Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Electricity Sector – A Case Study of Delhi
Project Directors
Prof. Suresh Misra Dr. Mamta Pathania
Project Associates
Dr. Amit Kumar Singh Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh
Sponsored by
Department of Consumer Affairs Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution
Government of India
Conducted by Centre for Consumer Studies
Indian Institute of Public Administration IP. Estate, Ring Road, New Delhi – 110002
i
Preface
Providing prompt and efficient service is essential not only to attract new customers, but also to retain existing customers. Every organisation must evolve a system for redressal of grievance arising out of its work. Grievance redressal system should form an integral part of the machinery of any organisation. No organisation can claim to be accountable, responsive and user friendly unless it has established an efficient and effective grievance redressal system. In fact the grievance redressal mechanism of an organisation is the gauge to measure its effectiveness and efficiency as it provides important feedback on the working of the organisation.
The basic purpose behind grievance redressal mechanism is to provide a platform for citizens to redress their complaints related to various services they receive form a service provider, voice their opinion and provide feedback on various services rendered by the provider. It bridges the communication gap between the service provider and the citizen or consumer, providing citizens a platform through which they can get their grievances redressed in a timely and transparent manner. It also serves as a mean to measure the efficiency of the service provider as it provides an important feedback towards reconciliation of a grievance. Here depending on the relevance of service and associated factors scope can vary.
A suitable mechanism must exist for receiving and redressing customer grievances. The details of grievance redressal mechanism are to be placed in the domain of public knowledge. The grievances should be dealt with promptly and courteously. Any mistakes made by the service provider should be rectified immediately. In order to make the redressal mechanism more meaningful and effective, a structured system has been put in place. Such system would ensure that the redressal sought is just, fair and within the given framework of rules and regulations.
Consumer grievances provide valuable feedback on the quality of services and whether the initiatives taken by the service provider in technology and re-engineering of business processes are having the desired impact on business growth and improved customer satisfaction. The service providers also understand the importance of sensitizing staff to handling customer transactions / requests with courtesy, empathy and promptness. It is in the interest of the service provider that they also conduct periodical customer satisfaction surveys to understand customers' perceptions of the services being provided and to identify priority areas, which need improvement.
The present study deals with the Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the Electricity Sector and confines to Delhi region. The Electricity Act of 2003 mandates that the Forums for Redressal of Consumer Grievances (CGRF) shall be set up by all distribution utilities. The study focuses on the problems being faced by the consumers of electricity in Delhi and the effectiveness of the distribution utilities in addressing the problems of the consumers efficiently and to the satisfaction of the consumers. The study also tries to identify the problems faced by the consumers and the response of the power utilities. Lack of awareness about issues relating to bills, its various provisions and technical details also adds to the problem.
We received the help and support from a large number of people and organisations during the study. We are thankful to the Chairman, DERC, Chairman of the ECGRFs and Presidents of the DCDRFs for their valuable inputs and help at various stages in completing this study. We are also thankful to the heads of four DISCOMS (BYPL, TPDDL, BRPL and NDMC) for their cooperation in collection of data and help in carrying out the study. Our thanks are due to the members of the forums, secretaries and other staff of the forums who inspite of initial hesitation provided all the information and material that was required for the study. We are also thankful to various consumers, RWAs and other stakeholders for their cooperation in providing useful
ii
information and also suggestions that helped us shape this study. Mr Yadvendra Shukla, RPVV, Tyagraj Nagar and others who helped us in filling in the questionnaires, our sincere thanks to them. The Research Staff of CSS, IIPA needs special mention for their efforts in completing the study. Dr. Amit Kumar Singh and Mr. Pankaj Singh have worked with dedication and have been helpful in various ways. We also acknowledge the help we received from Shri. B. S. Sachdeva in completing this study.
Dr T Chatterjee, Director of IIPA, New Delhi has been a source of inspiration and we would like to thank him and others for the administrative support that we received. Our colleagues in the Centre, particularly, Shri. R.C. Mangla, Ms. Deepa Bist and Ms. Hema Rautela have been of immense help in completing this study. Our thanks to all of them.
We are thankful to the Department of Consumer Affairs, GoI for sponsoring this study to CCS/IIPA. We are grateful to Shri. Pankaj Agarwal, Secretary and Shri. Manoj Kumar Parida, JS, DCA for their help and support in completing this study.
We are confident that this report will help the Power utilities in better appreciation of the consumer grievances and put in place a fair, transparent and responsive system to address consumer complaints.
Prof. Suresh Misra
Dr. Mamta Pathania
.
Place: New Delhi
iii
CONTENTS
1 Preface i-ii
2 Executive Summary iv-xix
3 Chapter I: Introduction 1-7
4 Chapter II: Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Electricity Sector 8-19
5 Chapter III: Analysis of Cross Section of Electricity Consumer Respondents
20-36
6 Chapter IV: Perception of Complainants 37-51
7 Chapter V: Perception of Chairman/Members of CGRFs on Functioning of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums
52-66
8 Chapter VI: Analysis of Complaints Filed in the In-House Call Centres of DISCOMs
67-74
9 Chapter VII: Findings and Recommendations 75-85
10 References 86
11 Annexure I: List of Officials Consulted during the Study 87-88
12 Annexure II: BSES Rajdhani/Yamuna Limited Complaint Handling Procedures
89-94
13 Annexure III: TPDDL Limited Complaint Handling Procedures 95-100
14 Annexure IV: Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011.
101-112
iv
Executive Summary
1. Background
The purpose of electricity sector reforms of Delhi, particularly after the
implementation of Electricity Act, 2003, largely aimed at making this sector more
efficient through competition and providing benefits for consumers. Apart from
the framework of competition, the Act also makes specific provisions seeking to
safeguard the interests of consumers. The National Electricity Policy and the
Tariff Policy framed under the Act reinforces this provision. The State Electricity
Regulatory Commission is also to notify guidelines/ regulations for the
establishment of the Forums and the Ombudsman for consumer protection.
The Government of NCT Delhi framed rules to establish a well structured
grievance redressal mechanism within the DISCOMs as well as state level
wherein the citizens can lodge their complaints related to various services, voice
their opinions/feedback and also get redressal to their grievances. The
effectiveness of any mechanism can be adjudged by the prompt service delivery
in terms of attending to the complaint/consumer grievance and timely disposal of
the complaint. An effective complaint redressal mechanism helps both the
consumers and the service providers equally.
Specific provisions related to grievance redressal under the Electricity Act,
Government of India, as well as Delhi State Government mandates the
establishment of a variety of regulatory measures, intended to protect the
electricity consumers from exploitation by the distribution companies. These
include - the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRFs) under the
Electricity Act (2003), the DCDRF under Consumer Protection Act (1986), Delhi
State Public Grievance Cell and the Lok Adalats. Despite the provisions of
various Grievance Redressal Forums, evidence suggests that DISCOMs have
repeatedly failed the customers with confusing bills, wrong estimation of meter
reading, mismanaging, mistreatment and ignoring consumer complaints.
In an attempt to address these issues, a brief analysis of the crucial electricity
statutes, current practices in grievance redressal in electricity sector and
evaluation of their role has been done in this study. The study has been carried
v
out to find out the consumers ‘expectations and the level of satisfaction with the
four power distribution companies in Delhi. It projects the problem which
consumers face in their daily life and looks for solutions to improve the situation
and to alleviate the problems of the consumers of electricity. It also examines the
knowledge and skill of the consumers to understand various issues relating to
electricity supply and the process of complaint redressal.
2. Objectives of the Study
1. To evaluate the operational effectiveness of Consumer Complaint
Redressal Mechanism; including In-house and various Consumer
Forums available for Grievance Redressal;
2. To know the perception of the consumers on the quality of redressal of consumer complaints
3. To assess the overall satisfaction level among consumers on the services provided by the DISCOMs to redress consumer complaints
3. Methodology
The present study is an assessment of the effectiveness of redressal
mechanism, awareness among consumers about the existing redressal
mechanism, consumers’ perception on quality of the existing Grievance
Redressal Mechanism and satisfaction among consumers on the range of
services provided by the DISCOMs. In order to collect the necessary information,
various stakeholders, i.e. Electricity Consumers and Complainants, Electricity
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (ECGRFs), District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forums (DCDRFs) and DISCOMs were approached. IIPA team also
interacted with officials of DERC to understand the efficacy of the complaint
handling mechanism.
