22.8.2016 submitted that the subject cited house has been

allotted to her husband namely Shri Jaspal Singh working in the Employment

Generation & Training Department, Government of Panjab. Her husband has

filed a Divorce case in the Hon’ble Panjab & Haryana High Court and the same

is listed for hearing on 8.12.2016. In the meantime he preferred an application

before the Hon’ble District Court with the prayer to issue directions for vacation

(by her) of the said house allotted to him. The Hon’ble District Court vide order

dated 16.9.2015 under Para 6 issued following directions.

“ In this regard, this court is of the view that a valid marriage

between the parties still exists and no decree for separation has been passed yet by the Court, therefore, the respondent wife has a right to live in the residence of the husband. She cannot be treated

as trespasser or licensee in the premises, therefore, no directions can be issued to her to vacate the premises.”

Thereafter her husband got himself transferred at Ropar and applied

respective departments for disconnection of water and electricity connection.

The electricity connection was disconnected by the SDO electricity, when

contacted, he refused to reconnect the electricity supply. She prayed for

reconnection of the electricity connection stating that they have two children

son aged 22 years and daughter aged 13 years and also that she is suffering

from Endometrial Polyps in Uterus and has to undergo surgery at GMSH,

Sector-16, Chandigarh. She enclosed copy of orders of the Court, Medical

prescription and copy of the electricity bill.

2. The representation registered as Complaint No. GR-144/2016 was forwarded

to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide

letter dated 22.8.2016 for parawise comments. Directions were also issued

to reinstall the electricity connection, with a copy to the complainant.

3. On 23rd August 2016, Shri Jaspal Singh, Husband of the complainant

submitted an application stated that he was allotted the said house vide

Chandigarh Administration letter dated 24.5.2010. Thereafter he was

promoted as Supdt. on 31.12.2015 and was posted in Ropar. He took over

the charge of Supdt. at Ropar on 1.1.2016 and is continuing there till date.

He also stated that he is staying at Ropar only. As per the instructions, one

can retain the Government Accommodation for six months only on transfer

which has been completed on 30.6.2016 in his case. To avoid penal rent, he

approached the electricity department in Sector-23 for disconnection of

electricity connection of the said house and requested for issue of NDC

before surrendering the house. On getting the information that his wife

whose separation case is pending in the District Court since September,

2014, had approached this Forum for reconnection of the electricity

connection of the said house, he moved this application. Stating that the

said house in which the applicant is residing along with her children is a

Government accommodation and not a personal property. The government

accommodation has to be vacated in view of his transfer out of Chandigarh.

Stating that retaining of house further would attract penal rent @ 50 times

the normal rent, he is approaching the concerned offices for issuance of

NDC. He also stated that his retirement is due in May 2017 and he has to

complete the formalities of NDC before that date. Stating that his wife owns

a house No.5082 in Sector 38 West, Chandigarh, which has been rented out,

he prayed for review of the orders of the reconnection. He supplied copy of

allotment letter dated 24.5.2010, promotion orders and the instructions

regarding retention of the Government accommodation after transfer.

4. In view of the application by Shri Jaspal Singh submitting the factual

position, it was decided to hear both the parties along with the Nodal Officer

or his representative. Telephonic message in this regard were sent to all

concerned on 23.8.2016 with the request to make it convenient to attend the

hearing at 3.00 P.M. on 23.8.2016 to deliberate on the representation

submitted by Shri Jaspal Singh .

5. The complainant when informed refused to attend the hearing. However,

Shri Jaspal Singh along with concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.1

attended the hearing on the notified date and time. Shri Jaspal Singh

submitted that the electricity connection was in his name for which he had

already requested for disconnection. He further submitted that he joined his

new posting at Ropar on 1.1.2016 and starting residing there thereafter.

He allowed his family to stay in the house allotted to him for more than six

months. Though after six months penal rent becomes 50 times the normal

rent. The applicability of penal rent w.e.f. July 2016 compelled him to

surrender the house to avoid the penal rent. With a view to obtain NDC, he

approached the Sub Division for disconnection of the electricity connection to

clear the up to date dues. SDO submitted that reconnection has already

been done on 23.8.2016 as per orders of CGRF dated 22.8.2016. He further

pointed out that the electricity connection is in the name of Shri Jaspal Singh

and his consent is required for continuation of the electricity connection in his

name. To a query, he submitted that the applicant namely Smt. Shashi

Kiran cannot get electricity connection in her name as the said house was not

allotted to her.

6. This Forum on the basis of the submissions made by Shir Jaspal Singh as

well as by SDO and the documents placed before the Forum, observed that

the directions issued by the Hon’ble District Court vide order dated

16.9.2015 that the applicant namely Smt. Shashi Kiran has right to live in

the residence of the husband were issued at the time when Shri Jaspal Singh

was posted in Chandigarh. As on date he is posted at Ropar and cannot

retain the house allotted to him without paying penal @ 50 times of the

normal rent. The applicant Smt. Shashi Kiran is also a Government

employee, should have foreseen this aspects that the premises in which they

are living is Government accommodation and has to be vacated after six

months of transfer i.e. by 30.6.2016 to avoid penal rent. She should have

approached the House Allotment Committee for allotment of this house in her

name or another house as per her entitlement out of turn in view of

transfer of her husband. However, looking at the present situation and other

facts such as necessity of the electricity connection, vacation of house to

avoid penal rent etc, the Forum suggested the co-applicant Shri Jaspal Singh

to allow the applicant to reside in the said house for sometime so that she

can make alternative arrangements. On the suggestions by the Forum, co-

applicant Shri Jaspal Singh agreed to allow her to live in the said house up to

31st August 2016, provided the electricity charges for the period 23.8.2016 to

31.8.2016 are paid by Smt. Shahsi Kiran.

7. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to continue the reconnected

electricity connection up to 31.8.2016. The connection be disconnected on

31.8.2016 and NDC be issued to Shri Jaspal Singh after outstanding dues of

electricity are cleared by Smt. Shahsi Kiran/Sh. Jaspal Singh.

8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.




order.”












In the matter to Er. Seema Bahga, House No. 139, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Er. Seema Bahga, House No.139, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.

2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Er. Seema Bahga, resident of House No.139, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh

vide her e-mail dated April 27, 2016 stated that Rs.3643/- were levied as

sundry charges for the period 13.5.2012 to 13.05.2013 vide Memo. dated

16.3.2016 by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 without providing any

details.



vide letter dated 28.4.2016 for comments and action taken report with a


3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 11.5.2016 forwarded the reply

submitted by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1. The SDO in his reply

submitted that the meter of the consumer was changed on 10.7.2015 as

totally burnt with final reading not visible. The amount of Rs.3643/- has

been charged to the consumer account for the period 13.5.2015 to

10.7.2015 @ 413 units per month calculated on the base of average of

consumption recorded during the period 13.5.2012 to 13.5.2013. He

also supplied copy of MCO as well as consumption data.

4. The reply furnished by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the

complainant for her information and feedback vide letter dated

13.5.2016.

5. On the date of hearing on 27.5.2016, the complainant did not attend,

despite the prior intimation vide letter dated 23.5.2016. The SDO ‘OP’

Sub Division No.1 explained the base of charging of the disputed amount.

The complainant, when contacted on phone showed her satisfaction to

the reply given by the SDO and also confirmed that she had already made

the payment of dispute amount. She also conveyed that no more hearing

may be conducted and case be closed.

6. The Forum observing that consumer showed her satisfaction to the

charging done by the Sub Division, considers that the complaint has been

redressed.

7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the

case would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins

for concurrence/opinion.










(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Sh. Kuldeep Singh Sabharwal, House No. 704, First Floor, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

























MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF







In the matter to Shri Kuldip Singh Sabharwal, House No.704, 1st Floor, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Kuldip Singh Sabharwal, resident of House No. 704, 1st Floor, Sector 22-A,

Chandigarh through e-mail dated 8 April, 2016 submitted that he received a

SMS on 7.4.2016 from E-Sampark that electricity bill for Rs.6741/- is payable on

22.4.2016. Submitting that his previous bills were amended in line with the

orders issued by the CGRF and were paid by him, he stated that he has not

been regularly residing in the premises for the last three years and as such

consumption of the electricity may be nominal. He requested for verification

and correction of the bill.



dated 12.4.2016 for comments and action taken report with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 12.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted

by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply stated

that the bill of the consumer for the period 10.1.2016 to 10.3.2016 included a

sum of Rs. 6624/- as sundry charges. He further stated that these charges

were inadvertently charged to the consumer by the audit section. On detection

of the mistake, the same has been rectified by allowing an allowance of

Rs.6894/- to be reflected in the next bill. Rectification of the bill and allowing

an allowance of Rss.6849/- was also conveyed to the complainant vide letter

dated 10.5.2016. He enclosed copy of letter written to the complainant.

4. The complainant did not attend the hearing on 30.5.2016, despite the prior

intimation vide letter dated 23.5.2016. The SDO reiterated the written

submissions that the amount was charged inadvertently by mistake.

5. The Forum observed that for redressal of the complaint the Sub Division

confirmed taking appropriate action. The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure that

the proper sundry allowance advice is sent to the Computer Cell in time so that

the same is incorporated in the next bill.

6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case

would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for

concurrence/opinion.








Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, House No. 2148, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER





advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as

SDO were present. The complainant in regard to orders of the Forum submitted that he is

taking appropriate action for shifting the meter outside as a permanent solution to the

problem. He also state that he is making arrangement to convey the reading to meter

reader as and when the premises is found locked by him.

3. As the complaint did not raise any issue on the orders dated 30.05.2016 issued by the

Forum, it is safely presumed that his grievance stands addressed.


















In the matter to Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, House No.2148, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, Senior Citizen through letter dated 10.4.2016 stated

that a Booth No. 2422-B, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh was earlier given on lease till

31.12.2015. The said premises is lying vacant since January 2016 and is not in

use since then. He further stated that he received a bill dated 21.3.2016 for

average consumption of 1015 units (without indicating reading) of Rs.5062/- .

He requested for amendment of the bill on the basis of actual consumption as

nobody is using the booth since 31.12.2015.



dated 12.4.2016 for comments and action taken report with a copy to the

complainant to submit a written complaint, which was received on 21.4.2016

duly signed.

3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 11.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted

by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1. The SDO in his reply stated that the bill under

consideration for the period 22.12.2015 to 22.02.2016 was prepared on L-Code

i.e. ‘premises locked’ for average consumption of 1015 units as premises was

found locked. The consumer now has provided reading of the electricity meter

and next bill of the consumer will be prepared on actual reading with adjustment

of average charged during the disputed bill. He also prayed that the consumer

may be advised to get the meter shifted outside so as to avoid issuance of bill

on PL basis.

4. The reply furnished by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the complainant for

his information and feedback vide letter dated 13.5.2016.

5. On the date of hearing on 27.5.2016, the complainant did not attend, despite

the prior intimation vide letter dated 23.5.2016. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.1 stated that the bill was prepared on locked basis and the average charged

during the bill will be adjusted when bill will be prepared on reading provided by

the complainant.

6. As submitted by the SDO, the consumer may approach the Sub Division for

shifting of meter outside in order to avoid preparation of bill on average basis, in

case he proposed not to give booth on rent in future.

7. The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure that the next bill is issued on reading

with adjustment of average charged along with surcharge amount. The

complainant may approach again in case next bill is not issued on the basis of

reading provided by him to the Sub Division.


would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for

concurrence/opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Gurcharan Singh, SCF 13-14, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.


Versus




As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.

ORDER

1. Shri Gurcharan Singh, owner of SCF 13-14, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through his

application dated 15.2.2016 submitted that on receipt of a notice from the

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 that a sum of Rs.1,30,902/- is due from him. He

approached the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, but no action was

taken. The bill is continuesly to be issued with surcharge, forcing to him to

approach the CGRF.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-26/2016 was forwarded to


letter dated 16.2.2016 for parawise comments, consumption data and

connected load as checked. Simultaneously it was also conveyed that the

case would be heard on 22.3.2016 in the office of CGRF. Subquently vide

letter dated 18.2.2016, the applicant was advised to make payment of

Rs.65000/- (about 50% of the disputed amount) besides current cycle

charges within seven days in order to avoid the disconnection of his

electricity supply.

3. The complainant vide his letter dated 26.2.2016, after making the payment

of Rs.80,000/- including Rs.65000/-, as advised by the CGRF, requested for

deciding his case on priority. He supplied copy of bill along with copy of

demand draft and receipt of e-Sampark Centre.

4. On 22.3.2016, the complainant as well as SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.1 along with his RA were present. It was noted that reply from Nodal

Officer was not received. The complainant submitted that during the period

his account was overhauled, the premises was lying unoccupied, resulting

into less consumption than the average. The complainant was directed to

submit documentary evidence in support of his statement, that the premises

was lying vacant during the disputed period. The SDO was also directed to

expedite the submission of the reply.


submitted by the concerned SDO duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply

submitted that there are two connections in the name of Shri Gurcharan

Singh at the said premises. The disputed connection is in respect of A/c No.

2255/745304A with sanctioned load of 16.4 KW. The meter of the consumer

was changed on 12.1.2015 as totally burnt with final reading not visible.

Thereafter an average was charged w.e.f. 22.10.2013 to 12.1.2015 @ 2450

units per month on the basis of consumption recorded during 8/12 to 8/13.

Elaborating on the period, he submitted that the old meter was showing less

consumption since 22.8.2013 as compared to previous bills due to which the

account was overhauled w.e.f. 22.8.2013. On the issue of premises lying

vacant, as stated by the complainant, he submitted that no period has been

specified in his application and further no temporary connection was taken

during the period the renovation was carried out. He supplied copy of MCO

and the consumption data.

6. The reply by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the complainant vide letter

dated 10.5.2016 for his information and feedback.

7. The complainant vide his letter dated 17.5.2016 submitted a copy of lease

deeds entered into on 18th April 2012 and 24th October 2013.

8. On the notified date of hearing on 24.8.2016, the complainant as well as

SDO were present. The complainant submitted that previous tenant though

initially entered into lease deed for a period of nine years vacated the

premises in August 2013. Thereafter a fresh deed was entered into on

24.10.2013. Though the possession was taken over in December 2013,

business started after completing some renovation work thereafter. The

SDO submitted that no intimation regarding the vacancy/renovation was

conveyed to the Sub Division.

9. The Forum on the basis of submissions made by the complainant, observed

that the consumption dropped significantly w.e.f. August 2013 suggesting

that the tenant vacated the premises as the bills were issued on ‘Z’ code i.e.

meter working O.K. The extract of reading as provided by the Nodal Office

are reproduced below:-

Period New Reading Old Reading Units Code

22.02.13 to 22.4.13 20317 15196 5121 Z

22.4.13 to 22.6.13 25.46 20317 4729 Z

22.6.3 to 22.8.13 29399 25046 4353 Z

22.8.13 o 22.10.13 29440 29399 41 Z

22.10.13 to 22.12.13 29661 29440 221 Z

22.12.13 to 22.2.14 30131 29661 470 Z

22.2.14 to 22.4.14 30610 30131 479 Z

22.4.14 to 22.6.14 - 30610 479 A

22.6.16 to 22.8.14 34744 30610 4134 Z 4

Months

22.8.14 to 22.10.14 35928 34744 1184 Z

22.10.14 to 22.12.14 - 35928 1720 K

22.12.14 to 22.2.15 828 4 824 Y

22.2.15 to 22.4.15 2149 828 1321 Z

22.4.15 to 22.6.15 4640 2149 2491 Z

22.6.15 to22.8.15 6919 4640 2279 Z

It may be seen that the consumption again showed upward trend w.e.f. April

2014 recording the consumption of more than 4000 units for four months

which could be on account of occupancy by a new tenant. After the meter

was replaced on 12.1.2015 (due to burning of old meter), the recorded

consumption for the period Feb.2015 to December 2015 has been in the

range of 889 (during winter months) to 2491 units (during summer months)

per cycle of 2 months. The old meter also recorded consumption of 4143

units during the period 4/2014 to 8/2014 , comparable with the future

consumption recorded by the replaced meter during corresponding period

suggests that the meter was not defective during that period as considered

by the Sub Division. Immediately before the meter getting burnt, it recorded

1184 units during the period August to October 2014 which also matches

with the consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2015.

From above analysis, it is clear that the meter was in working position till

October 2014 and got burnt during the period October 2014 to December

2014.

10. In view of above inference, overhauling done by the Sub Division is set aside.

The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the period only from 22.10.2014 to

12.1.2015 (date of MCO) on the basis of corresponding consumption

recorded by the replaced meter and not on the past consumption basis since

the tenant/occupant during the past period in 2013 was different.



of the Electricity Act 2003.





order.”













In the matter to Shri Onkar Singh, SCO 846, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER

1. Shri Onkar Singh, owner of SCO No. 846, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through his

representation dated 18.2.2016 submitted that there are 3 Nos. floor-wise

electricity connections in the name of Shri Onkar Singh, Mrs. Manpreet Kaur and

Shri Rashbeg Singh in the said SCO. The account of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur was

overhauled by the Sub Division and sundry charges were levied. He approached

SDO as well as Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 for resolving the

dispute but to no avail, forcing him to approach the CGRF for settling the

dispute. He also requested for not to disconnect his supply till time decision and

to keep disputed amount pending.



letter dated 23.2.2016 for parawise comments on the representation and to

supply the connected load as checked and consumption data. The Nodal

Officer was also directed not to disconnect the supply in case consumer

makes payment of current amount of last two bills plus Rs.30,000/- out of

the disputed amount. The case was also listed for hearing on 22.3.2016

simultaneously.

3. On the date of hearing on 22.3.2016, the complainant as well as SDO,

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 along with his RA were present. It was noted

that reply of the Nodal Officer was yet to be submitted. Accordingly, it was

decided to re-notify after receipt of the reply of the Nodal Officer.


submitted by the concerned SDO duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply

submitted that the meter of the connection in the name of Mrs. Manpreet

Kaur was changed on 20.4.2014, as the same was found burnt. Thereafter

adhoc bills were issued for the period 11/2013 to 11/2014. On scrutiny of

the consumption data subsequently, it was found that the meter was showing

less consumption w.e.f. 10.9.2012 and accordingly the account was

overhauled. Further the meter installed on 20.10.2014 was changed on

6.2.2015 as dead stop, but subsequently was found to be working within

permissible limits when checked in M&P Lab on 20.3.2015. He enclosed

copy of MCO, M&P report and consumption data with his reply.

5. The reply by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the complainant vide letter

dated 10.5.2016 for his information and feedback.

6. The complaint was notified for hearing on 30.5.2016 which was attended by

the complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division. The complainant during

the hearing submitted that the load of connection in the name of Mrs.

Manpreet Kaur was shifted to other connection when meter became defective

and as such the consumption was being recorded through other meter. He

requested to compare the total consumption of all the three connections in

support of his statement. The SDO was directed to supply consumption of all

the three connections for last five years along with connected load.

7. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his

letter dated 11.7.2016 forwarded the consumption data of all the three

connections w.e.f. May 2011 to March 2016.

8. The case was again notified for hearing on 24.8.2016, when the

complainant as well as SDO were present. The complainant re-iterated his

earlier submissions that the load was shifted and as such average should not

be charged. The Forum on scrutiny of the consumption data of all the three

connections did not find any merit in the statement of the complainant. No

appreciable change in the consumption of other two connections was noted.

The consumption of both these accounts was consistent. The complainant

also got convinced with the detailed analysis of the Forum and agreed for

overhauling the account of Mrs.Manpreet Kaur during the period mete

remained defective on the basis of past consumption of one year. On

further analysis of the consumption data, it was noted that the consumption

of connection of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur dropped significantly after September

2012 from average of 6000 units to around 1000 units for 2 months

indicating that the meter became defective after September 2012. The SDO

also supplied the connected load as checked on 5.2.2015. The checked load

of connection of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur was 15.5 KW equal to the sanctioned

load suggesting that there was no merit in the statement of the complainant

that the load of this connection was shifted to other connection when meter

became defective.

9. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account from

September 2012 to 6.2.2015(date of MCO) on the basis of one year

consumption recorded during the period September 2011 to September

2012. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order

failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant

sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
















In the matter to Shri Bhushan Lal, House No. 2001, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Shri Bhushan Lal, House No.2001, Sector 19-C,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Bhushan Lal, Ex-Serviceman, resident of House No.2001, Sector 19-C,

Chandigarh through his complaint received in the office of CGRF on 6.5.2016

stated that he received a notice from SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide letter

dated 3.5.2016 to deposit Rs.1466/- within seven days. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.3 issued the notice on the basis of ECR dated 20.4.2016 when it was

found that domestic connection was being used for commercial purpose i.e. for

Storage of goods/go down. The complainant submitted that there is no

commercial activity going on at the said premises. He further elaborated that

after death of his two sons, he stopped running of STD/PCO since 2010. He

further stated that he has two non CST shops in No.12 Wing, Air Force and

Sainik Rest House in Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. Some of the goods to be sold at

these shops are kept by the side of bed room in his house sometimes. He

prayed that the penalty imposed by SDO amounting to Rs.1466/- may be

waived, in view of above position, being Senior Citizen and his financial

condition due to death of his two sons.



dated 10.05.2016 for comments. The Nodal Officer was also requested to

intimate the area of the premises as well as area where proposed commercial

activity was going on. The notice issued by the SDO was also stayed till disposal

of the case.


submitted that the electricity connection was checked by the staff of Division

Office on 20.4.2016, when it was found that the DS connection was being used

for storage of goods/go-down. Accordingly as per ECR, Rs.1466/- was charged

for difference of DS to NRS tariff for two years under Section 126 of the

Electricity Act.

4. While notifying the hearing date as 23.5.2016, the Nodal Officer was directed to

supply the total area as well as area of commercial activity. Due to non receipt

of reply from the Nodal Officer, hearing was postponed to 8.6.2016 vide letter

dated 18.5.2016.

5. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 31.5.2016 conveyed that one room of

size 5’x6’ at ground floor was being used for storage of material and half portion

of the Drawing room at ground floor was being used for residential purpose.

The total area of the house was 50 Sq.yds. Owner himself residing in the house

at ground floor except for one room of size 5’x6’.

6. On the date of hearing on 8.6.2016, the complainant as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.3 were present. The complainant submitted that after death of his

two sons, his Daughter-in-law are running the shop in Air Force area and Sainik

Rest House in Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. The material purchased for these two

shops were being kept at his place as temporary measure before transporting to

both the shops. He also submitted that apart from above, no commercial

activity is being conducted from his premises.

7. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 agreed that apart from storing of the material,

no other commercial activity was found to be conducted.

8. Observing that only small room of size 5’x6’ (30 Sq.ft.) was being used for

storing of goods as temporary measures before transporting the same to both

the shops run by his widowed Daughter-in-laws, it is concluded that no

commercial activity is being conducted such as sale of goods etc. from the

house. The Supply Code Regulations also permit certain category of consumers

to use DS connection for practising from their residence with area restricted to

25% of the area of the premises or 50 Sq. mtr. whichever is less. In addition,

cottage and commercial activity operating in residences have also been

permitted with total load of 5 KW domestic tariffs.

9. On the basis of above, charging of Rs.1466/- is set aside. Since the quorum of

the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put up to the

Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.


Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-






Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Purushotam Gupta & Others, Shopkeepers of Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER
































In the matter to Shri Purushotam Gupta and others, the shopkeepers

of Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Shri Purushotam Gupta and others, the shopkeepers of Sector 27-C,

Chandigarh through e-mail dated April 05, 2016 complained regular break

down of electricity for almost 4 to 5 hours. They contacted concerned JE

of the area but problem was not resolved.


to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 for

taking action and to submit report vide letter dated 18.04.2016 for

supplying para-wise comments with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No. 3 vide his letter dated

12.04.2016 submitted that the power supply of parts of sector 27-C

market was shut down on 01.04.2016 from 11.10 to 13.55 hours to

undertake preventive maintenance work with a view to ensure

uninterrupted power supply during summer season. The intimation of

proposed shut down was published in news papers also. He further

submitted that on 05.04.2016, power supply to sector 27-c, market

remained the suspended due to burning of main LT cable of transformer.

The supply was re-stored within one hour after attending the fault.

Stating that there was no complaint of break down during the period

20.03.2016 to 05.04.2016 as per complaint register, he attributed the

complaint regarding daily break down of electricity for 4 to 5 hours as

baseless.

4. The reply by the SDO was e-mail to the complainants on 21.04.2016 as

the mailing address was not indicated.

5. The case was notified for hearing on 23.05.2016 at 3.P.M. Sh. Gupta

along with some of the shopkeepers came at around 4.P.M. By the time,

the SDO had already left. Sh. Gupta stated that the problem of break

down improved after their complaint but they were again facing the

problem for last 1/2 days. It was observed that there was storm during

these days. The storm on 23.05.2016 was quite strong leading to

breakdown of electricity in many parts of the city and surrounding areas.

They were requested to contact the SDO No. 3 for their problem. During

hearing the SDO had already been directed to get the system checked to

locate the cuse of break down if any.

6. In the view of above, the nodal officer is directed to get the system

checked to indentify the reason for frequent break downs and to set it

right. The complainants may also contact the SDO on his mobile in case

the problem continues.



finally disposed.



Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya



09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month







(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Rakha Ram, House No.1021, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER

1. Shri Rakha Ram, residing at House No.1021, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through

his e-mail dated May 20, 2016 submitted that he is running business of

Photostat-cum- Lamination from one room of size 9’x15’ on the ground floor of

his residence. Giving a reference of Order/Notification dated 19.6.1998, he

submitted that the consumers are allowed to use up to 20% of the area subject

to a maximum of 15 Sq. Mtrs. for running STD, PCO, Fax Photostat etc. He

further submitted that he received a notice from the SDO for Rs.17526/- on

account of applicability NRS tariff. He prayed for withdrawal of the amount of

Rs.17526/- in view of the instructions permitting NRS activities from the

residences where area being used for NRS is less than 20%.



letter dated 23.5.2016 for comments and also to supply the total area of

the premises as well as area being used for commercial activity also. A copy

was also sent to the complainant, with the request to submit a written

complaint within five days as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble

JERC.

3. In response, the complainant submitted the written complaint duly signed

on 21.5.2016.

4. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated

31.5.2016 submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant was

checked by the staff of the Division office vide ECR dated 20.4.2016. As it

was found that domestic supply was being used for commercial purpose i.e.

Photostat/Internet, the connection was treated as unauthorized Under

Section 126 of the Electricity Act and difference of tariff i.e. DS to NRS was

charged for 2 years amounting to Rs.17526/-. He further

commented that the total area is 192 Sq.Yds. and the one room of size

11’x10’ is being used for commercial purpose. He enclosed copy of ECR.

5. The complainant through subsequent e-mail dated June 25, 2016 requested

for issuing suitable directions to the SDO for keeping the charged amount

pending till settlement of the matter.

6. The complaint was notified for hearing on 14.7.2016 vide letter dated

28.6.2016. The complainant did not attend but the SDO ‘OP’ SubDiv.No.3

was present. Another opportunity was given to the complainant by listing the

case of the hearing on 29.8.2016. The complainant did not appear on this

date also. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.3 present during the hearing prayed

for dismissal of the case on the basis of written submissions made by him.

7. The Forum observed that the instructions dated 1998 referred to by the

complainant are not applicable today, with the notification of Supply Code

Regulations/Tariff Orders 2016 by the Hon’ble JERC coming into force. The

Supply Code Regulations exempt only following activities to be operated from

the residences and not to be treated as unauthorized use of electricity as per

sub regulation B (iv) of Regulation 10.1, reproduced below:-

“Professional such as Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers , CAs, Journalists and Consultant practicing from their residence

irrespective of location provided that such use shall not exceed 25% of the area of the premises or 50 Sq. meters, whichever is less

subject to installation of MDI meters.”

For cottage and commercial activities operating in residences such as repair of shoes by cobbler, dhobi, ironing of clothes, stitching/knitting, paan shop and bakery products etc. small shops,

tea shops etc. with total load (maximum demand) of 5 KW domestic tariff shall be applicable subject to installation of MDI meters. In

case where total load is more than 5 KW, separate metering shall be

done for commercial and domestic use and consumption shall be charged according to the tariff applicable.

8. The Forum from the notified tariff order for the period 2016-17 also

observed that running of Photostat/Internet business has not been permitted

to run from residential area under the relevant notes for applicability DS

tariff as reproduced below:- (Notes under Para 11.3 at Page 210).

i) Where a portion of the dwelling is used for mixed load purposes the

connection shall be billed for the purpose for which the tariff is higher. ii) Hostels shall be considered as one unit and billed under domestic

supply tariff without compounding. iii) Private education institutions not recognized by the Chandigarh

Administration shall be billed under Non Domestic Tariff.

iv) STD/PCO, shops attached to Religious Institutions will be billed under Non Domestic Tariff.

v) A room or a part of a residential house utilized by a teacher for imparting tuition work, self occupied handicapped persons operating

from their residences, cooking classes taken by house ladies, beauty parlour run by house ladies, ladies doing tailoring work etc. shall be covered under domestic tariff.

On perusal of the Notes (i) it is clear that where the dwelling units is

being used for mixed load purposes, the connection shall be billed for the

purpose for which tariff is higher i.e. NRS tariff in the present case. The Note

(v) does not include running of Photostat Machine etc. to be covered under

domestic tariff.

From the above, it is clear that the NRS tariff is to be charged as the

connection is being used for mixed load i.e. domestic as well as commercial

purpose.

9. The Forum observed that the notice issued to the consumer was not under

Section 126. Accordingly the case is not being considered as unauthorized

use of electricity. The Supply Code Regulations provides for method of

charging when it is observed that the applicability of tariff is different and

higher from the tariff being charged but the relevant regulation is silent

about the period of assessment which has been taken as 2 years by the SDO.

The Forum does not find it proper to charge for 2 years as done by SDO.

10. The Forum after going through the Supply Code finds that time period for

charging in such cases has been specified in the Supply Code Regulations

under Para 10.3 (c) (iv) reproduced below:-

“The assessment under Clause 10.3 (c) (iii) shall be limited to twice the financial loss caused to the department for the period

during which such unauthorized use has taken place i.e. two times

the difference of the electricity charges required to be paid by the consumer as per relevant category of tariff and electricity charges

actually paid during the period, subject to maximum period of 12 months.”

In views of above provision, the assessment is to be done for

maximum period of 12 month, where as SDO in his reply submitted that the

difference of domestic and NRS for a period of two years was charged. The

Nodal Officer is directed to reassess the charges strictly in line with the

provision of the Supply Code Regulations quoted above. The complainant

may exercise his option to obtain a separate NRS connection for the portion

of his residence which is being used for commercial activity such as Photostat

Machine/Lamination/Internet to avoid levy of NRS tariff for his portion being

used as residence.

11. With above decision and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed off

in aforementioned terms. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the


JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003



Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this

order.”











Complaint No. - GR-23/2016 Date of Institution - 08.02.2016 Date of Order - 29.08.2016 In the matter to Shri Inderjit Singh, House No.3198, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER

1. Shri Inderjit Singh, resident of House No.3198, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 28.01.2015, submitted in the office of CGRF on 8.2.2016, stated that he was in

receipt of letter dated Jan.14, 2016 from SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 asking him to

deposit the pending payments. In this context, he drew attention towards his application to

the CGRF with regard to suspected jumping of meter which was however not accepted by

this Forum. His request to the Xen/SDO to divide the amount in five equal instalments on

the plea that he was retired officer surviving on pension was not accepted by the electricity

department. He requested this Forum for allowing him to deposit the amount in five equal

instalments and also to waive off the surcharge during pendency of his case.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-23/2016 was forwarded to the Nodal

Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 9.2.2016 for

comments and other relevant documents. Simultaneously, it was notified that the case

would be heard on 23.2.2016.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated 15.2.2016

submitted that the consumer submitted a request on 26.11.2015 for allowing him to clear

the pending amount in five equal monthly instalments which was forwarded to the

Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 being competent authority. However, the

approval was not accorded by the division office and consumer was informed vide

memo. dated 14.01.2016 to deposit the pending amount. He also submitted that

consumer did not pay the current bill within due date and the surcharge can not be

refunded as per Rules and Regulations of the Department. On the issue of pending

payment, he stated that notice was served to the consumer as per CGRF order dated

14.8.2015 to make the payment of outstanding amount within 15 days to avoid

disconnection of supply. However, consumer paid only two instalment - Rs. 30,000/- on

10.11.2015 and Rs.40,000/- on 28.12.2015.

4. The applicant vide his e-mail dated 23.2.2016, (the date of hearing) informed that he is

not well and requested for adjournment. The SDO present on 23.2.2016 did not raise

any objection to the request made by the applicant for adjournment. The next date was

notified as 21.3.2016 vide letter dated 2.3.2016 but again only SDO was present and the

consumer did not attend.

The applicant however, through his e-mail dated 26.3.2016 informed that he

received the hearing notice only on 2.3.2016 and thus could not make to attend the

same. The case thereafter was listed for hearing on 23.5.2016, the complainant as well

as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 were present. The complainant requested for waiver off

surcharge during the pendency of the case and also to allow him to clear the pending

payment in five equal instalments apart from two instalments already paid by him. He

also informed that in addition to instalments he would also pay the current cycle charge.

Since the quorum was not complete, the request of the complainant for waiver off the

surcharge could not be taken up and was kept pending. However, keeping in view that

he is a retired Government Officer,

instructions were issued on 23.5.2016 to allow him to clear the outstanding amount as

was on his date of application i.e. 28.1.2016 in five equal bio-monthly instalments

without levy of surcharge plus the current consumption charges.