The study involves collecting information from consumers in Delhi, mainly
from the domestic consumers as commercial consumers do not fall under the C
P Act, 1986. Based on the questionnaire designed, analysis was done to find out
the issues faced by consumers with power distribution companies and their
expectations. The research design followed is descriptive and the technique used
is stratified sampling. On the basis of feedback from the licensee, regulator and
the consumer, the analysis and the interpretation of the results were obtained.
vi
Certain findings, recommendations and conclusions were derived that can be
utilized by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), to
strengthen the redressal mechanism, Licensee and the regulator to improve the
mechanism of consumer grievance redressal and help the consumers redress
their grievances if any in an effective manner and help the power distribution
companies and their associates to provide better quality of services to the
consumers.
4. Sampling Plan
A stratified random sampling technique has been used to assess the
effectiveness of the redressal mechanism, evaluate the extent of awareness and
satisfaction among electricity consumer in the jurisdiction of four DISCOMs
(BYPL, TPDDL, BRPL and NDMC) of Delhi. Electricity Consumers,
Complainants, Chairman and Members of ECGRF and DCDRF constitute the
main stakeholders. The stakeholder wise distribution of sample size is given
below in the table. (Table 1.1)
For the collection of primary data, three question schedules were prepared.
All the question schedules were subjected to reliability test by pre-testing which
was modified based on the responses received.
Table 1.1
S. No. Respondents Sample size
1 Electricity Consumers 410
2 Complainant (from different ECGRFs & DCDRFs) 165
3 Chairman & Members (ECGRF) 8
4 President & Members (DCGRF) 20
Total sample size 603
5. Source of Data
To achieve the objectives of the study, both primary and secondary data
were used. Primary Data was collected by administrating structured
questionnaires among various stakeholders. Secondary Data was collected from
books, articles, internet, journals, data and reports provided by DISCOMs, etc.
Discussions were also held with experts and officials in the area.
vii
6. Tools
Three types of questionnaires were developed for this study. These
questionnaires were administrated among the following stakeholders.
1. Electricity Consumers
2. Complainants (ECGRF and DCDRF)
3. Chairman/Members of ECGRF and DCDRF
7. Analysis
The analysis and tabulation of the primary data has been done by using
SPSS. Secondary data provided by DISCOMs and other sources was analyzed
with the help of excel. Some of the secondary data and information has been
collected from the articles; books, reports and internet to understand the concept
and trends regarding redressal mechanism in the electricity sector of different
states.
8. Limitations
• Complainants were reluctant to fill the questionnaires. As they thought it
may have an adverse effect on their cases.
• Secondary data, related to electricity cases filed in different forums are not
properly documented, hence difficult to access.
• DISCOMs were reluctant to share information regarding their functioning.
9. Major Findings
Based on the field data and information collected from various sources the
major findings of the study are as follows:
9.1 General Observations
1. Consumers are of the opinion that the quality of electricity supply has
improved during the past 10 years, but there are several issues which
needs to be taken care of.
viii
2. The level of awareness among consumers about the electricity bill is not
satisfactory. Most of the consumers are not aware about the slab wise
energy charges and third party meter testing. Most of the complaints filed
in the CGRFs relate to these two issues.
3. The quality of in –house complaints centres needs to be improved as
many of the consumers have complained that these centres are not easily
accessible. The behavior of call centre executives is not consumer friendly
and cordial hence they need proper training.
4. Even after nine years of establishment of CGRFs, consumers of Delhi are
not fully aware of them. CGRF of BRPL and TPDDL are situated in such
periphery areas, where the aggrieved consumers find it difficult to even
reach these forums. Wide publicity is required to be given in the media
especially electronic media – TV, etc. on the establishment of Forums and
their role.
5. Multiplicity of forums for redressal in a way provides opportunities for the
consumers to get their grievances redressed through different avenues
but on the other hand it leads to state of confusion as to which forum
would be best to approach.
6. Lot of complaints are related to billing and metering issues, if the licensees
could pay more attention on them, the number of grievances / complaints
filed both in the customer care centres as well as in the CGRFs would
drastically come down.
7. A general perception among many of the consumers is that the decisions
of the CGRFs are biased and in favour of DISCOMs. Presently DERC
appoints the Chairman and Members to the CGRFs in accordance with
the list recommended by the DISCOMs.
8. The problem regarding the functioning of ECGRF’s relates to the
compliance of their orders. During survey it was found that the
representatives of the DISCOMs don’t come fully prepared at the time of
hearing, which leads to undue adjournments. It has also been found that
on many occasions the ECGRFs ask for lot of documents from the
consumers as well as from DISCOMs which delays the disposal of cases.
9. There is no enforcement mechanism/power given to the CGRFs to
implement or execute the orders. At present, there is no fixed
ix
accountability on the part of licensee to implement the decisions/ orders of
the Forums. As a result the consumer runs from pillar to post to execute
the order.
10. A general perception among the consumers is that the mechanism for the
implementation of the decisions of Forums should be such that individual
officers / employees be made accountable for non-compliance of orders
and accordingly action taken.
11. During discussion with the CGRFs and from the feedback of the
consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters.
There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of
the consumers are not aware of this aspect. And those who are aware,
they do not think the system is reliable and fair.
12. With the unbundling of Delhi Electricity Sector in 2001, the objective was
that consumers will be allowed to purchase electricity from any of the
three DISCOMs. But after ten years, there is no competition in Delhi’s
electricity market as there is only one electricity distributor in each power
supply area hence there is always a chance of increase in the electricity
charges and exploitation of the consumers. It also affects consumer’s right
to choice.
9. 2 Findings: Perception of Cross Section
1. As far as respondent’s knowledge about information printed on the
electricity bill is concerned, 73.5 percent of them read the details printed
on the electricity bill and rest 26.5 percent of the respondents never read
the information provided on the electricity bill.
2. As far as the information printed on the electricity bill, 81 percent knew
about the meter No, 66.8 percent were aware of the Circle/zone, 65.9
were aware of the type of supply, 64.9 percent knew about the meter type,
60.5 percent of the respondents knew about the CRN No., 54.6 percent
knew about the C A No., 54.1 percent of the respondents were aware
about the sanctioned load and 52.7 percent knew about the pole number.
3. As far as slab-wise energy charge is concerned half of the respondents,
51.2 percent were aware of it. Only 39 percent of respondents were aware
about the knowledge regarding Third Party Meter Testing.
x
4. Awareness about the Electricity Act is very less. Only 26.8 percent of the
total respondents knew about the Act while majority of them, 73.2 percent
were not aware of the Electricity Act.
5. The DISCOM wise data indicates that the level of awareness about the
Electricity Act is highest among the consumers of NDMC (31.7 percent)
followed by TPDDL (27.8 percent) and BYPL (26.5 percent). The
consumers of BRPL are least aware about the Electricity Act (24.8
percent).
6. Awareness about the Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the Act is
very low as only 27.5 percent of respondents know about the mechanism
while 72.5 percent are not aware about any such mechanism for redressal
of grievances.
7. As far as the nature of problem is concerned, 30 percent of the
respondents opined that they faced the problem of no current many times
followed by 27.8 percent who faced the problem of scheduled outages,
while 24.9 percent faced problem of voltage fluctuation.
8. 80 percent of the respondents said they have approached the in-house
complaint system for disruption in service line.
9. Among the respondents who complained to the Call Centres, 47.4 percent
were concerned with voltage fluctuation followed by 42.9 percent relating
to disconnection.
10. More than half of the respondents (66.7 percent) said that they used the
Zonal Complaints Centre for complaint registration. As far as Web
Services are concerned only 13.3 percent of the respondents said they
opted for this avenue for registering their complaint of metering, followed
by 7.7 percent in case of billing and 4 percent in case of Scheduled
Outages.