5. Subsequently on joining of a new member, quorum was achieved, the case was again

notified for hearing on 29.8.2016. The complainant as well as SDO ‘OP” Sub Division

No.3 were present. The complainant prayed for waiver off surcharge from the date he

made first application to the electricity department. The SDO informed that the

instalments were worked out as per instructions of the Forum dated 23.5.2016 issued

vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-GR-23/2016/942-43 dated 25.5.2016 and conveyed to

the complainant after obtaining his signatures.

6. The Forum on the basis of submissions made by both the parties, during hearing on

29.8.2016, observed that the complainant after receipt of high consumption bill for the

period August 2013 to December 2013 approached the concerned Sub Division vide his

letter dated 29.1.2014. The Sub Division got the meter checked and found same in

working order. Connected load was also found more than the sanctioned load. The

SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.3 did not find merit in the request made by the applicant and

asked him to make the payment vide letter dated 28.3.2014. However, meter was

sealed for checking at the M&P Lab when the consumer challenged the same. The

meter was got tested in the presence of consumer/representative on 17.4.2014 but the

errors were found within permissible limits. The consumer was thereafter asked to clear

the pending payments and was allowed to make payment in instalments. Thereafter

the consumer approached CGRF vide letter dated 27.5.2014. The request by the

complainant was considered by the Forum. On the basis of checking report,

consumption data and other documents placed before the Forum the request of the

consumer was not found justified. On the request made by the consumer, the meter

was also got tested at the lab of 3rd party i.e. PSPCL but again errors were found within

permissible limits. The Forum vide order dated 6.8.2015 concluded that working of the

disputed meter was correct and the amount charged to the consumer was as per rules.

The complainant thereafter approached the Division/Sub Division for allowing

him to clear the pending amount in five equal instalments which was not accepted by the

Division. Subsequently he was allowed to clear the payment in instalments, vide

instructions dated 23.5.2016 as referred in Para 5 above.

7. The Forum after deliberating the case decided as under:-

i) To confirm the instructions already issued allowing the complainant to clear the

pending amount in five equal instalments plus current consumption charges.

ii) As a special case keeping in view the status, as retired Govt. officer, age and

health of the applicant, Respondents are directed not to levy any surcharge from

the date, the applicant first moved his application to the SDO i.e. from 29.1.2014.

It is however clarified that surcharge would be applicable on the current

consumption charges in case not paid within due date. Further surcharge would also be

applicable in case the complainant defaults in making payment of instalment or current

consumption charges after the amount of instalment is conveyed to the complainant.

Directions are also issued for levy of surcharge only on the unpaid amount of bill rather

than full amount in case of part payment. The applicant, in his own interest, must

approach the Sub Division for regularisation of the excess load found at the time of

checking of the meter to keep the record regarding his load straight.

8. The complaint is considered as disposed off in aforementioned decision and directions.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the

penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity

Act 2003





indexed.









In the matter to M/s Anjali Arts, Plot No. 156, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER






appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’

Sub Divn.No.5..

























In the matter to M/s Anjali Arts, Plot No. 156, Industrial Area, Phase-II,Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. E-mail dated 20th March, 2016 was received from M/s Anjali Arts, Plot No.

156, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh where in it was indicated that

they did not receive electricity bill of Feb, 2016. Through return e-mail it

was advised to have duplicate bill by paying the requisite fee of Rs.5 or

Rs.10/- . Alternatively to visit Sampark Centre for knowing the bill and

making payment.





3. In response, concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter

dated 18.4.2016 submitted that the bills were regularly being issued and

delivered to the complainant. He also advised to get the duplicate bill or

downloaded from the website.



5. On the date of hearing on 20.5.2016, the complainant did not attend.

The SDO as well as RA present on behalf of the sub division stated that

bills were being delivered regularly.

6. The Forum observed that no further communication has been received

from the complainant. Consider the complaint as redressed



finally disposed.


















In the matter to Shri Sutinder Singh Chopra, House No.679, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Sutinder Singh Chopra, resident of House No.679, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh

through his letter dated 16.8.2016 submitted that the consumption recorded

during the period 23.9.2015 to 22.11.2015 was 44671 units which was much

much more than his average consumption of around 700 units per cycle. He

attributed this high consumption as a result of jumping of reading by the meter.

He also supplied the details of the consumption recorded by the meter from July

2013 onwards in support of his apprehension.



letter dated 16.8.2016 with the directions to submit parawise comments/

action taken report along with consumption data of last three years.

Directions were also issued to keep the balance amount (after receipt of the

current consumption charges) pending till the final disposal of the case. As

the consumer requested for early hearing because he was scheduled to leave

for Australia by 2nd September 2016, the case was notified to be heard on

30.8.2016.


submitted by the AEE. Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly countersigned.

The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply dated 26.8.2016

submitted that the mechanical electricity meter was replaced by the

electronic meter on 5.8.2015. He opined that the reading recorded on

22.11.2015 could be that of the old meter as 46038, found recorded in the

MCO. This reading could have been figured in due to inadvertent error by

staff of the Sub Division. A check meter was installed on 4.8.2016 to check

accuracy of the replaced meter, but as per report of check meter the error

was found within permissible limits. He offered to check the meter from M&P

or any other approved independent lab at the cost of applicant as permitted

under regulation 7.5.(2)(iii) of the Supply Code 2010. Refuting the

allegations of meter jumping, he stated that consumption of 4160 units

pertains to more than one year. He , therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

complaint. He supplied consumption data, MCO and copy of check meter

report.

4. On the notified date of hearing on 30.8.2016, the complainant as well as RA

of the Sub Division were present. The complainant attributed the recording

of high consumption during the period September to November 2015 on

account of meter jumping. The RA submitted that first bill after MCO was

issued for 296 units but subsequent four bills were issued on average basis

due to Inconsistent reading, premises locked, Inconsistent reading and

reading not taken for reason other than premises locked, before the final bill

issued on the basis of reading recorded on 26/6/2016. He also provided the

details of the recorded reading as per the office record on various dates as

under:-

Sr.No. Period Reading Bill prepared/(code)

1. 26.8.2015 296 As per reading (Z code)

2. 26.10.2015 46767 Average (I code)

3. 26.12.2015 - Average (L code)

4. 26.2.2016 48136 Average (I code)

5. 26.4.2016 - Average (N code)

6. 26.6.2016 41456 As per reading (Z code)

7. 5.8.2016 49850 -do-

8. 20.8.2016 50005 -do-

From the above details provided by the Sub Division, the Forum

observed that the readings as per the office record on 26.10.2015 and

26.2.2016 as 46767 and 48136 are more than the reading recorded on

26.6.2016 as 41456. Further the reading as per check meter report was

found to be 49850 on 5.8.2016. Thus no consistency in recording of the

reading was observed. It, however, appears that reading recorded on

26.10.2015 and 26.2.2016 were right but was considered Inconsistent due to

high consumption and thus ignored. The reading of 41456 recorded on

26.6.2016 appears to be wrongly recorded, in view of the reading as per

check meter report on 5.8.2016.

5. From the above analysis, it appears that the meter recorded consumption of

46471 units (46767-296) during the period August to October 2015 which is

very much on higher side as compared to his past average consumption as

well as connected load of 14.360 KW and may be on A/c of jumping of

reading as contended by the complainant.

6. In view of above inference, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the meter

replaced immediately. He is also directed to overhaul the account from the

period meter was installed i.e. from 5.8.2015 to date of replacement of the

disputed electronic meter on the basis of consumption recorded during the

corresponding period in the year 2014-2015.

7. The complainant also stated during the hearing that he has already made

payment in excess of his actual use/average consumption. He, however,

requested that in case, after overhauling, some payment is still to be made,

he would pay the same immediately after returning from Australia. However,

his connection should not be disconnected in case the payment is not made

by him being out of India. The Forum in view of his request, allows him to

clear the bills immediately after his arrival in India and directs the Nodal

Officer not to disconnect his supply till November 2016 due to non payment

of outstanding amount, if any.





order.”













In the matter to Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, House No. 1868, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1868, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated June 2, 2016 submitted that he received the bill which

was not prepared on actual reading but on average of 200 units. He submitted

that the average being charged was on higher side. He got transferred recently

from Delhi and kept his family at Ghaziabad is residing alone in the premises

and that too for around 20 days in a month.



letter dated 02.06.2016 for parawise comments, with a copy to the

complainant.



The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply submitted that the meter

was defective during the period 20.4.2014 to 20.6.2016 and the bills were

being issued for ‘Nil’ consumption. The defective meter was replaced on

2.6.2016 and thereafter the account was overhauled w.e.f. 20.8.2014 to

6.6.2016 on the basis of provisional load basis as per Sale Manual

Instructions No.115 of the department, subject to adjustment on the basis of

future consumption. He enclosed copy of MCO, Consumption data, Notice

issued to the complainant before overhauling the account and Instruction

No.115 dated 16.2.2000.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 19.7.2016. The SDO along with

his RA were present but the complainant did not turn up. Another

opportunity was offered to the complainant on 30.8.2016, but again the

complainant did not attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division

reiterated the written submissions.

5. The Forum on the basis of consumption data observed that the consumption

was in the range of 15 to 56 units during the period 20.10.2013 to

20.8.2014 before recording ‘Nil’ consumption. The Forum also noted that

Sale Manual Instructions referred to by the Division was not relevant with

the notification of Supply Code Regulations by the Hon’ble JERC. As per the

submissions made by the consumer that he is having only one 14 Watt. CFL

Lamp and 60 Watt. Ceiling fan, the Forum is of the view that the

consumption of 200 units is not achievable with the appliances being used by

the complainant. The previous consumption recorded by the meter before,

it got damaged, also support the complainant’s statement. In view of above,

the Forum sets aside the overhauling done by the Sub Division. The Nodal

Officer is directed to get the account overhauled once it got of one year

consumption by the replaced meter is available.





order.”












In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No. 107, Phase-2, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.



ORDER







Sub Divn.No.5.
























In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No.107, Phase II, Ram

Darbar, Chandigarh


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No2,



Interim Order

1. Shri Deepak Goya through his e-mail dated May 4, 2016 submitted that the

electricity supply to his Booth No.107, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh is not

available since last night. Despite registering a complaint on Phone

No.01722652475, his electricity supply was not set right.



vide letter dated 04.05.2016 for comments/action taken report.


submitted that the failure of Electricity Supply to his booth was redressed by

replacing cable. The complainant expressed his satisfaction and gave a letter in

written. The SDO attached photo copy of the same and prayed for disposal of

the complaint.


attend. The SDO conveyed that his grievances had already been redressed by

replacing the cable to his satisfaction.

5. Observing that the grievances has already been redressed to the satisfaction of

the complainant, the complaint is considered as disposed.



opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No. 107, Phase-2, Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER







Sub Divn.No.5.
























In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No.107, Ram Darbar, Phase-2, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Deepak Goel through e-mail dated March 27, 2016 stated that he did

not receiv the bill for his Booth No.107, Ram Darbar Phase-2, Chandigarh

till 27.3.2016. Through returned e-mail, it was advised to have duplicate

bill by paying the requisite fee of Rs.5 or Rs.10/- . Alternatively to visit

Sampark Centre for knowing the bill and making payment. The

complainant, when contacted on telephone on 28.3.2016 to convey the

above, confirmed that he received the bill on 27.3.2016 in the evening.





3. In response to this office letter dated 29.3.2016, the concerned AEE

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 18.4.2016 submitted

that the bills were regularly being issued and delivered to the complainant

through courier service. He also advised to get the duplicate bill or

downloaded from the website.



5. On the date of hearing on 20.5.2016, the complainant did not attend.

The SDO as well as RA present on behalf of the sub division stated that

bills were being delivered regularly through courier service.

6. The Forum observed that no further communication has been received

from the complainant. Consider the complaint as redressed



finally disposed.


















In the matter to Smt. Kavita, House No. 1290, Silverston Society, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER







Sub Divn.No.5.























Complaint No. - GR-36/2016 Date of Institution - 08.03.2016 Date of Order - 20.05.2016 In the matter to Smt. Kavita, House No. 1290 Silverstone Society, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. A complaint was received from Smt. Kavita, House No. 1290, Silverstone Society,

Sector 48-B, Chandigarh through her e-mail dated 08.03.2016 Complaining that for

the last few months, the bills are being without meter reading.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-36 of 2016, was forwarded to the

Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. S.E, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for comments vide letter

dated 09.03.2016. Simultaneously the complaint was notified for hearing on

30.03.2016.

3. On the date of hearing neither the complainant nor the respondent SDO make

themselves present. As the reply was not received from the Nodal officer, the matter

was discussed with SDO No. 5 on phone. He stated that the meter was found

defective/dead stop which was replaced and the A/c was being overhauled. He

promised to submit reply within a week.

4. The nodal officer vide his letter dated 18.04.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by

the SDO No. 5. The SDO in his reply submitted that the electricity meter of the

complainant, when got checked through JE, was found be dead stop. The defective

meter was got replaced on dated 28.03.2016. On checking the record, it was found

that meter was showing same reading since 14.12.2014. The account of the

consumer was there after overhauled for the period 14.10.2014 to 28.03.2016 (date

of MCO) @ 690 units per month. The base for overhauling taken was previous

consumption for the period 14.10.2013 to 14.10.2014 i.e

704+702+445+4534+1897= 8282/12= 690 units per month. After overhauling, a

notice was served for depositing a sum of Rs. 47557/- on 30.03.2016. He enclosed

the consumption date, the MCO, report of JE and the notice dated 30.03.2016.

5. On the next date of hearing on 20.05.2016, the complainant did not appear. The

SDO No.5 stated that the complainant visited the Sub/division and he was provided

details of overhauling of the account. He got convinced that the charging done by

the Sub/Division was in order and made the payment.

6. The Forum observed that the meter was replaced promptly on receipt of the

complaint thus redressing the grievance. The Forum also noted that the overhauling

done by the Sub/Division was in order and complaint made the payment.

7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not completed, the decision will be put up to the

Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is finally disposed.





numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the Member.








In the matter to Shri I.S.Ghuman, Wg. Cdr. (Retd.), Houe No.2272-B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT,

Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.



ORDER

1. Shri I.S.Ghuman, Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) and General Secretary-cum-President of

Army Welfare Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Sector 47-C, Chandigarh

through his application dated 8.6.2016 submitted that an erroneous bill was

raised by the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 in December 2012 wherein

consumption was shown as 4972 units for four months against the average

consumption of 25-30 units for two months. Representative from the Sub

Division visited the premises in April 2013 but thereafter nothing was heard

from the Sub Division. The bills which were being issued were not paid

assuming that they have a credit. Subsequently meter was removed due to

non payment of bill dated 20.4.2016 amounting to Rs.48,873/-. In his

application he quoted the previous instance of generation of high consumption

bill in October 2011 which was rectified in February 2012. While submitting the

application in person he explained that instance of issuing of high consumption

bill in 2011 was on account of 3 digit reading being recorded as 4 digit reading

by treating the 1/10 unit as one unit. In another words, the decimal point after

3 digit was ignored while issuing the bill.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-99/2016, was forwarded to

the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated

08.06.2016 for comments with specific directions to comment on the issue of

3 digit/4 digit and also the reading recorded at the time of removal of the

meter. Directions were also issued to restore the connection after accepting

payment of Rs.5000/-.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 forwarded the

reply submitted by the AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 duly

countersigned. The AEE in his reply submitted that the disputed meter was

installed on 11.3.2010 after old meter was found Dead Stop. Thereafter

regular bills were being issued on the basis of readings recorded by the

meter. With reference to representation of the consumer, he stated that the

meter was got checked on 13.6.2016 and was found correct. He further

pointed out that the consumer did not make any payment after 31.10.2011

and as such supply was disconnected but later on restored as per directions

by this Forum after the applicant made a part payment of Rs.5000/- on

13.6.2016. The amount of Rs. 45828/- is still outstanding as on date after

adjusting the payment of RS.5000/- made by the consumer. He enclosed

copy of MCO dated 11.3.2010, consumption data and the report of check

meter dated 13.6.2016 by J.E.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 30.8.2016, the representative of the

complainant as well as SDO and RA of Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 attended

the hearing. The Complainant attributed the recording of high consumption

as the case of meter jumping where as SDO submitted that the disputed bill

was issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter there is no

confusion of 3/4 digits. Thereafter no case of recording of high

consumption has been found during last four years.

5. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, the Forum

observed that the average consumption was in the range of 22 to 30 units

during the period May 2010 to July 2012 before registering a consumption

4889 (5277-338) units during the period July to September 2012. The

reading of 5277 recorded on 27.9.2012 was, however, ignored being found

inconsistent and the bill was prepared for 30 Units (based on past average).

The next bill was, however, prepared for four months on the basis of reading

of 5310 recorded on 27.11.2012 for 4972 units. Thereafter the meter again

continued to record normal consumption between 32 to 80 units from

November 2012 to March 2016.

6. From the above details of the consumption provided by the Sub Division, it

appears that the meter recorded abnormally high consumption during the

period July to September 2012 where after the meter again started giving

normal reading for the next four years or so. In view of above, the Forum

conclude that reading recorded on 27.9.2012 could be on account of meter

jumping and accordingly the Nodal Officer is directed to ignore this reading

and prepare the bill for the period July to September 2012 on the basis of

consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the year 2011. A

bill from September to November 2012 be issued on the basis of recorded

readings i.e. 5310 on 27.11.2012 and 5277 on 27.9.2012. The subsequent

bills have, however, been issued on the basis of recorded readings and there

is no issue as the consumption recorded matches with the average

consumption. The Forum also noted that the consumer after receipt of high

consumption bill in November/December 2012 did not bother to make any

payment out of the disputed amount or even the current bill issued

thereafter for the next more than 3-1/2 years. The complainant also did not

challenge the bill before appropriate authority. While ignoring the

consumption from July to September 2012 on account of suspected meter

jumping , the surcharge is, however, is to be levied on the bills issued

subsequently for the current consumption but not paid by the consumer. In

another words, after overhauling the account for the period July to

September 2012, the surcharge is to be levied on the current as well as

arrears. Thereafter till the overhauled outstanding amount is cleared.


off in aforementioned terms. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the


JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003




order.”













In the matter to Ms. Sonam Chhering, House No.1877, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. The complaint was received through e-mail dated June 14, 2016 from Ms.

Sonam Chhering submitted that the meter installed at her residence No.1877,

1st floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh appears to be defective. She requested for

getting the same checked and to take further appropriate action.



letter dated 15.06.2016 for parawise comments with directions to get meter

checked and get it replaced, if not found working. A copy was sent to the

complainant with the request to submit a written complaint within five days

as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.




submitted that the meter installed at the residence of the complainant was

found defective from the date of installation on 29.1.2016. The same was

replaced on 17.6.2016 and the account was overhauled from 29.1.2016 to

17.6.2016 on the connected load basis @ 200 units per cycle, as per Sales

Manual Instruction No.115 on provisional basis subject to adjustment on the

future consumption, as the previous base was not available. He enclosed

copy of MCO and Sales Manual Instruction No.115 dated 16.2.2000. .

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 19.7.2016. The SDO along with

his RA were present but the complainant did not turn up. Another

opportunity was offered to the complainant on 30.8.2016, but again the

complainant did not attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division

reiterated the written submissions. The complainant did not submit the

written complaint either.

5. The Forum observed that the Sales Manual Instruction referred to by the

Nodal Officer pertains to Year 2000 where as now the Supply Code

Regulations are applicable. The sanctioned load of the consumer is 1.760

KW as conveyed by the respondent. The Forum noted that the main

grievances by the complainant was non working of the electricity meter

without any comments or references of the average being charged by the

department. With the replacement of the meter, the grievance of the

complainant stands redressed. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to

overhaul the account again when consumption of 6 months become available

as the period during which the defective meter was in place is of 5-1/2

months. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order

failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant

sections of the Electricity Act 2003


off in aforementioned terms.



Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-














In the matter to Sh. Tuntun Chaudhary, House No. 1665-B, Small Flat, Dhanas, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER







Divn.No.4.

























In the matter to Shri Tuntun Chaudhary, House No.1665B, Small

Flat, Dhanas, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri Tuntun Chaudhary vide his application received in the office of CGRF on

4.4.2016 stated that the bill for his house No.1665B, Small Flat, Dhanas were

being issued on average basis. He requested for preparation of bill on reading.



dated 05.04.2016 for comments/action taken report.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his

letter dated 05.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the SDO Electy. ‘OP’

Sub Division No.4 duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply stated that the

average bill for Rs.610/- was sent for the period 21.10.2015 to 21.12.2015 @

127 units per month on the basis of consumption recorded during the period

21.4.2015 to 21.10.2015 as the meter was found defective. The defective

meter has been replaced on 16.2.2016. He also stated that electricity meter of

the complainant was also changed on 6.4.2016 as the meter got burnt. He

supplied copies of both the MCOs and Consumption data.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 14.6.2016. Both the complainants as

well as SDO were present. He showed his satisfaction that the defective meter

was replaced and now the bills would be issued on actual consumption. The

complainant, however, submitted that the bills issued in the past were on

average and were on higher side as compared to appliances being

used by him. It was observed that the consumer was being charged average on

the basis of consumption recorded during summer months i.e. from April to

October whereas the period under consideration was pertaining to winter period.

The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for four

months from 21.10.2015 to 16.2.2016 (Date of MCO) on the basis of four

months consumption recorded during the period prior to 21.10.2015 i.e. from

21.6.2015 to 21.10.2015.


which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of

the Electricity Act 2003.



opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Sh. K.K. Kataria, House No. 905, Sector 7, Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER







Divn.No.2.
























In the matter to Shri K.K.Kataria, House No. 905, Sector 7, Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri K.K.Kataria, resident of House No. 905, Sector-7, Chandigarh

through e-mail dated May 17, 2016 stated that the bill dated 8.5.2016

was received with total amount payable as Rs.54,371/-. He submitted

that the current reading mentioned in the bill was much above then the

actual readings, which resulted into generation of inflated bill against his

average bill of Rs.3000/-. Subsequently the representative of the

complainant visited and intimated the present reading of the meter.



vide letter dated 17.05.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with the

direction to accept Rs.9000/- on the basis of current reading as on date

as intimated by the complainant.


submitted by the SDO duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply dated

20.5.2016 submitted that the inflated bill got prepared due to wrong

recording of the current reading. The reading was got verified through

J.E. and the bill of the complainant was rectified, as per reading verified

by J.E. amounting to Rs, 9808/-. The representative of the complainant

visited the Sub Division on 18.5.2016 and was informed the status of the

rectified bill.

4. On the date of hearing on 27.5.2016, the complainant did not appear.

The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the bill was

corrected to his satisfaction after which the amended bill was paid by the

complainant/ his representative. The complainant could not be contacted

in the absence of Mobile No. on the complaint.

5. Observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed by the Sub Division, no further action except that Nodal

Officer to ensure that the proper advice is sent to the Computer centre

before generation of new bill. It may also be ensured that amount of

surcharge is also adjusted simultaneously.

6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the

case would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins

for concurrence.










(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Smt. Jagjeet Verma, Coal Department, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER







Divn.No.2.

























In the matter to Smt. Jagjeet Verma, Coal Depot, Sector-10, Chandigah.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Smt.Jagjeet Verma, owner of Coal Depot, Sector-10, Chandigarh through her

application dated 9.5.2016 stated that she along with her two sons are co-owner

of the property, Coal Depot, Sector-10, Chandigarh. There are two electricity

connections with total load of 98.410 KW in the name of her sons already

existing in the premises. She requested for granting a separate electricity

connection of 20 KW on L.T in her name being co-owner which was being denied

by the Electricity Department.



dated 10.05.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The concerned Nodal Officer, Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated

26.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the SDO duly countersigned. The

SDO in his reply stated that the total load of 2 Nos. electricity connections,

already existing in the Coal Depot, is 98.410 KW. As per amendments in the

Electricity Supply Code 2010 issued by the Hon’ble JERC, the regulation 3.3(5)

was amended to the effect that the L.T. electricity connections may be released

up to 99 KW. He also enclosed copy of amendment. As the total load of

existing two connections is 98.40 KW, he stated that the connection as

requested by the complainant on L.T. cannot be released as the total load would

cross 99 KW. He, therefore, prayed that the complainant be directed to apply

connection on 11 KV after clubbing 2 Nos. already existing connections.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 27.5.2016. On the date of hearing,

the complainant did not appear. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division

reiterated the written submissions. The complainant/her representative was

contacted on Mobile and the position as stated by the SDO was conveyed. The

representative was requested to rearrange the load of the existing two

connections in such a way that the total load of all the three connections remain

below 99 KW in order to have LT connection. The representative stated that the

load of already existing connections cannot be reduced. To a query whether

another hearing to be afforded to have his views, he submitted that he has

nothing more to say and no further hearing is required.

5. The Forum observes that Supply Code under Regulations 3.6 (B)(9) provides

that in case of Multi consumer complexes including commercial complexes the

new connection be provided on L.T., if load is below 100 KW and on H.T. if load

is 100 KW or more.

Keeping in view these regulations, the complainant may apply the

connection on H.T. as per written submissions by the Nodal Officer.


would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for his

opinion/concurrence.








Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Commandant S.P.S. Sandhu, House No.306, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. An application dated 26.7.2016 was received from Commandant S.P.S. Sandhu,

House No.306, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh wherein he stated that he was allotted

House No.306, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh in October 2013. The last bill with

amount of Rs.33964/- is very much on higher side as compared to his average

bill since he occupied the said accommodation. He apprehended that the

inflated bill could be on account of change of single phase meter to three phase

meter as per his request. He requested for review and not to disconnect his

supply and issuance of suitable directions in this regard till disposal of the case.



letter dated 26.07.2016 for comments along with consumption

data/connected load etc. The directions were also issued to keep balance

amount pending till disposal of the case after accepting Rs.5000/- as part

payment.




submitted that the applicant requested for extension of load from 4.480KW

to 6.500 KW under Self Declaration Scheme. Accordingly, the single phase

meter was replaced with three phase meter on 24.5.2016. The disputed bill

includes 5276 units recorded by the single phase meter in addition to the

consumption recorded by the newly installed three phase meter resulting into

total amount of Rs. 33964/-. He also enclosed the consumption pattern and

the photo copy of the SJO.

4. On the notified date of hearing on 8.9.2016, the representative of the

complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The

representative of the complainant attributed that the exceptionally high

consumption recorded by the single phase meter (before removal), as 5276

units, could be on account of meter jumping as in the past consumption

never exceeded 900 units per cycle of two months.

5. The Forum observed from the consumption data that consumption of

applicant is consistent since 2013 in the range of 466 to 845 units per cycle

for 2 months. As per directions of the Forum, the RA, after checking with the

Sub Division, informed that the present reading of the three phase meter

taken on 5.8.2016 is 1100. As per this reading, the consumption for the

period 6/2016 to 8/2016 is 1008 units. The higher recording of units than the

past average could be on account of enhancement of the connected load

from 4.48 - to 6.500 KW. The consistent past consumption from 2013 to

April 2016 also rules out the possibility of accumulation of the reading. The

maximum estimated consumption with load of 5 KW as per the Supply Code

provisions after taking diversity factor 1.0 and load factor as 0.50 (worst

scenario) for a period of two months works out to 3600 units which is much

less than recorded consumption of 5276 during period of around 1-1/2

months. The Forum on the basis of above analysis opines that the recording

of 5276 units by single phase before its removal could be on account of

jumping of reading.

6. In view of above, the Nodal officer is directed to ignore the reading recorded

by the single phase meter at the time of removal. Overhauling of the account

be got done for the period 5.4.2016 to 24.5.2016 on the basis of pro-rata

consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the year 2015.




of the Electricity Act 2003















Complaint No. - GR-66/2016 Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 08.09.2016

In the matter to Shri Brij Mohan Singh, House No.1142, Sector 8-C,

Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER

1. Shri Brij Mohan Singh. resident of House No.1142, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh

through his application dated 4.5.2016 submitted that he received a bill dated

23.4.2016 which included an amount of Rs.59,563/- as sundry charges. On

query from the office of SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2, he was told that the

amount charged as sundry is on account of overhauling of the account from

March 2014 to December 2014, as pointed out by the Internal Auditor by half

margin dated 30.3.2016. The applicant stated that average charged by the

department is very much on higher side and requested for review/waiver.




data/connected load. The consumer was also requested to make payment of

amount Rs.30,000/- (50% of the disputed amount) plus current charges in

order to avoid disconnection of the connection. The balance amount was

being pending till disposal of the case.


attend. The Forum observed that the reply from Nodal Officer was also

awaited. The RA appearing on behalf of the ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 supplied

an advance copy of the reply during the hearing.

4. Subsequently the Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 31.5.2016 forwarded

the reply submitted by the AEE. Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly

countersigned. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply submitted

that the meter of the applicant became defective on 27.3.2012 and was

replaced on 16.12.2014. Subsequently the Internal Auditor framed the Half

Margins dated 30.3.2016 pointing out that the average charged to the

applicant during the period meter remained defective was quite on lower side

as compared to past/future consumption and therefore the account was

overhauled w.e.f. 27.3.2014, keeping in view he provision of Section 56 (2)

of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. The basis for overhauling was taken future

consumption recorded by the replaced meter as the past reliable data

pertained to more than 2-1/2 years back. He supplied photo copy of last

three years consumption, copies of MCO and half margin.

5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 8.9.2016 which was attended by

the complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division No.2. The complainant

showed his ignorance to the charging done by the Sub Division stating that

whatever the bills were being received were paid by him and he did not

indulge in any mal-practice and as such the amount levied now by the sub

division should be waived. On the other hand, the RA stated that the sundry

charges levied were on account of overhauling of the account due to

defective meter and is required to be paid by the complainant.

6. The Forum on the basis of consumption data supplied by the Sub Division

observed that the consumption of the applicant during the period 2011-2012

was in the range of 2461 to 4260 units per billing cycle of two months before

the meter became defective. The average being charged during the period

was quite on lower side. It was also observed that after replacement of the

defective meter on 16.12.2014 , the consumption was again in the range of

2090 to 4263 units per cycle of two months which was matching with the

consumption before the meter became dead stop. The Forum also observed

that account was overhauled only w.e.f. 27.3.2014 and not from the date the

meter became defective by wrongly interpreting the provisions of Section 56

(2). The account is required to be overhauled from the period the meter

became defective. The above observations of the Forum were explained to

the consumer to his satisfaction. He thereafter pleaded that he may be

allowed to make the payment in instalments of Rs.5000/- per cycle in

addition to current cycle charges without levy of any surcharge.

7. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account of the

complainant from the date meter became defective. From the consumption

data, it is apprehended that meter became defective during the period

27.9.2011 to 27.11.2011, at the reading of 62491 as recorded in the MCO

though the reading on 27.11.2011 was inadvertently/wrongly recorded as

62941 instead of 62491 (3rd and 4th digit got interchanged at the time of

feeding of reading). This inadvertent error on the part of Sub Division is also

evident from the subsequent recorded reading of 62491. In view of above

analysis, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account w.e.f.

27.9.2011 to 16.12.2014 (data of MCO) on the basis of one year

consumption recorded by the replaced meter. The consumer may also be

allowed to make payment in instalments of Rs.5000/- per cycle plus current

cycle charges without levy of any surcharge. However, in case the

complainant defaulted in making payment towards any bill , the defaulted

amount will attract surcharge as applicable.

8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions. Compliance

be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the


Electricity Act 2003

















In the matter to Sh. Dharmanshu Sood, House No. 3059, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER





advance through telephonic message dated 09.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the

complainant did not appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of the

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10.

























In the matter to Shri Dharmnshu Sood, House No.3059, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Interim Order

1. Shri Dharmanshu Sood, Scientist ‘D’, DRDO (Ministry of Defence), TBRL,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated April 7, 2016 submitted that none of

the street lights in the area of his House No.3059, Sector 40-D,

Chandigarh were in working condition leading to complete darkness in the

night. He requested for setting right the street lights.





3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 21.4.2016

submitted that there was no such complaint received in the particulars

area of the complainant during the period 6.4.2016 to 8.4.2016. He

further stated that all the street light points were in working order as got

checked through an official of his office.

4. The reply was sent to the complainant for his information and feedback.

5. During the hearing of the case on 17.5.2016, complainant did not attend.

The SDO reiterated the written submissions.

6. The Forum observing that the street light of the area was in working and

further no such other complaint from any other resident of the area was

received, consider the complaint as redressed.



finally disposed.










(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Smt. Saraswati Kumari, House No. 6356-B, Sector 56, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER





advance through telephonic message dated 09.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the

complainant did not appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of the

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10.

























In the matter to Shri Sumit Kumar, Grandon of Smt. Saraswati, House No.6356-B, Sector 56, Chandigarh..


Versus


2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 Chandigarh.


Interim Order

1. Shri Sumit Kumar, Grandson of Smt. Saraswati, resident of House No.6356-B,

Sector 56, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated June 14, 2016 submitted that

the electricity bill issued in the month of May 2016 was for 4484 units against

their normal consumption of 100 units. He requested for verification of the

reading.




complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days as

per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.

3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 28.6.2016

with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4 submitted that the electricity

meter of the complainant was replaced on 9.12.2015 with initial reading as

4343. However, inadvertently wrong initial reading was sent as 434 (instead of

4343) to the Computer Centre. Detection of the mistake, bill of the consumer

was amended of Rs.469/- and was delivered to him on 22.6.2016. The

amended amount was paid by the consumer. He also enclosed copy of MCO an

the amended bill and consumption details of the last three years.


attend. The Forum observed that the complainant did not submit written

complaint as requested earlier. SDO stated that bill of the consumer was

corrected to his satisfaction and thus redressing his grievances.