11. As regards complaint relating to metering problem, 73.3 percent of the
respondents said that their complaints had been resolved, in case of
power failure of street light, 91.7 percent said that their complaints had
been resolved. Similarly, 90.5 percent respondent’s complaint relating to
no current, 85.7 percent respondent’s complaint regarding disconnection,
74.6 percent respondent’s complaint of billing problem had been resolved.
Regarding voltage fluctuation 78.9 percent respondents said that their
xi
problems have been resolved, whereas 75 percent said their complaint of
broken service line were resolved, 66.7 percent in case of transfer of bill
charges to others and 33.3 percent in case of theft cases have been
resolved.
12. Consumers of BRPL have more complaints than consumers of other
DISCOMs while the consumers of NDMC have lesser complaints as
compared to others. 47.6 percent of the respondents of BRPL complained
that they have faced inconvenience due to failure of power supply many
times in the last one year.
13. Only 30.5 percent of respondents said they approached the call centre of
DISCOMs once, 18.9 percent called it twice, whereas 17.9 percent called
it thrice, 10.5 percent had called in the call centre four times and rest of
the 22.1 percent said they called the call centre more than four times.
14. As far as accessibility of the call centre is concerned only 21.6 percent of
the respondents were satisfied to large extent. In case of the behaviour of
the call centre executives, only 26.4 percent of the respondents were
satisfied to large extent with the response of call centre executives. On the
other hand, only 20 percent of the consumers were satisfied to large
extent with the time taken by the executives of Call Centre.
15. As far as redressal /remedy to the complaint is concerned only 17.9
percent of the respondents said they were satisfied to large extent with it
and more than one fourth of the consumers were dissatisfied with the
remedy/redressal of the DISCOMs.
16. It was found that the awareness about the mechanism for redressal of
grievances is very low. 73.5 percent of the respondents did not know
about the DCDRF, 69.1 percent did not know about State Electricity
Regulatory Commission, 65.7 percent were not aware about the Electricity
Consumer Redressal Forums. As far as awareness regarding the Lok
Adalats (set up by DERC) is concerned, only 38.2 percent of respondents
knew about it and rest 62 percent did not have any idea about the
existence of such a forum.
17. 85.3 percent of the respondents said that the quality of service has
improved after privatization. Respondents seem to be satisfied with the
electricity tariff.
xii
18. 66.5 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the tariff cost in
electricity sector is reasonable, while only 33.5 percent of the respondents
said it is unreasonable. Consumers of BRPL zone are more dissatisfied
with the cost of tariffs as 41 percent of them said that it is unreasonable for
the consumers. Consumers of NDMC (27.5 percent) are comparatively
less dissatisfied with the present cost of electricity tariff. Consumers of
BYPL (36.8 found it to be unreasonable).
19. 82.9 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the redressal
mechanism needs improvement. Time bound disposal of the complaints at
every level should be adhered to, followed by 78 percent of respondents
who were of the opinion that the mechanism can be improved by creating
awareness among the as people regarding the redressal mechanism.
20. 74.6 percent of the respondents said that the mechanism can be improved
if the dealing officers are penalized for non-compliance while 69.3 percent
of them said that a unified redressal mechanism can bring a lot of
improvement in the existing system of redressal mechanism. 65.9 percent
were of the opinion that if the redressal forums are vested with execution
powers, then they can be more effective.
21. Among the existing grievance redressal mechanism 51.1 percent of the
respondents said ECGRF is the best grievance redressal mechanism
followed by 19.3 percent who supported, Public Grievance Cell as the best
mechanism, 17.8 percent said DCDRF is the best forum for redressal of
grievances and 11.9 percent said SERC in their opinion is the best mode
of redressal of their grievances.
9.3 Findings: Perception of Complainants
1. Only 6.6 percent of the total respondents had approached some or the
other forum for redressal of grievances whereas majority 93.6 percent
opined that they never approached any forum for their complaints.
2. Among those respondents who have approached any of the available
forums, 60.7 percent of them approached the ECGRF, 36.2 percent
approached the Delhi State Public Grievance Cell, 25.9 percent of them
had approached DCDRFs and 29.3 percent of them approached Lok
xiii
Adalats (set up by DERC). SERC is the least approached (12.1 percent)
forum by the electricity consumers.
3. As regards the reason for approaching ECGRF, 61.3 percent said that
they knew only about this forum, followed by 46.4 who quoted “Easy to
Access” as the reason for approaching, cost effectiveness and quick
redressal (42.9 percent each) were other reasons given by the
complainants as the reason for approaching the forum.
4. For approaching DCDRF’s, the responses were mixed. 66.9 percent of the
complainants said they knew only about this forum, 55.6 percent said it
was suggested by others, while majority of them regarded none of the
following - cost effective, easy to access, quick redressal and strong
compliance mechanism as reasons for approaching the forum. 66.7
percent said that they knew only Lok Adalats, therefore they approached
the Lok Adalat.
5. 42.9 percent of the respondents who filed complaint in the ECGRF and
37.3 percent in DCDRF, faced difficulty after lodging their complaint in the
respective forums.
6. 37.5 percent of the BRPL complainants said that they faced difficulty after
lodging their complaint, while 34.6 percent complainant of BYPL opined
the same. Complainants of NDMC are the least sufferers as only 9.1
percent of them said that they faced difficulty after filing the complaint.
7. 40.5 percent for ECGRF complainants and 53.8 percent for DCDRF
complainants said that their complaint is still pending in the Forums and
merely 51.8 percent of ECGRF cases and 43.6 percent of DCDRF said it
has been resolved.
8. 64.7 percent of the Complainants of DCDRF are satisfied with
relief/redressal given by the Forum while those of ECGRF, 51.8 percent of
complainants were satisfied with the redressal /relief from the forum.
9. 56.7 percent of the complainants were satisfied with the procedures
adopted by ECGRF while 49.3 percent were not satisfied with the
procedures of redressal being adopted by the DCDRF. BYPL zone has
comparatively higher level of satisfaction with the procedures adopted by
respective ECGRF than other three forums.
xiv
10. 55.6 percent of ECGRF and 83.3 percent of DCDRF complainants who
are dissatisfied with their respective forum’s decisions is due to delay in
decision by the forums, followed by 33.2 percent of ECGRF and 26.7
percent of DCDRF were unsatisfied with the compensation. It is notable
that ECGRFs respondents who were dissatisfied with the reliefs/redressal
given by the respective forums, 58.3 percent of them opined that their
forums are biased in favour of DISCOMs. However this factor is pointed
out by only 20 percent respondents of DCDRFs.
11. In case of functioning of ECGRF, 84.2 percent of the complainants said
their complaint was acknowledged within 7 days of receipt of the
complaint, 42.1 percent said it was not disposed of in time while 31.6
percent said that there is no compliance of orders.
12. In case of functioning of DCRF, 83.9 percent of the complainants said their
complaint was registered/rejected within a period of 21 days of its receipt.
Only 37.5 percent said that the complaints are disposed of within the time
limit. 85.7 percent of them said that the compliance of orders is done.
While 14.3 percent said there is no compliance.
13. 86.4 percent of complainants were not aware of the Electricity
Ombudsman.
14. 27.3 percent of the respondents knew about the Consumer Protection Act.
Majority of the complainants (81.8 percent) are not aware of the consumer
rights. Only 37.9 percent of the complainants were aware of the redressal
mechanism under the CPA, 1986.
15. During discussions Complainants said that DISCOMs are having
resources such as technical, financial, legal & even consultants thereby
they can easily counter the objections of consumers. Thus the results are
in favour of licensees making the consumer aggrieved and isolated.
9.4 Findings: Perception of Chairman/Members of ECGRF
1. Majority of the Chairman /Members were of the opinion that knowledge of
the Legal Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is a prerequisite and
necessary in deciding the cases. One need not have a degree in law to
function effectively.
xv
2. All the ECGRFs agreed that shortage of Members, lack of technical
knowledge, non-cooperation from DISCOM, shortage of stationary are the
common problems faced by the forums. In case of lack of supporting staff,
lack of infrastructure, lack of fund for day to day miscellaneous expenses,
only ECGRF of BRPL was of the opinion that they faced these problems
while the others- BYPL, TPDDL/TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion
that they do not face these problems.
3. BRPL furnished the complaint within 15-30 days, TPDDL and NDMC
within 15 days while BYPL did the same within 5 days.
4. All ECGRF disposed off the complaints within 30-60 days. For compliance
of the order of the forum by DISCOMs BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC said the
compliance of orders is within 21 days while BYPL was of the opinion that
it is within 30 days. Asking for undue adjournments and disinterested
consumers was referred to as the reasons for the delay in disposal of
complaints by the BRPL
5. BYPL and TPDDL said that they faced sometimes problems in the
execution of the order. While BRPL and NDMC said that they never faced
this problem. All the ECGRFs were of the opinion that they get adequate
support from the DISCOMs. For Third Party Meter Testing, BRPL and
TPDDL said that they face problems due to Third Party Meter Testing
while BYPL and NDMC said they never faced this problem.
6. BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that the consumers are
indifferent and casual towards their problems and hence not in favour of
filing of complaints in the ECGRFs. All ECGRFs were of the opinion that
people don’t come forward because they don’t have much idea about the
Act and the redressal mechanism.
7. Members and Chairman of TPDDL were of the opinion that the members
are involved in the judgment writing and due consideration is given to their
viewpoint in final judgments. Chairman /Members of BYPL said that the
members are involved but only sometimes, similarly Chairman/Members
of NDMC said that the members are involved in the judgment writing.
Whereas the Chairman/members of BRPL did not answer to this question.
8. All the forums said that they don’t have funds to educate people and
organize awareness campaigns to educate consumers about their rights
xvi
9. The Chairman and the Members of ECGRFs are of the opinion that they
don’t have any administrative and financial powers.
10. As far as opinion regarding delay in decisions of complaint is concerned,
The common reasons for delay highlighted by the ECGRFs Members are:
a. Reports are required from test labs, etc which are not in time
b. Local reports unreliable
c. Documentation not complete
d. Undue Adjournment (should not be more than two).
11. The officers/officials working in DERC are on deputation or short term
assignment. By the time they understand the depth of issues, their term
comes to an end.
.
10. Suggestions
Almost every year there are public protests on one pre-text or the other.
Such protests reflect that the grievances continued to persist. It also reflects that
the consumers lack faith and confidence in the functioning of the licensees.
Therefore effective, efficient, responsive and reliable consumer grievance
redressal mechanism is necessary to win consumer confidence and ensure that
consumer grievances are redressed in a time bound manner.
1. The grievance redressal mechanism in electricity sector starts with the in-
house redressal mechanism. The findings suggest that a lot of
improvement required in the services that they provide .For this:
a) Training of the councillors/staff/members manning the helplines,
call centres, forums be done on regular basis for effective handling
of the complaints. Call centres executives should have proper skills
to handle a complaint. The call centres/ in house call centres needs
to be more vibrant and work with a spirit of consumer welfare to
increase consumer satisfaction.
b) The number of call centre executives need to be increased as most
of the time the numbers on which the consumers call are busy and
therefore the consumers are not able to lodge their complaints
easily.
xvii
c) In the present scenario consumers have to wait for a longer period
on the phone line which is a costly affair and further discourages
the consumers to make use of this avenue. For this a toll free
number can be provided to consumers for easy access.
d) Provision of online status enquiry of the grievance should be
introduced
2. The findings clearly show that the level of consumer awareness regarding
redressal mechanism in electricity sector is considerably low because of
which the consumers are not able get the benefit of the provisions of
Electricity Act. DERC and the DISCOMs should take the following
measures to give wide publicity to forums (CGRFs):
a. Funds should be earmarked by DISCOMs & DERC to the ECGRFs
for creating awareness on grievance redressal machinery and wise
use of electricity as in the present scenario no such provisions of
separate fund is available to ECGRFs.
b. To increase awareness about the grievance redressal mechanism
prominent hoardings / signages at public places should be put up
.Wide awareness/ publicity by medium of T.V. visual aids, internet
be created. DERC should give adds in the FM Radio and television
for wider publicity of forums for redressal.
c. Accessibility to the forum is a problem due to their poor location
hence the very aim of the forum –welfare/redressal of consumer
grievances is difficult. Connectivity / accessibility of redressal
forums needs to be taken care of for better and effective redressal
mechanism and should be within the reach of consumers. Location
of forum offices be such that they are approachable by public
transport.
d. Workshops and Seminars need to be organized in association with
various RWA’s to spread awareness.
3. During discussion with the ECGRFs and from the feedback of the
consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters.
There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of
the consumers are not aware of this. And those who are aware, they are
not able to get the benefit of this provision as the contract with the third
xviii
party meter agency has already expired. Therefore, it is suggested that
some independent agency from Delhi/NCT region be identified and
responsibility given for providing third party meter testing.
4. Mediation, conciliation can be the first step before the complaints go to the
forums. Mediation centres can reduce the workload of the forums.
Mediation/reconciliation system should be set up under the supervision of
ECGRFs for the convenience of both ECGRFs and the consumers.
5. There is a need to simplify procedures and reduce documentation to
reduce delay in disposal of complaints.
6. Adequate measures should be taken to ensure that compliance of orders
of the forums is ensured. The power for monitoring the compliance of the
order be given to ECGRFs and in case the orders are not complied with,
then ECGRF be empowered for levying penalty on DISCOMs. Provisions
of sec. 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be adopted in CGRF Rules/
regulations.
7. There is no clarity as to who is controlling the forums. It should be clarified
in the rules/Act as to who controls the forums – DERC or the licensee.
8. For more transparency, the DISCOMs should be brought under the RTI
Act, 2005. Apart from that the forums should come up with more
openness to consumer problems and should also frame a Citizen Charter
for their services.
9. Powers vested with the Chairman of the ECGRF are quite limited as he
has no control over other forum members. Delegations need to be
defined. Punctuality in sittings/ hearings/ holding & conducting the court
should be adhered to.
10. DERC should take up the overall responsibility in appointing the Forum
Chairman/Members.
11. The forums should be given more administrative/ financial powers to carry
out the work effectively. ECGRFs be made independent, directly under the
DERC.
12. For greater access to justice, the Forums can have sittings / hearings at
different locations in their jurisdictions with a specified schedule so that all
the consumers need not come to headquarters of the Forum.
xix
13. Efforts should be made to appoint qualified people in the Forums. They
should have adequate knowledge of the electricity sector.
14. For better management and effective decision making, duties/
responsibilities of the members should be prescribed w.r.t. attendance,
hearing the cases, decisions, judgment writing, etc. Members should be
involved and mandated in judgment writing independently. Like CDRFs,
members should also be asked to write some percentage of total
judgments.
15. There is a general impression among the consumers that ECGRFs are
biased in favour of licensees. The main reason is that they impose very
less penalty on licensees and provide less compensation to the
consumers. The compensation provision may be revised in the interest of
consumers and adequate amount of compensation be allowed on case to
case basis.
16. Open access being one of the objectives in privatisation could not
materialise even after ten years. Consumer continues to face monopolistic
decision on the part of DISCOMS/ Regulator, thus competitions in the
sector needs to be encouraged.
17. There is no competition as far as distribution of electricity is concerned this
has made the service providers a monopoly entity which goes against the
consumers. They have no choice.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Electricity plays a vital role in our day-to-day life. Availability of reliable and
cost effective power is essential for economic development of the country. The
consumption of electricity is an important indicator of the stage of development
of agriculture, industry, health sectors and commerce. It is an accepted fact, as
the economy expands, not only the demand for energy grows exponentially, but
the aspiration of people for improved energy services in terms of availability,
accessibility, quality and affordability also increases enormously. The
liberalisation policy which was initiated in India in the early 1990s to accelerate
the overall economic development required self‐sufficiency in power production
to meet the increasing demand-supply gap. But in the mid 90s, the electricity
sector of India was in a poor state. There were lots of problem with the sub-
transmission and distribution system of State Electricity Boards and other
electricity utilities. Transmission and Distribution losses were very huge. Regular
power cuts were quite common even in the metropolitan cities. Managing the
Electricity Boards itself had become a major problem.