5. In view of the fact that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed, the complaint is considered as disposed.



opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF










In the matter to Shri Gurmukh Singh, House No.6403-A, Sector 56, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Gurmukh Singh, resident of House No.6403-A, Sector 56, Chandigarh through his

representation submitted in the office of CGRF on 7.6.2016 stated that for the last

seven months he is receiving high consumption bills in comparison to the electrical

appliances being used by him apprehending that his meter was not working properly, he

challenged the meter by depositing Rs.150 with the Sub Division.


Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated

08.06.2016 for comments along with consumption data of last three years, with a


3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016 submitted that

the bills were being issued as per the readings recorded on the meter. He also

supplied the consumption data for last three years. With regard to apprehension of

meter being faulty, he stated that consumer may challenge the meter by depositing

Rs.150/- as meter challenge fee, in case he is not satisfied. A copy of this reply was

also forwarded to the Nodal Officer, i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP” Division

No.4, Chandigarh.


complainant for his information and further action, if any. Vide letter dated

20.06.2016.

5. The case was notified for hearing on 25/7/2016. The complainant did not attend. It

was thought proper and one more opportunity was afforded. The case was again

listed for hearing on 13.9.2016 which was postponed to 14.9.2016 due to declaration

of Holiday on 13.9.2016.

6. On 14.9.2016, the consumer did not appear. The SDO submitted that the applicant

challenged the meter and a check meter was installed in series with the disputed

meter. After observing the consumption of both the meters from 27.6.2016 to

16.7.2016, it was found that existing meter consumed 1492 units against 115 units

consumed by the check meter. The bill of the consumer thereafter was overhauled

on the basis of check meter report. He supplied copy of check meter report (SJO

dated 27.6.2016) and the copy of revised bill.

7. The Forum on the basis of check meter report and the consumption data is of the

view that the meter became faulty somewhere during the period October 2015 to

December 2015, as the consumption was found more than the double than the

consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the year 2013 and 2014.

In view of above observations and check meter report the Nodal Officer is directed

to get the account overhauled for the period 24.10.2015 onwards till replacement of

the meter on the basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding period for

the year 2014-15. The faulty meter may also be got replaced immediately.

8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions. Compliance be

reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may

be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003



















In the matter to Shri Kewal Krishan, S.C.F. No. 16, First Floor, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. A complaint was received from Shri Kewal Krishan, SCG No. 16, First Floor,

Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, wherein he stated that Rs.900/- was being charged

in the bill under FPPCA (Fuel Price & Power Purchase Adjustment Charges). He

requested for deletion of these charges on account of FPPCA enabling him to

make the payment of the bill dated 24.8.2016 for the period 27.5.2016

to27.7.2016.

2. The Forum in its meeting held on 14.9.2016 observed that the FPPCA

charges are being charged by the electricity department in the electricity bills

with the approval of JERC. The Hon’ble Commission is notifying the charges

to be recovered from various consumers (DS/NRS) from time to time and the

electricity department is recovering the same from the consumers as per the

applicable rates notified for each applicable quarter. The consumer may refer

to the Tariff Notified by JERC for the period 2016-17 for details regarding the

background of these FPPCA charges. The applicant may consult the Sub

Division for break-up of the charges. In case if he finds any variation as per

the Notification of the Department/JERC, he may approach this Forum again.

3. With above observations, the complaint stands disposed off with

aforementioned directions.




order.”













In the matter to Shri Shamsher Singh, House No.0479, Dadu Majra Colony, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Shamsher Singh, resident of House No.0479, Dadu Majra Colony, Sector 38

West, Chandigarh through his representation received in the office of CGRF on

8.6.2016 submitted that he received the latest bill with high amount as

compared to bills received in the past. He requested for rectification of the bill.




data/connected load as checked and relevant documents, with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016

submitted that the bill raised to the consumer is as per reading recorded in

the meter which is consistent with the past consumption. In support of his

statement, he also supplied the consumption data of last three years. With

regard to the complainant’s apprehension meter running fast, he stated

that the consumer may challenge the meter by depositing Rs.150/- as meter

challenge fee, in case he is not satisfied. A copy of reply was also

forwarded to the Nodal Officer, i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP” Division

No.4, Chandigarh.


complainant for his information and further action, if any. Vide letter dated

20.06.2016 by the Forum.


attend. It was thought proper and one more opportunity was afforded. The

case was again listed for hearing on 13.9.2016 which was postponed to

14.9.2016 due to declaration of Holiday on 13.9.2016. The complainant was

informed on telephonic. He, however, conveyed his satisfaction to the reply

given by SDO and did not wish to attend the hearing.

6. On 14.9.2016, the SDO present during the hearing on 14.9.2016 reiterated

his written submissions.

7. The Forum on the basis of telephonic information by the complainant that he

is satisfied with the reply and did not wish to pursue his complaint, considers

the complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned observations.




order.”












In the matter to Smt. Urmila Devi, House No. 4952/2, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Smt. Urmila Devi, resident of House No. 4952/2, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh

through her representation dated 9.8.2016 submitted that her bill for the period

April to June 2016 is much more than the electricity being used by them. She

requested for getting the meter checked.



letter dated 09.08.2016 for comments along with consumption data of last

three years, with a copy to the complainant with the request to make

payment of Rs.1200/- in order to avoid disconnection of electricity supply.

3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 12.8.2016

submitted that the bill of the complainant was raised on the basis of reading

recorded by the meter. He also supplied the consumption data of last three

years. With regard to higher amount of the bill, he pointed out that the

disputed bill also includes Rs.647/- as arrear of the previous bill not paid by

the consumer. A copy of this reply was also forwarded to the Nodal Officer,

i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP” Division No.4, Chandigarh.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 13.9.2016 which was postponed to

14.9.2016 due to declaration of Holiday on 13.9.2016.

5. On the date of hearing on 14.9.2016, the consumer, present during the

hearing, was explained that her consumption was consistent for the last two

years which suggested that the meter was working correctly. She was,

suggested to get the meter challenged in case she was still not satisfied.

She, however, got convinced on the basis of consumption data and agreed to

pay the bill but requested that the surcharge on the disputed bill may not be

levied.

6. The Forum on the basis of consumption data submitted by the respondent

SDO, concludes that the bill issued to the complainant was in order.

However, considering that the complainant is a labourer and is eager to clear

the outstanding amount and that she was allowed to make part payment by

the Forum allows her to pay the last bill dated 25.7.2016 in instalments

along with current cycle charges of the subsequent bill for the period

20.06.2016 to 20.08.2016 with due date falling in 2nd week of October 2016

without levy of any surcharge.

7. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned observations and

directions.




order.”










BEFORE ER: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.


Date of Order - 15.09.2016 In the matter Mrs Kamlesh Bhardwaj, House No. 2310, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

………………..Complainant/Applicant

Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3 UT, Chandigarh.


As Per Sh. J.S. SIDHU, Nominated Member.

Order

1. Mrs Kamlesh Bhardwaj, vide her letter 24.06.2015 submitted that the electricity

department on 07.06.2016 checked the domestic electricity connection of the

complainant and assessed the current load being in excess of sanctioned load 1.96

and served a memo no. 2034 dated 09.06.2016 (copy not attached) asking the

complainant to deposit Rs. 8400 as load surcharge without mentioning the details of

the same.

The Complainant has claimed that on the intervening night of 04.06.2016 and

05.06.2016 the main cable connecting the residential area of the complainant was

burnt due to high voltage and many electricity appliances were burnt in that locality

(House No. 2309 to 2318). The complainant has placed on record copy of news item

published in Dainik Bhaskar, in support of her claim.

The Complainant has alleged that the assessment of the existing load done

by the electricity department is only on account of reprisal on account of the demand

of compensation towards the burning of electricity appliances of the locality. The

complainant has also claimed that being a consumer under Consumer Protection Act

would soon approach District Consumer Forum seeking compensation damages for

losses suffered by her.

The complainant alleging wrong doing on the part of the electricity department

has sought the withdrawal of memo no. 2034 dated 09.06.2016 declaring the same to

be null and void. Complainant has also sought directions against the department to

reimburse the consumers for the damaged appliances due to high voltage in the

area.

2. The application was registered as complaint no. GR-113/2016 and the XEN OP

Division No.3 was directed to file para-wise comments/action taken along with

relevant documents by 04.07.2016. The same was received in the O/o this Forum on

06.07.2016 and copy of this reply was supplied to the complainant also.

3. The respondents while asserting their stand with regard to the checking and

assessment of existing excess load at the premises of the complainant have claimed

that vide assessment report dated 07.06.2016, an excess load of 5.904 K.W. was

detected and as per the provisions of applicable regulations an amount of Rs. 8400/-

(which included load Surcharge+ Security), was demanded, vide sundry charges,

through electricity bill dated 26.07.2016.

The respondents have also disclosed that the complainant visited its office

and requested the waiver of penalty and surcharges on account of excess load

claiming that she is about to retire in few months time and also that she is ready to

remove the appliances to bring the excess load within the sanctioned load limit.

The respondents have also placed on record a copy of intra department

memo no. 2124 dated 15.06.2016 in response to the news item publish in Dainik

Bhaskar dated 07.06.2016 regarding high voltage in sector 27, disclosing that there

were high velocity winds followed by rain which caused the cable feeding the area of

the complainant getting burnt due to over loading of the main service cable, causing

disruption in the electricity supply which was temporarily restored by its staff. Later on

after cheeking the existing load of the consumers of the area, the load was bifurcated

and a new additional cable of adequate capacity has been laid to avoid future faults.

4. The parties were called for hearing on 15.09.2016. The husband of the complainant,

duly authorized by her, vide her authorization latter dated 15.09.2016 came present

on her behalf and the SDO of the respondents represented the department. The

parties were heard and the matter was reserved for orders.

5. We have minutely perused the complaint of the complainant, reply of the

respondents and the documents placed on record by the parties, and have reached

the following conclusion.

The complainant having levelled allegations against the electricity department

of not maintaining the supply cables and also alleging surge of electricity in her

locality causing the damage to her house hold electrical appliances and also that of

other houses in her vicinity has only placed on record the news item published in the

local vernacular and a few undated photographs of loose cable in Support of her

contentions. The complainant has also claimed that the in response to her

representation the department checked the existing load of all the consumers of the

locality which was according to her in retaliation to her request for reimbursement

and compensation towards her loss of electrical appliances due to fault on the part of

the respondents.

The complainant has failed to prove that the damage to her house-hold

electrical appliances namely voltage stabilizer, Wifi adopter, LED bulb and three

ordinary bulbs is on account of electrical surge. There is no evidence to that effect.

Even the fact that the electrical failure in the area of complainant was on account of

bad weather and rain as is evidence from the reply of the SDO OP S/Division No.3

disclosing such situation vide his office memo no. 2124 dated 15.06.2016 submitted

with the XEN OP Division No. 3 which has not been controverted by the complainant

in any manner.

The complainant’s allegation with regard to the unauthorised checking of her

existing electricity load is also unfounded for reason that with the passage of time

consumers keep on adding electrical appliances beyond their sanctioned load without

informing the department and the electricity department is well within its rights to

check such unauthorised loads and saddle penalties as well as fines as applicable

under the provisions of JERC regulations applicable to such cases. Thus the Load

Assessment Report dated 07.06.2016 which was duly received on behalf of the

consumer and further her representation to respondents expressing her desire to

remove extra electrical appliances in order to bring her actual load within the

permissible limits proves that the complainant herself was in the knowledge of

existing excess load at her premises which further proves the veracity of the Load

Assessment Report dated 07.06.2016.

The complainant has placed on record the details of the loss suffered by other

neighbours (Residents of 2309 and 2309-A), by placing on record a single page

document which is not signed by her, or other consumers who are not party to

present complaint, therefore the complaint of complainant cannot be treated on their

behalf. The complainant has disclosed that they have already approached the District

consumer Forum seeking compensation for such losses. Hence in the absence of

any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence no fault can be attributed against the

respondents and the complainant cannot be compensated for such looses which she

herself has failed to prove against the respondents.

In view of the aforesaid observations we do not find any merit in the complaint

of the complainant and the same deserves dismissal.

6. With the above observations, the complaint stands dismissed.






(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Shri Abhishek Sharma, Booth No.13, Sector 46-C, Stor Code:6676, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Abhishek Sharma, through his email dated 04.07.2016 approached CGRF

for resolving his problem regarding bill amount in respect of Booth No. 13,

Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. He stated that the bill was more than the power being

used by him.



letter dated 06.07.2016 for comments along with consumption data and

relevant documents, with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE through his letter dated 09.08.2016 addressed to the

Nodal Officer with a copy to CGRF submitted that a check meter was installed

for the period 28.07.2016 to 08.08.2016 to check the working of the meter

as per representation of the complainant. The consumption by the check

meter as well as the disputed meter was found to be same (237 units)

indicating that the working of the meter is okay. He also enclosed check

meter report and consumption data.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 15.09.2016 vide letter dated

08.09.2016. The Consumer did not appear on date of hearing. The SDO

reiterated his written submissions.

5. The Forum on the basis of consumption data and the check meter report

submitted by the SDO observed that the consumption was consistent and

was comparable with the consumption recorded in the corresponding period

in the past. The check meter report supplemented that the meter was

working fine. On the basis of these findings the Forum did not find any merit

in the complaint and dismiss the same.
















In the matter to Shri Tarlochan Singh, House No.2199-C, Sector 49, Super Enclave Society, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Shri Tirlochan Singh, resident of House No.2197-C, Sector 49, Super Enclave

Society, Chandigarh through his representation dated 10.08.2016 submitted

that he received a bill dated 27.05.2016, which included sundry charges of Rs.

25684. He was told that the amount was on account of average charged for the

period meter was defective. He requested of waiver of these charges.



letter dated 11.08.2016 for comments along with consumption data and

relevant documents, with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated 26.08.2016,

with a copy to the Nodal Officer, submitted that the meter was found dead

for the period 26.02.2015 to 26.12.2015. On replacement of the dead stop

meter on 26.12.2015, the account was overhauled on the basis of

consumption recorded during 2/2014 to 12/2014 at the rate of 775 units per

month. He enclosed consumption data along with the basis of charging and

the copy of MCO.


08.09.2016. The complainant as well as SDO were present. The complainant

was explained the basis of charging. He however made request for allowing

to make the payment in instalments without levy of surcharge. He also

represented that he was not informed when the meter was changed.

5. The Forum on the basis of submissions made by the SDO and the

consumption data concludes that the amount charged by the SDO is in order.

On the request of the complainant, he is allowed to clear the amount charge

through sundry in three bi-monthly instalments without levy of any

surcharge in addition to current consumption charges. Nodal Officer is

directed to work on the instalments and convey the same to the complainant.

The Forum also observed that the MCO did not bear the signatures

of the consumer or his representative. This may be due to the fact that

premises was found locked as explained by the SDO. The Nodal Officer is

directed to impart suitable instructions that in cases where the signatures

cannot be obtained, suitable message be left in the letter box so that

complainant can check/compare the reading of the new meter.

6. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing


of the Electricity Act 2003. With above observations, the complaint stands

disposed off with aforementioned directions.




order.”















In the matter to Smt. Meena Rani, House No. 1412, Sector 49-B, Pushpac Complex,

Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Smt. Meena Rani, resident of House No. 1412, Sector 49-B, Pushpac Complex,

Chandigarh through her email dated 24.08.2016 forwarded a signed copy of

representation dated 24.08.2016. She submitted that the bill for the period 28.02.2016

to 28.04.2016 is amounting to Rs. 28623 which is almost fifteen times the average bill

as per her usage. The consumption of 4919 units is much more than average

consumption of 600 units. She apprehended this high consumption on account of some

technical error which may affect the future billing as well.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-145/2016 was forwarded to the




3. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 01.09.2016, with a copy to the Nodal

Officer, submitted that the meter was got checked and found okay on 02.06.2016.

Subsequently a check meter was installed as per the request of the complainant for

the period 22.06.2016 to 19.07.2016. The consumption recorded by the disputed

meter was found to be 592 units against 588 units by the check meter suggesting

that the error was within permissible limits. Thus he concluded that the working of

the meter is okay.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 15.09.2016 vide letter dated 08.09.2016. The

complainant did not attend. The SDO present during the hearing re-iterated his

written submissions. The Forum on the basis of consumption data observed that the

consumption during the period 02/2016 to 04/2016 was 4919 units which is much

more than her average consumption and the maximum consumption recorded in the

past three years. The consumption in the three years was found to be consistent

during the corresponding periods which also ruled out the possibility of

accumulation/recording of wrong readings. With connected load of 6/KW the

maximum consumption which can be recorded during 2 months is estimated to be

4320 units with diversity factor as 1.0 and load factor as 50% as per the Supply

Code. The recorded consumption of 4919 units during period of 2 months thus

appears to be on account of malfunctioning of the meter.

The Forum on the basis of above analysis and inference drawn concludes

that the meter malfunctioned during the period 02/2016 to 04/2016. According the

Forum directs the Nodal Officer to ignore the consumption recorded during 02/2016

to 04/2016 and overhaul the period with the corresponding consumption recorded

during the period 02/2015 to 04/2015. The disputed meter should also be replaced

immediately.


which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the

Electricity Act 2003. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned

observations and directions



















In the matter to Shri. Adil Reyaz, House No. 1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER







Sub Divn.No.7.

























In the matter to Shri Adil Reyaz, House No.1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Interim Order

1. Shri Adil Reyaz, resident of House No.1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

through his e-mail March 30, 2016 submitted that his electricity bill for

the period 20.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 was issued for Rs.11907/- against

his average bill of Rs.300 to 500 only. He requested to get the meter

checked and to rectify the bill accordingly.






submitted that with reference to the complaint dated 1.4.2016 of the

consumer, the meter was got checked and found to be in working order.

It was, however, noted that the meter reading as recorded by the Meter

Reader was wrongas 5044 whereas the actual reading as got verified on

5.4.2016 was 2577 only. Based on the verified reading, the bill was

rectified to net amount of Rs.757/- only. The consumer deposited a sum

of Rs.500/- in advance and he was informed that the necessary

refund/correction will be reflected in the next bill.

4. The Case was notified for hearing on 10.5.2016. The complainant as well

as ARA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant showed his

satisfaction to the action taken by the Sub Division.



promptly.

6. For final disposal, the case would be put up to the Member of the Forum

as soon as one joins for concurrence.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by

the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs,

“Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:















In the matter to Shri. Ashok Sankhla, House No. 1419-A, DAD Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER







Sub Divn.No.7.

























In the matter to Shri Ashok Sankhla, House No.1419-A, DAD Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Interim Order

1. Shri Ashok Sankhla , resident of House No.1419-A, DAD Colony, Sector

35-B, Chandigarh through his e-mail April 1, 2016 submitted that he

received a bill for the period 28.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 for Rs.5900/-

which was quite high. On checking, he found that the current reading

was shown as 6755 but actual reading on the meter on 1.4.2016 was

5444 only. He requested for rectification of bill.






submitted that with reference to the complaint dated 4.4.2016 of the

consumer, the meter was got checked and found to be in working order.

It was however, noted that the meter reading as recorded by the Meter

Reader was wrong as 6755 whereas the actual reading as got verified on

11.4.2016 was 5464 only. Based on the verified reading, the bill was

rectified to net amount of Rs.366/- only. The consumer deposited a sum

of Rs.300/- in advance and he was informed that the necessary

refund/correction will be reflected in the next bill.

4. The Case was notified for hearing on 10.5.2016. The complainant did not

attend. The ARA of the Sub Division submitted that the bill was rectified

after verification of the reading to the satisfaction of the consumer and he

was also made aware that the necessary correction will appear in the

subsequent bill.



promptly.

6. For final disposal, the case would be put up to the Member of the Forum

as soon as one joins for concurrence.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before

the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,

Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month






same is put up to the Member of the Forum.

(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON, CGRF







In the matter to Shri. S.K. Dutta, House No. 1428-A, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER







Sub Divn.No.7.

























In the matter to Shri S.K. Dutta, House No.1428-A, Sector 35-B,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Interim Order

1. Shri S.K. Dutta, resident of House No.1428-A, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through

his e-mail dated June 4, 2016 submitted that the meter reading on 4.6.2016

was 4148, whereas he received a bill for Rs.4250/- on average basis with old

reading as 4242. He requested for correction of bill on the basis of actual

reading.



dated 07.06.2016 for para-wise reply and verification of reading, with a copy to

the complainant.


submitted the reply that the reading was got checked through J.E. and was

found as 4195 as on 9.6.2016. Thus the previous reading recorded by the

meter reader on 30.12.2015 as 4242 was wrongly recorded. He further

submitted that the bill of the complainant was rectified and allowance of

Rs.1940/- was afforded in favour of the consumer, to be reflected in the

forthcoming bill. A copy of the above reply was forwarded to the complainant.

4. On the notified date of hearing on 22.6.2016, the consumer did not attend. The

RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the grievance of the

complainant has already been redressed.

5. Observing that the bill has already been rectified and intimation conveyed by

SDO in this respect. The complaint is considered as disposed, since the

grievance has already been redressed.



opinion.




order.”





Member.

(R.K.ARORA)

CHAIRPERSON,CGRF







In the matter to Smt. Sneh, W/o Sh. Ishwar Dayal, House No. 2245, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER


conducting hearing on 10.05.2016 vide Memo No. CGRF.GR-60/2016/803 dated

11.05.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to lack of quorum.




Sub Divn.No.7.




complainant stands addressed in term of the instructions conveyed as referred in para 1

above.
















From

The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum,

Room No. 531, 5th Floor,

U.T., Secretariat, Deluxe Building,

Sector 9-D, Chandigarh

To

The Executive Engineer (Nodal Officer),

Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,

Chandigarh.

Memo No. CGRF/GR-60/2016

Dated Chandigarh, the

Subject:- Complaint regarding Providing Electricity Connection at Hoiuse No.2245

(EWS Houses), Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

Proceedings of hearing conducted on 10.5.2016 – Interim Order.

The subject cited case was deliberated on 10.5.2016 in the presence of

Complainant as well as ARA ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7.

The Forum observed that the Aadhar Card as well as Voter Card submitted by

the applicant clearly establish that the complainant is lawful occupant of the house for last 10

years and was using the electricity connection released in the name of Shri Ram Chander.

With regard to permission/consent of the owner to release the connection in her name, she

submitted that she is not aware of the present whereabouts of the owner. She promised to

produce the consent as and when the owner is contacted. Pleading for release of connection at

an early date, she offered to submit an affidavit that she would not claim the right on electricity

connection and that in case the owner objects, the connection be disconnected. She further

submitted that she also agrees to any other condition which may be imposed by the Electricity

Department for release of connection,

In view of the above position, the Nodal Officer is directed to consider her

application for release of new connection in her name as a lawful occupant after obtaining

requisite affidavit as an interim arrangement.


Endst.No : CGRF/Comp-GR-60/2016/ Dated :

1. Copy is forwarded to the SDO, Elecy.’OP’ Sub Division No.7, Chandigarh for information and necessary action please.

2. Copy is forwarded to Smt. Sneh, W/o Shri Ishwar Dayal, House No.2245, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh for information please.




BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.


Date of Order - 20.09.2016 In the matter Capt. K.K. Bhasin (Retd.), House No. 166, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

………………..Complainant/Applicant

Versus



As Per ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON, CGRF.

Order

1. Capt. K.K. Bhasin (Retd.), House No. 166, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh through his

letter dated 17.01.2016 addressed to AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division-7 with a copy to CGRF,

(received on 27.01.2016) represented that the L.T. pole in front of his house was

not shifted properly as per the request made by him. Though the estimate was

prepared for shifting the pole in front of the common wall of house No. 166 and 167

sector 33-A, Chandigarh and he paid the full amount of the estimate, (i.e. Rs.7052/-),

yet while executing, the pole was not shifted to identified location as per the

estimate. On his representation he was refunded the amount after deducting Rs.

2300/-, towards expenditure incurred for partially executing the job.

2. The Complaint was registered as complaint no. GR-15/2016 and the XEN OP

Division No.3 was directed to submit Para-wise comments/action vide letter dated

29.01.2013.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub/Division No. 7 his letter dated 09.02.2016 with a copy

to concerned XEN and the complainant submitted that on receipt of request from the

complainant for shifting of L.T. pole in front of his house to have second entry gate, a

deposit estimate was prepared and got approved by the XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3.

After deposit of charges by the consumer, the work of shifting was carried out in

presence of XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3 and the complainant on 01.10.2014 to the

satisfaction of the complainant. But subsequently vide his letter submitted in his

office on 29.10.2014, the complainant raised the issue that the pole in question was

not shifted as per his request and desired for refund of the money deposited by him

for the purpose. With the approval of XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3, an amount Rs. 4752/-

was refunded in December 2014 after adjusting the actual expenditure incurred by

the electricity department (Rs. 2300/-). However the complainant subsequently

raised the same issue that the L.T. pole was not shifted as per his desire/request.

He attached the correspondent exchanged between electricity department and the

complainant.

4. Case was listed for hearing on 14.03.2016, the complainant as well as the

concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub/Division No. 7 were present. The complainant prayed that

the pole be got shifted to the location as per request made by him i.e. in front of the

common wall between house no. 166 and 167 sector 33-A, Chandigarh. From the

details of the letter exchanged between the complainant and licencee, it was noted

that the complainant initially through his letter dated 29.10.2014 and 17.11.2014 had

requested for refund of the full amount of Rs. 7052/- without deducting Rs. 2300/- on

the plea that the work was not completely executed as per the deposit estimate.

Subsequently, now before the Forum, he insisted for getting the pole shifted as per

his request. The SDO who had taken over the charge recently on transfer request

for same time to submit his feedback. Though one month was allowed for submitting

the feedback, no reply was furnished by the Nodal Officer even after issuance of

reminder (s) by this Forum on 08.04.2016, 05.05.2016 and 29.07.2016.

5. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub/Division vide his letter dated 08.09.2016 submitted that the

execution of the work in 2014 could not be completed as per deposit estimate as the

neighbour started agitating and did not allow the shifting of the L.T. pole in line with

the common wall. Although the pole was shifted from original position to very near

of common wall but as complainant showed his dissatisfaction by filing an

application with the Forum, the issue of shifting was again taken up by the SDO.

With personal intervention of XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3, he visited the site and was

successful in shifting the said electricity pole in the common wall of premises

adjoining house no. 166 and 167, sector 33-A, Chandigarh. The SDO also submitted

that the complainant is satisfied with the action taken by the department.

6. On receipt of above, the case was notified for hearing on 20.09.2016 vide letter

dated 09.09.2016 with a copy to complainant. The complainant did not appear on

the notified date of hearing. The SDO present during the hearing submitted that the

work of shifting the pole was subsequently executed to the satisfaction of the

complainant after he deposited the amount of deposit estimate.

7. The Forum on basis of reply by the Respondent SDO ‘OP’ Sub/Division No.7 dated

08.09.2016 as referred to in Para No. 5, above and that the complainant neither

responded to the hearing notice nor attend the hearing presume that grievance of

the complainant has been redressed by the electricity department to his satisfaction.

8. With above observations the complaint is considered as disposed.













In the matter to Capt. Birinder Singh Sidhu, House No. 1343, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Birinder Singh Sidhu, resident of House No. 1343, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh,

through his email dated 09.05.2016 stated that his name on the electricity bills

be modified as “Birinder Singh Sidhu” instead of “Birinder Singh”. Further the

address be corrected as “house no. 1343, Sector 33-C” instead of “house no.

1343, Sector 33-B”.


the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated

10.05.2016 for comments/action taken report. The consumer was also

requested to submit a written complaint duly signed. In response, consumer

supplied a written complaint dated 11.05.2016 on 17.05.2016.

3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7 vide his letter dated

08.09.2016 submitted that the consumer was requested vide Memo No. 2204

dated 13.05.2016 to supply authenticated proof of owner ship of the said

premises before any action for correction of name is initiated. The consumer

however did not turn up.


09.09.2016. The complainant during hearing agreed to supply photocopy of

the registered deed of the said house to the SDO who agreed to modify the

name on receipt of the same.

5. The Nodal Officer is directed to modify the name by incorporating the full

name as per the registered deed to be supplied by the consumer, within 21

days of receipt. The address may also be corrected as “Sector 33-C” instead

of “Sector 33-B”.

6. With above observations, the complaint stands disposed off with

aforementioned directions.


















In the matter to Shri Adil Reyaz, House No. 1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Adil Reyaz, resident of House No. 1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through his email

dated 03.08.2016 submitted that with installation of a new meter his bill for the period

20.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 was amounting to Rs 11901 against his average bill in the

range of Rs 300 to 500 only. He requested to get the matter checked and resolve the

issue.



05.08.2016 for comments/action taken report. The consumer was also requested to

submit a written complaint duly signed. In response, consumer supplied a written

complaint dated 11.08.2016. Wherein he again represented that his bill for the

period 20.04.2016 to 20.06.2016 is again high amounting to Rs. 2883.

3. The SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7 vide his letter dated 11.08.2016 submitted his

reply stating that the bill for the period 20.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 amounting to Rs

11207 was found to be prepared on wrong reading. The same was ractified and

correct bill was issued to the consumer. The electricity bill for the period 20.04.2016

to 20.06.2016 included the ACD amount which was calculated on the basis of past

one year bill amount. The ACD was calculated by the computer after including the

inflated wrong bill issued for the period 12/2015 to 02/2016. The revised ACD was

calculated manually as 345 instead of 2883 indicated in the bill. With revision of ACD

the amount of bill reduced to Rs 824 only.


complainant did not attend the hearing. The SDO stated that his grievance has

already been redress to his satisfaction.

5. With above observations, by the Forum that the grievance of the complainant has

already been redressed, the complaint stands disposed off.






















In the matter to Shri B.D. Kalra, House No. 317, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. B.D. Kalra, resident of House No. 317, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh, through his

complaint submitted in the office of CGRF on 05.05.2016 pointed out that the Elecy. ‘OP’

Sub-Divn. No.6 served a notice to him for depositing Rs.18858 on account of

overhauling the account during the period his meter remained defective. His

representation to the Sub Division was not considered properly. He stated that his single

phase meter was not defective during the disputed period and was working fine when

replaced by three phase meter on his request on 08.06.2015. The reason for less

consumption during the disputed period was that the house remained locked as he along

with his wife were away to Madhya Pradesh and were residing with their only son. He

occasionally visited Chandigarh in connection with his regular check-up at hospital. He

also questioned the base period taken for calculation of average stating that all the three

floors (Ground, First, Second) were being fed through a single meter at that time.

Subsequently he applied for two separate connections for first and second floor which

were released on 21.08.2013. He enclosed the notice received from sub division and his

representation to the Sub Division.


Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 05.05.2016 for comments

along with consumption data of all the three meters. Directions were also issued not

to disconnect the connection till disposal of the case in case the complainant deposits

Rs.9000 (50% of the disputed amount).

3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6 vide his letter dated 17.05.2016

submitted Para-wise comments stating that the meter was found defective since

25.11.2013. The defective meter was replaced on 08.06.2015 being meter digit

defective. Thereafter the account of the consumer was overhauled for the period

25.03.2016 to 08.06.2015 (date of MCO) on the basis of consumption recorded

during the period 11/2012 to 11/2013 at the rate of 371 units per month. After

adjusting the payments made by the complainant, short assessment of Rs.18858

was assessed and a notice was served to the complainant. He also confirmed that

two number new connections were released during the period 09/2013 to 11/2013

and the new meter installed on 08.06.2015 was a three phase meter. He enclosed

consumption data of all the three meter installed in the premises along with copy of

MCO etc.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 09.06.2015 the complainant and concerned

SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6 were present. The complainant submitted that his

meter for ground floor was not defective and the consumption dropped on account of

following reasons.

a) Two more connections were got sanctioned during 08/2013.

b) Most of the time during the period of dispute he was away to M.P

residing with his only son.

c) With effect from 06/2015 his daughter-in-law along with her two

sons started residing with them at Chandigarh resulting into increase

in consumption after installation of three phase meter.

He also purposed to submit an affidavit in support of his above statement. The

complainant was requested to provide the details of his travel between Budhni (M.P)

and Chandigarh along with copy of railway tickets which might have been booked

online.

5. After giving sufficient time (three months) to the complainant to submit the railway

tickets or any other proof the case was again listed for hearing on 15.09.2016.

On the date of hearing the complainant showed his inability to

submit the railway tickets as proposed by the Forum. He however submitted an

affidavit on the submissions already made along with a forwarding letter reiterating

again the oral as well as written submissions. Subsequently through a letter dated

10/12.09.2016 submitted personally in the office of CGRF on 19.09.2016 he again

submitted the same grounds in his defence but agreed for overhauling of his account

for the disputed period at the rate of 371/3 i.e. 124 units per month on the plea that

during the base period taken for calculation, the connection was feeding three floors

whereas during the disputed period only ground floor was being fed through the

instant connection.

The SDO during the hearing submitted that the complainant has

been changing his stand from time to time after a notice dated 01.04.2016 was

served to him.