Delhi was not an exception to this, being the National Capital it was
experiencing huge inflow of population, rise in commercial enterprises and
industries, required substantial amount of power supply and augmentation of
power transmission infrastructure system. Apart from this with the advancement
of technology, life style and increased use of new electrical and electronic
gadgets, the demand for power was going up enormously. Delhi's energy
requirement was growing at about 7-8 % per annum. As per the Delhi Vidyut
Board (DVB) report, in 1951 the peak demand was only 27 MW which crossed
2831 MW on 13th July, 2001 and touched 3250 MW during the year 2002 -03.
Against the peak demand of 2831 MW during 2001, the total availability was only
405 MW from DVB's own generation projects, 632 MW from Badarpur Thermal
Power Station (BTPS) and the balance was drawn from the Northern Region
2
Grid. While demand was growing rapidly, government was not able to add
additional capacity. Therefore, there was a great mismatch between demand
and supply resulting in serious crisis in the power sector. Apart from this the net
cost of generating power from DVB's own plants was also high due to low
capacity utilization and high fuel consumption by the plants. The above shortfalls
created a huge gap between the demand and supply of electricity where
consumers were suffering with regular power cuts, voltage fluctuations and
failure of transmission lines. As a result the consumer grievances increased
many folds coupled with corruption.
Furthermore the internal grievance redressal mechanism of DVB was not
able to resolve the consumer complaints. This led to dissatisfaction among the
electricity consumers. Hence reforms in the Energy Sector, for making it efficient
and more competitive, was need of the hour. It was also felt that there needs to
be an effective redressal mechanism for consumer grievances.
Thus, in order to improve the quality of service to consumers in Delhi,
making electricity available at a competitive rates, improving operational
efficiencies, attempting to reduce transmission and distribution losses by
reduction in fraudulent extraction of energy and reduction in misuse or theft,
reducing the need for government funding of the electricity sector in the long run
and to attract investment into the business, the privatization process began with
the establishment of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in 1999 followed
by the promulgation of Delhi Electricity Reform Act-2000. This was much before
the National Electricity Act was passed by the Parliament in 2003.
The Delhi Electricity Reform Act-2000 and policy directions by
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) provides the legal
framework for the re-organisation and privatization of energy sector. GNCTD
approved the unbundling of DVB into six successor entities, one holding
company, one generation company (GENCO), one transmission company
(TRANSCO) and three distribution companies (DISCOMS). As a result of these
reforms, private participation was introduced in distribution for the first time in
Delhi. It thus set up distribution joint venture with Reliance Power and Tata
3
Power. The Reliance Power holds the responsibility of the distribution/supply of
power in Central and East Delhi through BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL)
and South and South West Delhi through BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
(BRPL). The Tata Power holds the responsibility of distribution/supply of Power
in North and North West Delhi through Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited
(TPDDL), whereas, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) is responsible for
supplying electricity in its area of jurisdiction.
Why this Study?
The purpose of electricity sector reforms largely aimed at cutting down the
AT&C losses, reducing the financial burden of exchequer, and increasing the
amount of metered power. However, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
(DERC) also imposes performance and information standards on distribution
companies with a view to enhance their coverage, operation, efficiency and
ability to improve the quality of service to consumers in Delhi and to make
available electricity at a competitive price. Along with this, in 2003, the National
Electricity Act was passed by Indian Parliament which led to liberalizing the
Indian Electricity Sector. Since most of the electricity suppliers were private
entities the aim was to ensure that customers are fairly treated for which the Act
provides for the establishment of a two-tier consumer grievance redressal
system to adjudicate disputes arising from unresolved complaints; (i) Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) (ii) Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE).
In accordance with the Delhi Electricity Act of 2002 and the National
Electricity Act of 2003, DISCOMs are to establish an in-house complaint
handling and grievance redressal mechanism where consumers can register
their complaints and seek clarifications to their queries, for example; Consumer
Care Centre, Call Centre, Web Based Service and Zonal Complaint Service.
Apart from these, specific provisions related to grievance redressal under the
Electricity Act, Government of India, as well as Delhi State Government
mandated the establishment of a variety of regulatory measures intended to
protect the electricity consumers from exploitation by the distribution companies.
These include the DCDRF under Consumer Protection Act (1986), Delhi State
Public Grievance Cell and the Lok Adalats. Despite the provisions of various
4
Grievance Redressal Forums, evidence suggests that DISCOMs have
repeatedly failed the customers with confusing bills, wrongly estimation of meter
reading, mismanaging, mistreatment and ignorance to the consumer complaints.
The laws only serve as initiatives to provide a framework for protecting
consumers against various defects; deficiency and negligence. It is in fact the
implementation of laws and functioning of regulatory bodies that determines the
success of any programme/ scheme, etc. Keeping in view the shortcomings and
problems with the power sector, the focus of the present study is to evaluate the
nature and effectiveness of the redressal mechanism available to the consumers
and to what extent the consumers are satisfied with the mechanism? In an
attempt to address this question, a brief analysis of the crucial electricity
statutes, current practices in grievance redressal in electricity sector and
evaluation of their role has been done. The study is carried out to find out the
consumers ‘expectations and the level of satisfaction with the power distribution
companies in Delhi. It projects the problem which consumers face in their daily
life and looks for solutions to improve the situation and to alleviate the problems
of the consumers of electricity. It also examines the knowledge and skill of the
consumers to understand various issues relating to electricity supply and the
process of complaint redressal.
Objectives of the Study
1. To evaluate the operational effectiveness of Consumer Complaint Redressal Mechanism; including In-house and various Consumer Forums available for Grievance Redressal;
2. To know the perception of the consumers on the quality of redressal of consumer complaints
3. To assess the overall satisfaction level among consumers on the services provided by the DISCOMs to redress consumer complaints
Methodology
The present study is an assessment of the effectiveness of redressal
mechanism, awareness among consumer about the existing redressal
mechanism, consumers’ perception on quality of the existing Grievance
5
Redressal Mechanism and satisfaction among consumers on the range of
services provided by the DISCOMs. In order to collect the necessary
information, various stakeholders, i.e. Electricity Consumers and Complainants,
Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (ECGRFs), District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums (DCDRFs) and DISCOMs were
approached. IIPA team also interacted with officials of DERC to understand the
efficacy of the complaint handling mechanism.
The study involves collecting information from consumers in Delhi, mainly
from the residential consumers. Based on the questionnaire designed, analysis
was done to find out the issues faced by consumers with power distribution
companies and their expectations. The research design followed is descriptive
and the technique used is stratified sampling. On the basis of feedback from the
licensee, regulator and the consumer, the analysis and the interpretation of the
results were obtained. Certain findings, recommendations and conclusions were
derived that can be utilized by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
(GNCTD), Licensee and the regulator to improve the mechanism of consumer
grievance redressal and help the consumers redress their grievances if any in an
effective manner and further also to help the power distribution companies and
their associates to provide better quality of services to the consumers.
Sampling Plan
A stratified random sampling technique has been used to assess the
effectiveness of the redressal mechanism, evaluate the extent of awareness and
satisfaction among electricity consumer in the jurisdiction of four DISCOMs
(BYPL, TPDDL, BRPL and NDMC) of Delhi. Electricity Consumers,
Complainants, Chairman and Members of ECGRF and DCDRF constitute the
main stakeholders. The stakeholder wise distribution of sample size is given
below in the table. (Table 1.1)
For the collection of primary data, three question schedules were prepared.
All the question schedules were subjected to reliability test by pre-testing which
were modified based on the responses received.
6
Table 1.1
S. No. Respondents Sample size
1 Electricity Consumers 410 2 Complainant (from different ECGRFs &
DCDRFs) 165
3 Chairman & Members (ECGRF) 8
4 President & Members (DCGRF) 20
Total sample size 603
Source of Data
To achieve the objectives of the study, both primary and secondary data
were used. Primary Data was collected by administrating structured
questionnaires among various stakeholders. Secondary Data was collected
from books, articles, internet, journals, reports, data and reports provided by
DISCOMs, etc.
Tools
Three types of questionnaires were developed for this study. These
questionnaires were administrated among the following stakeholders.
1. Electricity Consumers
2. Complainants (ECGRF and DCDRF)
3. Chairman/Members of ECGRF and DCDRF
Analysis
The analysis and tabulation of the primary data has been done by using
SPSS. Secondary data provided by DISCOMs and other sources was analyzed
with the help of excel. Some of the secondary data and information has been
collected from the articles; books, reports and internet to understand the
concept and trends regarding redressal mechanism in the electricity sector of
different states.
7
Limitations
Complainants were reluctant to fill the questionnaires. As they thought it may have an adverse effect on their cases.
Secondary data, related to electricity cases filed in different forums are not properly documented, hence difficult to access.
DISCOMs were reluctant to share information regarding their functioning.
8
CHAPTER-II
GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM IN ELECTRICITY SECTOR
Introduction
Redressal of complaints is of major concern to the consumers. The
consumers need a simple system where they can lodge their complaints and
their grievances are redressed effectively in a time bound manner therefore
having a right to access the redressal mechanism is of prime importance. For
the right to redress to be realized, a mechanism must exist to ensure that it can
be exercised effectively. If consumer confidence is to be built up he/she needs
assurance that if things go wrong they can seek redress. The Redressal Forums
which act as the first point of contact in case of a complaint have to play a pro-
active role in building consumer confidence. The forums should be responsive
and initiatives aimed at promoting access to simple, swift, effective and
inexpensive legal channels be made available. The forums are also to be
located at a place easily accessible so as to help the consumers to approach it
and seek redressal to their complaints. Any delay in disposal of the complaints
will only shatter the faith of consumers in the redressal mechanism.
Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, defines “Consumer” to “mean
any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the
Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying
electricity to the public under this Act or an any other law for the time being in
force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected
for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the
Government or such other person, as the case may be”.
The definition is very wide and includes all kinds of consumers. Even
unauthorized consumers have been included in the definition by incorporating
the words person whose premises are connected with the works of the licensee.
Here it is important to mention that according to the definition, an applicant of
electricity is not a consumer. The rights of an applicant who is an owner or a
9
holder of a premise has separate set of rights then the consumer. After the
applicant receives the electricity connection, whether authorized or
unauthorized, he is deemed to be a consumer for all practical purposes.
According to Consumer Protection Act, 1986 "consumer" means any person
who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment
and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys
such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is
made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person
who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or
promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other
than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid
or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of
the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of
such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose”
does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and
services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood
by means of self-employment;
As per the Indian Constitution, the power sector is a concurrent subject
and is joint responsibility of the State and Central Governments. Before the
Electricity Bill, 2001, the power sector in India was dominated by the
Government through three principal Acts, (i) The Indian Electricity Act,1910 (ii)
The Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and (iii) The Electricity Regulatory Commission,
1998. The Electricity Bill, 2001 replaced these three Acts. The aim of this Act is
to increase competition in the energy sector. It facilitates open access to
transmission and distribution grid, power trading also allows setting up of captive
10
power plants without any restriction. The State and Central Government sectors
still account for 58 percent and 32 percent of the generation capacity
respectively while the private sector accounts for about 10 percent. The bulk of
the transmission and distribution functions are with State utilities. The private
sector has a small but growing presence in the distribution and is also making
entry into transmission.
Power Sector which had been funded mainly through budgetary support
and external borrowings was opened to private sector in nineties. Orissa was the
first state to initiate restructuring and privatization of power sector in 1990 by
way of unbundling State Electricity Board. The process was supported by World
Bank which provided for separation of generation, transmission and distribution
as independent entities, though it contradicts the concept of Electricity Act, 1948.
According to Electricity Supply Act, 1948, State Electricity Board controls the
Electricity generation, transmission and distribution as an integrated utility. Soon
afterwards several states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka followed. However the experiment in Orissa failed within a decade.
The Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) (State Electricity Board of Delhi) was founded in
1997 and was successor of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) which
was a part of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) whereas DVB was placed
under Delhi Government. Till 2001, DVB could not meet the expectations of
consumers thereby government initiated the process for its privatisation.
Privatization Process in Electricity Sector in Delhi The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) issued
“The Strategy Paper on Power Sector in Delhi” in 1999 which provided the
ground work for privatization. This Strategy Paper identified the problems of the
power sector in Delhi, particularly the supply demand gap and Transmission &
Distribution (T&D) losses in the system. It was found that poor maintenance of
equipments, work culture and political interference increased commercial losses
considerably. Failure to check theft of power, soft approach of successive
governments and interest of electoral limitations in a democratic set up left the
11
government with no other alternative except to move towards privatization of
power sector in Delhi.
Objectives of Privatization The objectives of privatization process were as under;
a) To improve the quality of service to consumers in Delhi and to make available electricity at a competitive price.
b) To improve operational efficiencies and to reduce transmission and distribution losses by reduction in fraudulent extraction of energy and reduction in misuse or theft.
c) To reduce the need for government funding of the Electricity Sector in the long run and to attract private investment into the business.
d) To protect the legitimate interest of employees of DVB.
The Strategy Paper also suggested several important measures to improve
the existing situations; they were as follows;
a) One of the important suggestions was to establish an independent statutory Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission which should be responsible for undertaking licensing of new capacity, prescribing performance standards and fixing tariffs.
b) Setting up a Delhi Power Generation and Transmission Company which should be in charge of the existing and planned generation & transmission work including 66KV sub-stations.
c) Setting up new power distribution companies. Their task should include maintaining the transmission & distribution network from 33KV to 400 Volts, supplying power to consumers, metering and collecting revenue.
d) Encouraging new generation in the private sector as well as in the joint ventures.
In the meantime, The Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 was in
place prescribing the constitution of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions at
central and state level. The Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are
responsible for regulating the functioning of private licensees as well as State
Electricity Boards (SEBs). Accordingly, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
was established in 1999 followed by the promulgation of Delhi Electricity Reform
Act-2000. On the recommendation of the Delhi Electricity Reform Act-2000,
12
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) approved the re-
organisation and privatisation of energy sector and unbundled DVB into six
successor entities - one holding company, one generation company (GENCO),
one transmission Company (TRANSCO) and three distribution companies
(DISCOMS).
It is pertinent to mention that there was no public participation in the
privatisation process except the tripartite agreement with DVB employees. Delhi
government proceeded with implementation of transfer scheme by inviting bids
on the basis of loss reduction targets in next five years. The privatisation scheme
and its process attracted numerous objections/criticism from various quarters
including individual experts, NGO’s and RWAs. Even Delhi High Court in a
Public Litigation and Public Accounts Committee of Delhi Legislative Assembly
were more vocal and specific to highlight deliberate attempts to privatize on the
part of government. Some of them are summarised as under which has serious
repercussions on the consumer grievance redressal mechanism.
a) Instead of creating competition between DISCOMs, the privatisation process described above led to the creation of private monopolies,
b) The bidding process including valuation was questionable, apart from subsequent negotiations and modified loss targets,
c) DVB privatisation was a negotiated bilateral deal and not a competitive bid,
d) It started with a guaranteed return on equity,
e) Initial loss levels identified were higher and simultaneous loss reduction targets within five years were lower,
f) Valuation of DVB assets and ignoring works in progress favoured licenses at the cost of consumers,
g) Private companies tried to maximise their profit in agreements as against public utilities contributing to social impacts.