6. The Forum on the basis of consumption data submitted by the sub division observed

that the consumption in the range of 700 units per cycle, dropped sharply to less

than 10 units per cycle with effect from 11/2013. The bills however were issued on

‘Z’ code till the meter was replaced on 08.06.2015. Thereafter the meter started

recording consumption of around more than 400 units per cycle. In the MCO, the

reasons for change of meter were recorded as “Meter digit defective” with reading

“not visible”. The consumption in respect of other two connections for first as well as

second floor was also found consistent from the date of installation (Aug-Sep 2013)

in the range of 200-500 and 400-700 units per cycle respectively. The SDO took the

consumption recorded during the period 11/2012 to 11/2013 as base for overhauling

the period from 03/2014 to 08/06/2015. However from the consumption data the

Forum observed that the meter became defective after 09/2013 and not after

03/2014 as considered by the Sub Division. The consumption which was in the range

of 640 to 1270 units, dropped sharply to 37 and 13 units during the period 11/2013

to 01/2014 and 01/2014 to 03/2014 respectively. Even after taking in to account

that first floor and second floor were taken out of this connection from 08/2013, the

drop in consumption after 09/2013 is substantial as the consumer stated that full

family along with his son’s family were residing till 02/2014. This clearly indicates

that the meter became defective after 09/2013. The consumption of the replaced

meter has been found to be more than 392 units per cycle when the full family

including his son’s family started residing since 06/2015 as per statement of the

complainant.

The Forum also noted that the stamp papers on which affidavit

has been furnished was issued on 29.08.2011 and thus is not valid on date. Further

the affidavit is authored by two different persons as evident from two different hand

writings visible to the naked eye. The affidavit is not attested and contains many

over writings without any authentication by the deponent. Thus the affidavit is out

rightly ignored.

7. The Forum on the basis of analysis and data provided by the sub division concludes

that the meter became defective after 09/2013 and thus the consumption during the

period from 09/2013 to 08/06/2015 needs to be overhauled. The Forum finds merits

in the submissions made by the complainant that during the base period taken by

the SDO, the connection was feeding three floors whereas during the disputed period

under consideration only ground floor was being fed. According the overhauling done

by the sub division is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account

from 09/2013 to 08/06/2015 on the basis of one year consumption recorded by the

replaced meter.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of

the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant

sections of the Electricity Act 2003.

8. With above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.






















In the matter to Shri Subodh Kumar, House No. 1417, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Subodh Kumar, resident of House No. 1417, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through his

letter dated 10.05.2016 submitted that the new meter installed at his residence was

running fast and was consuming around 99 units per day. He requested to get the meter

checked.


Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated

10.05.2016 for comments/action taken report.

3. The concerned AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7 vide his letter dated 12.05.2016

stated that the reading was got checked on 12.05.2016 as 399 units indicating that

the meter was recording 4 to 5 units per day and not 99 units per day.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 22.06.2016 vide letter dated 15.06.2016.

During the hearing the complainant showed his dissatisfaction to the checking done

by SDO and desired for installation of a check meter. Necessary directions were

issued to the Nodal Officer vide letter dated 26.06.2016.

5. Subsequently the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7 vide his letter dated 08.09.2016

informed that the complainant during visit of the Sub Division was explained that the

meter was working fine and the complainant had wrongly taken the consumption as

99 instead of 9.9 units only. Further the bill dated 15.06.2016 for Rs 680 and the

subsequently bill dated 08.08.2016 for Rs 298 convinced the complainant that the

working of the meter was okay. He paid both these bills.

6. The case was again notified for hearing on 20.09.2016 vide letter dated 09.09.2016.

The complainant did not attend the hearing. The SDO present during hearing stated

that the consumer got satisfied that the working of the meter was fine before making

the payment of the last two bills.

7. Considering that the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed the

complaint is considered as disposed.

8. With above observations, the complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned

directions.






















In the matter to Shri Ravi Sharma, House No. 3509, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Ravi Sharma, through his email dated 08.08.2016 enclosed a copy of the bill stating

that by mistake the wrong data was taken in respect of electricity bill for the period May

to July 2016 for house no. 3509, Sector 38-D Chandigarh.


Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated 09.08.2016 for

comments/action taken report, with a copy to Sh. Ravi Sharma, with the request to

submit a written complaint.

3. The concerned AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 17.08.2016 with

a copy to Nodal Officer submitted that the bill issued to the consumer was as per

reading recorded by the meter. The working of the meter was got checked and found

in order. He proposed that consumer may challenge the working of meter by

depositing fee of Rs 150, in case he feels that the meter is running fast. He also

enclosed the consumption data for last 3 years.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 14.09.2016 but the consumer did not appear.

Another opportunity was afforded by notifying the case again for hearing on

26.09.2016 vide letter dated 23.09.2016. The complainant was informed

telephonically. On the date of hearing on 14.09.2016 the complainant did not

appear. The Forum on the basis of consumption data supplied by the concerned SDO

noted that in the past consumption of 1835 units and even more than 2300 units

were recorded during the year 2014 and 2015. The disputed consumption was only

1569 units in the bill for the period May to July 2016. It has generally been observed

that during summer months the consumption of electricity increases substantially

due to use of cooling appliances such as Acs and coolers.

5. Since the consumer did not attend the hearing on the two opportunities provided to

him, it appears that consumer must have realised that the bill issued to him is as per

his use of electricity. Moreover the SDO has already got the meter checked and

found in order. Further, On the basis of above observations that the consumption

recorded by the meter in the past being more than the consumption disputed by the

complainant, the Forum doesn’t find any merit in the submissions made by him

dismiss the complaint..

6. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned observants.






















In the matter to Shri Harbhajan Singh, House No. 869, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Harbhajan Singh, owner of the House No. 869, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh, through his

letter, dated 18.05.2016, stated that he received a notice from SDO that an amount of

Rs 21520 was being charged for the period meter remained defective. He also stated

that the premises was vacant when the meter was non-functional. After the new meter

was installed by the complainant, the same was occupied by the tenants. He therefore

requested to set aside the sundry charges levied by the SDO. He also supplied a copy of

the notice surved by the SDO.

2. The above complaint was registered as complaint no. GR-80 and was forwarded to

Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for comments and consumption data

along with actual connected load as checked directions were also issued for not to

disconnect the supply, provided, the consumer made the payment of Rs 6000 +

current cycle charges.

3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 30.05.2016

submitted that the meter was replaced on 24.07.2015 being defective. He also

stated that the meter remained defective from 16.11.2013 to 25.07.2015. The

complainant was billed 320 units per cycle. While checking the record, the office

noted that complainant was billed less as compared to the consumption recorded by

the new replaced meter. Accordingly the consumer account was overhauled for the

period 16.11.2013 to 25.07.2015 at the rate of 370 units per month on the basis of

consumption recorded during 25.07.2015 to 16.01.2016. He also submitted that the

connected load of the consumer was found to be more than the sanctioned load

when checked. He enclosed copy of MCO, consumption data and the ECR in respect

of load checked.


representative of the complainant during hearing stated that the house was vacant

during the period the meter was defective and as such the account should not be

overhauled on the basis of consumption when the premises was occupied. He was

requested to provide proof in support of his statement about the premises being

vacant. The Nodal Officer was also directed to check the factual position by

interacting with the neighbours vide letter dated 21.6.2016.

5. On the next date of hearing on 19.07.2016 the representative of the complainant

desired for more time to submit the proof of premises lying vacant. In the meanwhile

the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10 supplied a report of checking by J.E on

04.07.2016. The J.E in his report stated that the site was checked and found the

premises occupied at present. With regard to the occupancy of the said premises

during the disputed period he stated that the neighbours didn’t comment.

6. On the next notified dates of hearing on 14.09.2016 as well as on 26.09.2016 the

complainant or his representative didn’t appear despite telephonic message of

hearing fixed for 26.09.2016 to the representative.

7. The Forum noted that the complainant failed to produce any evidence in support of

his statement that premises was not occupied during the disputed period. On the

other hand no neighbour gave any statement in favour of the complainant.

On the basis of above it is concluded that the premises was not vacant

and the account needs to be overhauled. The Forum also noted that the load existing

at the premises, including one 1.5T Air Conditioner was more than the sanctioned

load by 1.675kw. From the consumption data it is also been seen that the

consumption during the period 05/2013 to 07/2013 which was peak summer period

was only 77 units against 217 units recorded during the period 03/2013 to 05/2013.

With one AC of 1.5T, consumption of 77 units during peak summer is not possible

and clearly suggests that meter became defective after 16.05.2013. The Forum also

observed that consumption data prior to 16.05.2015 is also not consistent and was

much less than the average of 320 units which was being charged to the complainant

during disputed period. The complainant didn’t agitate for billing of 320 units despite

his past consumption was on lower side clearly suggests that the complainant was

aware that the units being billed was as per the appliances being used by him. The

Forum thus opines that the past data cannot be taken for overhauling. Therefore the

Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account for the period from 16.05.2013 to

25.07.2015 on the basis of 1 year consumption recorded by the new meter. Further

appropriate action as per the regulations be taken for the excess load detected at the

premises.

8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions. Compliance be


be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.




















In the matter to the Senior Post Master, General Post Office, Sector-

17, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. The Senior Post Master, General Post Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh

through his application dated 7.4.2016 filed a complaint as per liberty

granted by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

(NCDRC), New Delhi. It is stated that the electricity meter of NRS

connection got burnt and was replaced with a new meter on 1.5.2003.

The meter was checked through Aqua-meter of the electricity department

on 19.11.2003 when it was found that meter was running slow by 52%.

A demand of Rs.6,89,312/- was raised through electricity bill dated

19.1.2004 on account of short assessment as per the report of checking

of the meter. The meter continued to remain in place and was not

replaced though the complainant purchased a new meter as per the

specification provided by the Electricity Department. However,

complainant was directed to purchase a new meter stating that the meter

purchased was not fulfilling the technical requirements. Ultimately meter

was replaced in July 2004 by the electricity department of their own.

Thereafter additional demand of Rs.5,44,259.31P was raised by

increasing the consumption recorded by the meter during the period

November 2003 (date of checking) to July 2004 (date of replacement).

The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the District Consumer

Forum, (DCF) U.T., Chandigarh which was disposed of on 3.4.2006 with

the directions to overhaul the accounts for 6 months against one year

charging by the department and to refund the balance amount out of

Rs.6,89,312/- already paid by the complainant. Subsequent demand of

Rs.5,44,.259/- was quashed. The electricity department aggrieved by the

order moved the State Consumer Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.

(SCDRC). The Hon’ble State Consumer Commission dated 22.1.2007,

modified the orders of the DCSR. With regard to overhauling of the

account for six months and the refund of balance amount against the

payment of Rs.6,89,312/- was upheld and the order with regards to the

denial of arrears of Rs.5,44,259/- was quashed.

The applicant thereafter filed an appeal before the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi

against the orders passed by the State Consumer Forum, U.T. Through

an Interim Order dated 17.5.2007 the NCDRC stayed the operation of

the impugned order of the State Commission to deposit of 50% of the

amount giving liberty to the electricity department to withdraw the

same by furnishing the security bond. Subsequently the petition was

disposed of 10.10.2014 on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court giving liberty to the complainant to get his grievances

redressed from the appropriate Forum as per Electricity Act 2003. In

line with above liberty, the complainant filed a complaint with CGRF for

redressal of grievances. Copies of various orders and other supporting

documents including appeals were attached with the application.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-50/2016 was forwarded

to the Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide letter dated

08.04.2016 for parawise comments with a copy to the complainant.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide

his letter dated 26.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 duly countersigned. AEE ‘OP’ Sub

Divn.No.4 pointed out that NCDRC gave liberty to the complainant to

approach the CGRF vide order dated 10.10.2014 but the complainant

approached the CGRF on 7.4.2016 i.e. after a lapse of 1-1/2 years and

therefore prayed that complaint be dismissed on account of extra

ordinary delay. It was also pointed out that the meter was replaced on

21.7.2004 due to running slow and not due to meter burnt as stated by

the complainant. The meter under reference was checked by Meter

Inspector on 19.11.2003 and was detected to be running slow by 52%.

The meter was checked with the help of Aqua-check meter in the

presence of representative of the complainant and obtained his

signatures on the checking report in token thereof. The account of the

complainant was thereafter revised for the period of one year from

October 2002 to October 2003 by increasing the consumption by 52%.

Short assessment of Rs.6,89,312/- was assessed after adjusting

payments already made. The amount was paid by the complainant. Due

to non availability of new meter with the department, the representative

of the complainant was requested to arrange the same at his own level

through verbal as well as written requests. Reminder was also issued on

17.3.2004. The meter arranged by the complainant was not found to be

of proper capacity as per sanctioned load and they were, therefore,

advised to arrange the meter for the proper capacity as per the

specification/sanctioned load. The meter was ultimately arranged by the

department and replaced on 21.7.2004. Thereafter sundry charges

Rs.5,44,259.31 were levied in the bill dated 19.9.2004 for the period

Nov. 2003 to July 2004 by increasing the consumption registered by the

defective meter by 52%.

The complainant filed by complaint before the District Consumer

Redressal Forum, U.T., Chandigarh was disposed off on 3.4.2006 with

the directions to overhaul the account for six months in respect of

amount of Rs.6,89,312/- and demand of Rs.5,47,259/- was quashed.

The electricity department filed an appeal before the State Dispute

Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh contesting that the

complainant was required to challenge the accuracy of the meter in

case they were not satisfied with the site checking as per Instructions

No.113 of the Sale Manual which was not done by them. The electricity

department also challenged the District Forum order for not to charge

Rs.5,44,279.31 stating that the amount is liable to be paid since

inaccurate meter was in place recording less consumption than actual.

The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission through its order

dated 22.1.2007 modified the orders of the District Consumer

Redressal Commission to the extent that the amount of

Rs.5,44,259.31 was liable to be paid .Simultaneously directions were

issued to give full details of the amount being so charged including the

meter reading etc.

Thereafter the complainant i.e. Postal Department challenged

the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

dated 27.1.2007 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi. The petition was disposed of with liberty to

get grievances redressed from the proper Forum. He attached

supporting documents such as MCO, Specification of the meter, letters

and the appeals etc.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 31.8.2016 vide letter dated

12.8.2016. The complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were

present. The complainant reiterated the issues as per his complaint.

He stressed that the meter was purchased by them in April 2004 as per

specification conveyed by the department but the electricity department

in May 2004 rejected the same that meter was of lower capacity. The

SDO could not attend the hearing and requested for another

opportunity.

5. The case was thereafter listed for hearing on 28.9.2016 when the

complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The

representative of the complainant specifically raised the following issues.

i) Account should be overhauled for a period of six months prior to

date of checking in line with Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act

2003.

ii) After checking the department failed to replace the disputed

meter and it continued till July 2004. For this period the

overhauling should be on the basis of average rather than

increased the consumption by 52%.

iii) The meter should have been got tested in the lab when it was

found to be slow after checking in November 2003. Thus

procedure was not followed by the Electricity Department, the

complainant should not be penalised.

iv) It was the duty of the department to maintain/install a proper

meter.

v) The meter was not replaced immediately after the inspection

despite pursuance by the complainant.

6. The Forum observed that though the complainant approached the CGRF

after a lapse of 1-1/2 years of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble NCDRC

and the plea by the electricity department for not to entertain due to

extra ordinary delay, the Forum in the interest of justice Condon the

delay.

7. We consider the issues raised by the complainant one by one.

(i) The period of Overhauling:

The complainant has prayed for limiting the period for

overhauling prior to date of checking to six months instead of

one year relying on the Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. It

has, however, been observed that Section 26 of the Electricity

Act is not relevant as it refers to establishment NLDC. Section

126 is also not applicable as it provides for assessment under

unauthorized use of electricity. The instance case of overhauling

is due to meter being slow/defective.

We are of the opinion that in case the period when the meter

started recording less consumption can be identified then the

overhauling should be done w.e.f. this indentified period only

rather than overhauling for a fixed period of six months/one

year. The present Supply Code Regulations also provides for

recovery of charges for the duration during the period the meter

remains non functional. In order to identify the period when

meter became slow, we studied the consumption data supplied

by the Sub Division. The disputed meter was installed during the

period October to December 2000. Thereafter the consumption

was in the range of around 25,000 units during winter period

and around 50,000 units during peak summer i.e. April to

October. The consumption showed a decline from the average

normal consumption during the period October to December

2002 to around 16,000 units (from initial reading 1975 to new

reading 2038 with MF 800/3) against 24,533 units recorded

during the corresponding period during 2001. This less

recording of consumption continued thereafter since the

consumption recorded during peak summer June-August and

August – October was only around 30,000 units against 46,400

and 52,533 units per cycle respectively during the corresponding

period in 2001. It has also been noted that after the disputed

meter was replaced in July 2004, the consumption again picked

up to the level of consumption in the year 2002. The

consumption by the replaced meter during the period June to

August 2005 and during August 2005 to October 2005 was

59352 and 45868 units respectively. During winter period also

the consumption was of the order of 37-40,000 units in the year

2005.