Grievance Redressal Mechanism for Electricity Consumers
Over the years, the electricity consumers of Delhi are provided with
multifarious forums for redressal of grievances. The redressal mechanism which
was in place previously in electricity sector got modified in 2003 with the
enactment of Electricity Act, 2003.
13
According to the Section 42 (5) of this Act, every distribution licensee shall,
within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever
is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in
accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission.
Accordingly all the three DISCOMs of Delhi have set up a two-tier consumer
grievance redressal system. At the first level is the in-house customer care
centre/cell constituted by the DISCOMs. The second level being Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRF), which have been set up in accordance
with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The CGRF comprises of three
members – (i) Chairman cum Member Technical (ii) Member Legal and (iii)
Member NGOs. DISCOMs advertise the post of members of the CGRFs,
however the appointment of the members is done by DERC.
Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances from
CGRFs, under sub-section 42(5), may make a representation for the redressal of
his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or
designated by the State Commission. The Act, under section 111, also provides
for the establishment of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE).
As a parallel redressal mechanism, under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986, a three tier redressal machinary was set up for the better protection of
consumers. The CP Act also proivides the electricity consumers to file complaint
in the District Forums for redressal of their grievances. However of late the
Supreme Court of India has stayed this. In addition to the above, consumers
can also directly approach the Public Grievance Cell (PGC), set up by the Govt.
of NCT of Delhi and Lok Adalats of Delhi established Delhi Legal Service
Authority.
The multiplicity of grievance redressal mechanism for electricity
consumers of Delhi can be broadly divided into three categories:
1. In-House Mechanism in DISCOMs
2. Independent Grievance Redressal Mechanism
3. Grievance Redressal under Regulatry Framework
14
Fig: 2.1
1. In-House Mechanism in DISCOMs
I. Consumer Care Centre – At these centres, consumers can register
complaint and seek clarifications and redressal. The concerned executive
provides the complainant with acknowledgment, highlighting an
approximate time period within which the complaint will be resolved and a
registration number for future reference or follow up. Once the complaint
is registered it is automatically forwarded to concerned official who has to
take action.
II. Call Centre - Call Centres are one of the most important complaint
handling procedures of DISCOMs. It is mandatory for the DISCOMs to
provide a centralised telephone number, where consumers can lodge
their complaints. They also have to give the name and contact number of
the Assistant Engineer concerned, who can be approached in case of
15
delay in the redressal of the complaint. These numbers must be notified
under:
a. By display/dissemination of the above information on separate handouts attached to the electricity bills from time to time
b. By display of the above information at the bill collection centres
c. By display on the company website
In case the Centralized Call Centre is aware about the problem it shall
inform the complainant the reason(s) for the same and also indicate the
approximate time required for solving the problem. Nevertheless, it shall
register each complaint received and issue a unique complaint number for
such complaints also.
III. Zonal Complaint Centre - If the consumers are not able to call at the
Centralized Call Centre, they can register their complaint in the Zonal
Service Centre.
IV. Web Based Service – Further, if the consumers are not able to call at the
Centralized Call Centre, they can register their complaint online through
email.
Complaint Redressal Mechanism after Registration–The Complaint
Care Centres are supported by software for updation. All the complaints
registered through various sources are fed into the software by the
executive. Once the complaint is registered, the system generates a unique
complaint number and the executives can locate the status of complaint at
any stage of the redressal process which can be communicated to the
complainant.
Alternatively till the complaint is attended and issue resolved, concerned
official at each stage of the process, have to update the software on the
status of a particular complaint. In case action is not taken within the
stipulated period, the complaint gets automatically forwarded to senior
official for appropriate action.
16
Consumer Participation – It is a process of interaction between the service
provider and the end user. In order to involve consumers in improving its
services, Licensee has created various forums to interact with consumers.
Licensee claims that they conduct meetings with (RWA) Resident Welfare
Associations on monthly basis at all district head quarters to understand
customer’s perspective about the services. Similar exercise is undertaken
with industrial welfare associations as well.
2. Independent Grievance Redressal Mechanism
The independent grievance redressal mechanism consists of – ECGRF,
DCDRF, PGC and Lok Adalats.
I. Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums – As per Electricity
Act, 2003, every licensee has to establish a consumer grievance redressal
forum. This Forum consists of three member bench i.e. Chairman cum
member technical, member legal and member NGO. The premises,
infrastructure and support staff is provided by the Licensee. All the staff,
including Chairman and members are on the pay – roll of the Licensee.
Licensee claims such expenses in the Annual Revenue Requirement
submitted to DERC to be part of total expenditure while deciding tariff.
Table 2.1 Prescribed Time Frame for Redressal Procedure in CGRF
Sl. No. Procedure Prescribed Days
i Acknowledging the Complaint Within a period of 7 days of its receipt
ii Furnishing Complaint by nominated employee of DISCOMs
Within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter from the Forum
iii Disposal of the Complaint by the CGRF Within a period of 60 Days
iv Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs Within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order
As regards operational part, Forums are to follow the Performance
Standards Regulations prepared jointly by the license and the Regulators. Their
reasoned judgments are based on such standards. A time limit of 90 days is
prescribed to dispose of the complaint except in the circumstances which are
17
beyond control of the forum. In case a consumer is not satisfied with the order of
the Forum, appeal can be made in the office of Ombudsmen (Electricity) but not
the licensee.
II. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums – The Consumer Protection Act,
1986 was enacted for better protection of the interests of consumers. Consumer
Protection Act imposes strict liability on a service provider, in case of deficiency in
rendering of its services. Therefore, any consumer can file a complaint in the
District Forum when there is a deficiency in power supply or any other related
issues excluding theft cases.
Table 2.2
Prescribed Time Frame for Redressal Procedure in DCDRF
Sl. No. Procedure Prescribed Days
i Registering/ Rejection of Complaint Within a period of 21days of its receipt
ii Disposal of the Complaint by the DCDRF Within a period of 90/150 Days (90 days for general complaint) & (150 Days for the complaints where lab test is required)
iii Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs Within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order
III. The Lok Adalats – Delhi Legal Services Authority has taken a lead and has set-
up permanent and continuous Lok Adalats in Government Departments and
Statutory Bodies in Delhi, out of which two Lok Adalats have been set up for
exercising jurisdiction in respect of public utility services including supply of power.
At present two permanent Lok Adalats with four Presiding Judges in Delhi are
dealing with electricity cases (BSES and TPDDL).
The permanent Lok Adalats do not have jurisdiction where the value of
dispute is more than ten Lakhs. It is also provided that when the parties fail to
reach an agreement, the permanent Lok Adalat shall decide the case. However,
the dispute must not relate to any offence.
18
IV. Public Grievance Cell - The Public Grievance Cell is an additional forum where
the consumers can lodge their complaints. The Public Grievance Cell cross-cuts
sectors, departments and agencies and provides a simple, virtually paperless
mechanism where the consumer can personally speak their mind pointing out
the difficulties they have faced. Complaints are lodged with the PGC when
citizens find that despite having approached the concerned agency, department
or local body, the matter remains unresolved. During hearings in the PGC, the
complainant and the departmental officers are heard side-by-side. Full
consideration is given to the problem as a relatively senior officer usually attends
the hearing.
3. Grievance Redressal Mechanism under Regulatory Framework -
The redressal mechanism under regulatory framework caters to the
complaints of the consumers who are not satisfied with the in-house
grievance redressal mechanism of DISCOMs and the decisions of ECGRF.
Under the regulatory framework, the grievance redressal mechanisms are:
DERC, Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and Electricity Ombudsman.
I. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission – As per the Delhi Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Redressal of Consumers’ Grievances) Regulations,
2003, the Commission nominates a nodal officer to be designated as
‘Grievance Redressal Officer’, hereinafter called the GRO, for dealing with
matters relating to consumer grievances. Any person or organization may
submit his grievance to the Commission through a complaint with the
following essential submissions :
(a) That the complainant has submitted his grievance to the licensee in accordance with the licensee’s approved complaint handling procedure along with necessary documentary evidence.