Above analysis clearly suggests that meter became faulty

during the period October to December 2002 and thus the account

needs to be overhauled w.e.f. October 2002 on the basis of above

inference. This idenfication of period incidentally coincide with the

period considered by the Sub Division for overhauling i.e. one year

prior to date of checking.

(ii) Basis of Overhauling for the period w.e.f. date of

checking to replacement of the meter:

The complainant has pleaded that overhauling be done on the

basis of average instead of increasing the consumption by 52%.

As reliable past and future consumption data is available, we find

merit in the submissions made by the complainant that the

overhauling should be done on the basis of average. Moreover

the loading position continued to change during the day and that

the error is generally different at different values of loading, thus

it may not be proper to overhaul the account on the basis of

figure(s) declared by the Sub Division during checking.

(iii) Checking of Meter in the Lab:

The complainant failed to produce an evidence that he agitated

at the time of checking. The complainant was supposed to raise

this issue at that time and not at a later date. The SDO in his

reply has also stated that the complainant did not raise this issue

at that time and did not deposit the requisite meter challenge

fee. As such the meter was not got tested in the lab. We also

feel that the complainant, if was not satisfied with the site

checking should have challenged the meter. Moreover its now

history and not relevant.

(iv) Department failed to maintain the meter properly:

We agree that it was the duty of the department to provide a

correct meter for recording the consumption.

(v) Non replacement of meter promptly:

The SDO stated that the meter could not be replaced due to non

availability and the complainant was requested to procure at his

end. This is now again history but the fact is that meter was

recording less consumption than being used as per analysis and

inference drawn under Para 6 (i) above. Thus the account

needs to be overhauled during the period the meter was

recording less consumption.

8. Conclusion and Decision:

From above analysis, the conclusion is drawn that the meter became

slow after October 2002 and remained in operation till 21.7.2004. As

the past reliable consumption data is available, the account during this

period of around 22 months be overhauled on the basis of consumption

recorded during immediately proceeding 22 months from December

2000 to October 2002. The account already overhauled is set aside. The

Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the consumption from 10/2002 to

21.7.2004 on the basis of consumption recorded during immediately

proceeding period from December 2000 to October 2002.

As the Electricity Department failed to install a correct meter after it

was detected that meter was slow, no meter rental be levied after

November 2002 till replacement of meter i.e. 21.7.2004. The meter

rental charged if any, during the period November 2003 to 21.7.2004

be refunded by the Nodal Officer simultaneously. Compliance be

reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the

penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of

the Electricity Act 2003

9. With above observations and decision, the complaint is disposed off.
















In the matter to Shri Amritanshu Dwivedi, House No. 459/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Amritanshu Dwivedi, through his email dated 03.08.2016 pointed out that

his name on the electricity bill was not correctly spelled. In the absence of any

details such as account no. or house no. etc, through return email he was

requested to provide the required details for initiating action on his complaint.

Through his subsequent mail on 05.08.2016, he provided the details including

his account no. and address as House No. 459/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.


the Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for comments/feedback

vide letter dated 09.08.2016 with a copy to the complainant.


17.08.2016 stated that for correcting the spelling mistake in the name of the

consumer the advice to the computer cell would be sent on 30.09.2016. He

also informed that the correct name would be reflected on the bill to be

issued on 22.10.2016. He also enclosed a copy of above reply to the Nodal

Officer as well as to the complainant.

4. On the date notified for hearing i.e. 27.09.2016, the complainant didn’t

attend. The RA of the sub division present during the hearing confirmed that

his correct name would appear in the bill to be issued in October 2016.

5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed by the sub division consider the complaint as disposed. The

complainant may however approach the Forum in case the spelling mistake

of his name is not corrected in the electricity bill to be issued in October

2016.


















In the matter to Shri Parag Raj Sharma, House No. 3044, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Parag Raj Sharma, resident of House No. 3044, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh, through

his email dated 02.07.2016 lodged a complaint with the SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9

for the inflated bill dated 28.06.2016 amounting to Rs. 3,74,030/-. He pointed out that

apparently this high amount of bill is on account of some inadvertent error which may be

checked and rectified. He also pointed out that his last bill was also on higher side. He

forwarded copy of this complaint to CGRF as well.


Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated

05.07.2016 for comments along with consumption data and connected load as

checked. The consumer was also requested to submit a written complainant duly

signed within 5 days as per provisions of the procedure circulated by the JERC.

3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9 through his letter dated 09.09.2016

submitted the reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer as well as to the complainant. In

his reply he stated that the said connection was checked by an official of his sub

division on 18.07.2016 and he found meter dead stop. The meter was replaced on

21.07.2016. After observing the meter as dead stop and recordings of abnormal

consumption as compared to past consumption, the consumer account was

overhauled for the period 01/2016 to 21/07/2016 at the rate of 371 units per month

on the basis of corresponding past consumption during the period 01/2015 to

07/2015. The amount of revised bill has been indicated as Rs 3881/-. He also stated

that the adjustment of Rs. 4,31,662/- would be reflected in the bill to be issued on

24.10.2016. He enclosed copy of MCO, consumption data and details of the amount

proposed to be adjusted in the subsequent bill.

4. On the notified date of hearing on 27.09.2016 the complainant as well as the RA of

the sub division were present. The RA explained him that his bill stands corrected as

per the consumption recorded in the past. The complainant showed his satisfaction

and confirmed that he had already paid the amount of the revised bill.

5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed by the sub division, consider the complaint as disposed.

















Complaint No. - GR-94/102/2016


In the matter to Shri Jarnail Singh, House No.773, Sector-56, Chandigarh.


Versus




ORDER

1. Shri Jarnail Singh, resident of House No. 773, Sector-56, Chandigarh through his

representation dated 4.6.2016 pointed out that he received an electricity bill with sundry

charges of Rs.6,810/-. He raised his objection with regard to levy of sundry charges.


Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated


copy to the complainant. Another complaint for the same premises was received

from Shri Manjit Singh which was registered as Complaint No. GR-102/2016.

However, subsequently it was observed that this complaint though this was from a

different person, also pertains to same premises and same account as such both

these complaints are being disposed through this common order.

3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016 submitted that

the meter of the consumer was found (dead/stop) and was replaced on 4.5.2015.

On the basis of consumption details it was noted that the meter started recording

less consumption w.e.f. 19.6.2013. Thereafter the account of the consumer was

overhauled from 19.12.2013 to 4.5.2014 @ 200 units per month on the basis of

consumption recorded by new meter from 19.6.2015 to 19.2.2016 in view of non

availability of reliable past consumption data. He also supplied consumption data for

last three years along with copy of MCO.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 25.7.2016 but the consumer did not attend.

Another opportunity was afforded and the case was again listed for hearing on

13.9.2016 which was postponed to 14.9.2016 due to declaration of Holiday on

13.9.2016.

5. In the meanwhile, the reply received from the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 was

forwarded to the complainant for his information and further action, if any, vide

letter dated 20.06.2016 by the Forum.

6. On 14.9.2016 also, the consumer did not appear. The Forum on the basis of

submissions made by the SDO and the consumption data observed that the meter

started recording very less consumption (25 Units and less against average of 200

units) w.e.f. 19.6.2013. This abnormal drop in consumption particularly during

summer months suggests that the meter became faulty after 19.6.2013. The

account was overhauled, however, from 19.12.2013 and not from 19.6.2013 by

wrongly interpreting the Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. In such cases, the

account was required to be overhauled from the period meter became faulty.

In view of the above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled

afresh w.e.f. 19.6.2013 to 4.5.2015 on the basis of consumption recorded by the

replaced meter from 19.6.2015 to 19.2.2016.

7. The complaint stands disposed with aforementioned directions. Compliance be


be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003







8. A copy of this order be placed on the main as well as GR-102/2016 files for record.

One copy be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to both the

complainants for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record

room after having it properly numbered and indexed.








Complaint No. - CG-62/2016


In the matter to Shri Ashish Gosain, House No. 312, Sector 46-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus





ORDER

1. Sh. Ashish Gosain, resident of House No. 312, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh,

through his complaint dated 22.10.2015 submitted that he is residing on

the first floor of the said house. The meter of the first floor suddenly got

defected and started jumping for which request was given to the

concerned SDO. This meter was replaced during Nov/2014 with a new

meter purchased by him. This replaced meter after about one year of

installation has again started giving higher reading/jumping. Praying that

the meter be got inspected and replaced, the complainant submitted that

the amount should be refunded back. He enclosed the rent deed the

references made to the SDO and the copies of the electricity bill.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-62/2015 was

forwarded to the Nodal Officer, XEN Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for Para-

wise comments/feedback along with consumption data for the last

three years vide letter dated 21.11.2015 with a copy to the consumer.


27.11.2015 submitted the Para-wise comments confirming that the

previous meter was replaced on 19.11.2014 being defective with a

new private meter. He further submitted that the working of the

present meter was got checked and the error was found within

permissible limits. He enclosed the copy of MCO, the report dated

20.11.2015 of checking of the meter and the consumption data.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 13.01.2016. Another opportunity

was given by re-notifying the case for hearing on 10.02.2016 as the

complainant did not attend on dated 13.01.2016

During hearing on 10.02.2016 the details provided by the SDO

were shared with the complainant who sought more time. Thereafter

the case was listed for hearing on 16.03.2016. The complainant during

hearing showed his dissatisfaction to the checking of the working of

the meter by SDO and challenged the meter. Directions were imparted

to the SDO for getting the meter tested in the Lab, after the

complainant deposit the requisite fee. Thereafter the hearing was

conducted on 09.06.2016. The complainant did not attend. The SDO

supplied a copy of the report dated 05.04.2016 of the checking of

meter in the M&P Lab. As per report, the error in the meter was found

to be within permissible limits. The testing was done in the presence of

the consumer representative. Thereafter two opportunities were given

to the complainant to defend his case by listing for hearing on

12.07.2016 and 20.09.2016. But the complainant did not attend. The

SDO/RA present during various hearings pleaded for dismissal of the

complaint on the basis of report of checking in the Lab.

5. The Forum observed from the consumption data that except for peek

summer period, the consumption of the meter was consistent during

the past as recorded by previous meter(s) as well as the future

consumption recorded by the replaced meter. The complainant

agitated on the basis of higher consumption recorded during the

summer months. It has generally been observed that the consumption

during summer months increases substantially. In isolated cases the

recorded consumption during summer months has been found to be

2.5 to 3 times the normal/average consumption during rest of the

period of the year.

6. In the present case, again consumption recorded by the new meter

replaced (on removal of disputed meter for getting tested in lab has

been found to be more than 1100 units per cycle during summer

period)

7. Further on the basis of the report dated 05.04.2016 of the M&P Lab,

the Forum finds no merit in the complaint made by the complainant

and dismiss the same. The forum also observed from the consumption

data that at the time of replacement of the meter on 19.11.2014, the

proportionate consumption was not included for the period the old

defective meter was in-place. The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure

that the proportionate consumption for the period the old meter was

in-place, is charged on the basis of consumption recorded during the

corresponding period in the year 2013.











MEMBER, CGRF Chairperson, CGRF




BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.


Date of Order - 30.09.2016 In the matter Sh. Hori Lal, House No. 285, Ph-2, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh. ………………..Complainant/Applicant

Versus



As Per Sh. J.S. SIDHU, Nominated Member.

Order

1. Sh. Hori Lal, vide his representation 17.05.2016 has disclosed that one Mr. Rafiq

Mian along with three other person namely Naseem, Mewa Ram and Raghubir

Singh, took upon themselves to enter into an agreement with the electricity

department to supply electricity in Bapu Dham colony on contract. The partnership

deed executed on 03.11.2008, along with bank account details dated 07.12.2008, in

the name of “Rafiq Mian and Associates” and a copy of receipt of electricity

consumption in the name of ”Rafiq Mian and company” (contactor Chandigarh

Electricity Department, situated at house no. 2434, Phase 2, Bapu Dham, Sector 26,

Chandigarh), is also placed on record to substantiate his pleading. The applicant is

aggrieved of the demand of Rs. 1,27,849, through the bill dated 18.02.2011, under

the heading of Arrears. The applicant has claimed that the demand of Rs. 1,27,849,

on the basis of a surety document should not have been initiated by the electricity

department for the reason that the defaulter Mr. Rafiq Mian, who himself is an

existing consumer of the electricity department, is residing at house no. 1922, small

flats Dhanas Chandigarh, and that such outstanding amount should have been

transferred against the existing connection in his name. However the action of

electricity department in demanding the defaulting amount pertaining to Rafiq Mian

from him without giving him any advance notice is a wrongful act and thus the

demand notice deserves to be withdrawn against him.

2. The respondent Nodal Officer i.e. XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1, vide notice dated

18.05.2016 was asked to furnish brief history of the case, point/Para wise reply to

the points raised by the complainant, copy of relevant

Instructions/Rules/Regulations/Circular, consumption data, actual connected load as

checked etc. The undated reply vide memo no. 5212 dated 26.05.2016 was

received through which the electricity department contested that the complainant

along with one Mewa Ram were issued notices both dated 25.01.2011 on the basis

of a Surety Bond dated 24.09.2008 furnished by Hori Lal along with Meva Ram

through which he had promised to stand surety in favour of Rafiq Miyan that in case

he did not pay the bills and other dues of the electricity department that the same

amount will be debited in their accounts and department was fully authorized to do

so. The respondents further claimed that the complainant had also approached local

civil court against the department and Hon’ble court had dismissed the complaint of

the complainant on 06.08.2015 and even his appeal before the court of Additional

District sessions Judge Chandigarh which too has been dismissed vide order dated

24.02.2016. Therefore the complainant is held liable to clear the defaulting amount

which stood in the name of Rafiq Miyan as complainant was the surety holder

against him & Prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against respondents.

3. During the hearing on 14.06.2016, an interim order was passed by the Hon’ble

Chairman however the same being devoid of quorum was kept in abeyance till the

Forum attained quorum.

4. There after hearing was conducted on 29.09.2016 during which, as per the

disclosure of the complainant, details of the new connection released in the name of

Rafiq Miyan, S/o Maula Varus, on 26.11.2013 at his address house no. 1922,

Dhanas and other connected documents disclosing the allotment of dwelling unit

number flat no. 1922, situated at Dhanas Chandigarh, were sourced from the office

of Sub Division No.4, sector 15, Chandigarh. The identity of the defaulter Rafiq

Miyan S/o Maula Varus, stands established from the copy of aadhar card used for

the release of the new electricity connection that exist in his name, as of today, since

its subscription from the year 2013.

5. On minute perusal of the documents placed on record by the parties, we are of the

view that the respondents while entering into a contract with one Mr. Rafiq Miyan for

distribution of electricity energy in Madrasi Colony, Bapu Dham, Chandigarh, had

taken on record one Surety Bond dated 24.09.2008, jointly signed by Mewa Ram

and the complainant Hori Lal declaring that they will make good the un paid bills and

other dues of the electricity department in case Rafiq Miyan failed to pay the same.

Such amount would be debited in their account and the department will be fully

authorized to do so. However it is necessary to quote here that the actual defaulter

Mr. Rafiq Mayin had failed to respond to the notice dated 12.02.2009 and even

refused to receive it, as found mentioned on the copy of the notice placed by record

by the respondents.

It is understood that the electricity department even after having taken

recourse of adding the amount of Rs. 1,27,849/- in the bill dated 13.02.2011 as

Arrears was unable to recover the outstanding of Rafiq Miyan from the complainant

as the Hori Lal complainant is a daily wager and did not have the resources or

assets to make good such payments. On the other hand Mr. Rafiq Miyan, who had

acquired a property in Chandigarh itself and is enjoying a fresh connection in his

name at the address house no. 1922, Dhanas Chandigarh. It is necessary to quote

here that the provisions of Regulation 9.2 (10) clearly mandates the respondents to

disconnect the power supply to a consumer where any consumer having more than

one connection defaults in payment of dues relating to one of the connections,

therefore by extending these provisions, the respondents can very easily recover

the outstanding amount from original defaulter Mr. Rafiq Miyan who is now residing

at house no. 1922, Dhanas, Chandigarh since 2013 and is enjoying the electricity

connection issued by Sub Division no.4, of Chandigarh electricity department itself

under the same Division. Apart from the afore mentioned Regulation 9.2 (10), the

JERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2013 also empowers the respondents

to recover the outstanding dues due to the consumer by resorting to the provisions

of RR Act, as mentioned in Regulation 6.9 (2) of the Supply Code.

6. In view of the aforesaid observations we are of the view that the respondents are

directed to do the needful in making serious efforts for the recovery of outstanding

amount against Rafiq Miyan in the manner as is mandated under the provisions of

Regulation 9.2 (10) & Regulation 6.9 (2). The respondents are also ordered to

immediately restore the connection of the complainant against the payment of

energy charges due to him without charging any plenty or surcharges and also

facilitating such payment in instalments in case the complainant shows his inability in

paying the same in one single go.

7. With the above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order falling which the










Date post:	01-Nov-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanthuy
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, … · The complaint registered as Complaint No....

Documents