(b) That the complainant is not satisfied with the final response of the licensee
or that the licensee has caused a delay in addressing the consumer’s grievance beyond the period prescribed in its complaint handling procedure.
(c) That the complaint is not pending before any Court of law or with any
other forum.
19
II. Appellate Tribunal for Electricity – The Electricity Act, 2003 has also
made provision for another forum for the aggrieved electricity consumers. If
a consumer is not satisfied with the relief or order of the DERC, then he can
approach the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) under Section 111 of
the Act.
III. Electricity Ombudsman – As per the Sub Section 42 (6) Act, the
Commission shall designate or appoint a person to be known as
Ombudsman to carry out the functions entrusted to him by the Act and the
Regulations. Any complainant, aggrieved by orders of the ECGRF may
himself or through his authorized representative make a representation in
writing, or through e-mail or website based grievance registration process to
the Ombudsman. However there is an obligation that before making a
representation to the Ombudsman, consumer must approach the Forum
constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for redressal of
his grievance. The award or the orders of the Ombudsman shall be final and
binding on the parties. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the
complainant and the distribution licensee to seek appropriate remedy
against the order passed by the Ombudsman before other appropriate
judicial bodies.
20
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS OF CROSS SECTION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMER RESPONDENTS
The purpose of electricity sector reforms of Delhi largely aimed at making
this sector more efficient and viable to the consumers. Following the privatisation
of Delhi’s power sector, in July 2002, GNCTD has handed over the responsibility
of power distribution to two private sector companies, namely Reliance Energy
Ltd. and TATA Power Company. These two companies signed a joint venture
with Government of NCT, Delhi. However, the generation and transmission are
still with the government.
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL), as a subsidiary of TATA
Power Company, distributes electricity in North & North West parts of Delhi and
serves a populace of 50 lakh. The registered consumer base of TPDDL is
around 12 lakh and a peak load of around 1350 MW, the company's operations
span across an area of 510 sq kms. The second company, i.e: Reliance Energy
Ltd. owned BSES which manages power distribution in two-thirds of Delhi and
supplies power to 32 lakh customers through its two companies viz: BSES
Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) (catering to South and West Delhi areas) and
BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) (catering to Central and East areas).
BYPL distributes power to an area spread over 200 sq kms with a population
density of 6750 per sq km. It’s 13.5 lakh customers are spread over 14 districts
of Delhi. BRPL, the other subsidiary of BSES distributes power to an area
spread over 750 sq. km with a population density of 2465 per sq km. It’s over
18.5 lakh customers are spread in 19 districts.
The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) is entrusted with the
distribution of electricity to the consumers in the New Delhi area under Section
195 to 201 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act 1994. The NDMC area
spread over 40 sq. km, houses Rashtrapati Bhavan, North Block and South
Block, Parliament House, Supreme Court, Prime Minister's residential complex,
bungalows of Union Ministers, national and defence establishments, besides
diplomatic missions of various countries. As far as Cantonment Area of Delhi is
21
concerned, the responsibility to provide electricity rest with the Military
Engineering Services (MES).
After a decade, though the present electricity sector has shown a
significant improvement in terms of Aggregate Technical & Commercial (AT&C)
losses, but evidence suggests that DISCOMs have repeatedly failed the
customers with confusing bills, wrongly estimation of meter reading,
mismanaging, mistreatment and ignorance to the consumer complaints. Even
after the privatisation of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), power cuts still are
frequent in many parts of Delhi, especially in summers. These problems can be
resolved by quick and easy redressal of the grievances of consumers by the
power distribution companies at the primary level, i.e. companies themselves.
Therefore, there is a dire need to assess the benchmark of quality of services
being provided by the DISCOMs.
Map: 3.1 Delhi: Power Supply Area of DISCOMs
Source: bsesdelhi.com
Experiences suggest that Indian consumers are generally ignorant,
unaware about the product and services, which they are using. Most of them can
be termed as a reluctant consumer, who don’t want to spend a little time on
22
reading the terms and condition of products and services which they use.
Though the Government at different levels, through its different regulations,
legislations is compelling producers, manufacturers and service providers to
inform the consumers about the quality and other details of their product and
services, unfortunately, due to lack of education, awareness or ignorance,
consumers are not utilizing their right to information.
Therefore, it was necessary to have the opinion of a cross section of the
residents of the Delhi about the usefulness and effectiveness of the redressal
mechanism in the electricity sector. This Chapter evaluates the perceptions of
the cross section of the respondents about the usefulness and effectiveness of
the redressal mechanism in the electricity sector.
3.1 Awareness regarding information printed on the Electricity Bill
The guidelines of DERC clearly mandate the DISCOMs to print necessary
information related to electricity connection and the services provided thereof on
the bill itself. Therefore, an attempt was made to find out the level of awareness
about the information printed on the bill among the consumers. Accordingly, 73.5
percent of the respondents said that they read the details printed on the
electricity bill while 26.5 percent of them said that they do not read the
information provided on the electricity bill.
However, when enquired in detail and asked about the information
regarding various numbers printed on the electricity bill, more than half of the
respondents replied that they know about the details provided on the bill.
According to the survey, 81 percent knew about the Meter No, 66.8 percent were
aware of the Circle/zone, 65.9 said that they were aware of the type of supply
whereas 64.9 percent knew about the meter type and 60.5 percent of the
respondents knew about the CRN No., 54.6 percent knew about the C A No.,
54.1 percent of the respondents were aware about the sanctioned load, 52.7
percent knew about pole number. As far as slab-wise energy charge is
concerned almost half of the respondents, 48.8 percent were not aware of it.
When asked about the knowledge regarding Third Party Meter Testing, majority
(61 percent) of respondents were not aware of it. Most of the complaints relate to
23
lack of awareness regarding slab wise energy charges and Third Party Meter
Testing. (Table 3.1)
Table 3.1 Awareness Regarding Information Printed on the Electricity Bill
Yes No
Read the details provided on Electricity Bill 73.5 26.5 Particulars Know Don't know CRN No. 60.5 39.5 CA No. 54.6 45.4 Meter No. 81.0 19.0 Pole No. 52.7 47.3 Sanctioned Load 54.1 45.9 Circle/Zone 66.8 33.2 Meter Type 64.9 35.1 Supply Type 65.9 34.1 Slab-wise Energy Charge 51.2 48.8 Third Party Meter Testing 39.0 61.0
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
3.2 Knowledge about Electricity Act, 2003
For getting the complaints redressed from the Electricity Redressal Forums
one needs to have fair knowledge of the Act /Laws in place for the welfare of the
consumers so that they are able to exercise their rights in a proper manner, as
prescribed under the law. Table 3.2 shows that the awareness with regard to
Electricity Act, 2003 is very less as only 26.8 percent of the total respondents
said that they know about the Act while majority of them, 73.2 percent opined
they were not aware of the Electricity Act. This shows the lack of awareness
regarding the Electricity Act which encompasses wide range of provisions for the
consumers. When enquired about the awareness about the Grievance
Redressal Mechanism under the Act, 27.5 percent of respondents said that they
knew about the mechanism while 72.5 percent said they are not aware about
any such mechanism for redressal of grievances. This clearly indicates that
there is an urgent need to make people aware about the redressal mechanism
available for the electricity consumers under the Electricity Act 2003. This low
level of awareness is a matter of concern for effectiveness of Electricity Act,
2003.
24
Table 3.2 Knowledge about Electricity Act, 2003
Overall
Response DISCOM wise knowledge about
Electricity Act, 2003 Particulars
Know Don't know
BRPL BYPL NDMC TPDDL
Electricity Act, 2003
26.8 73.2 24.8 26.5 31.7 27.8
Aware about Grievance Redressal Mechanism under this Act
27.5 72.5 23.8 29.3 32.5 29.4
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
An analysis of the data pertaining to the awareness level about the
Grievance Redressal Mechanism under this Act reveals the real strength of the
electricity sector reforms as it indicates that how much benefit actually have
reached to the electricity sector consumers. Unfortunately it has been found that
in all the DISCOM areas, both, the level of awareness about the Electricity Act,
2003 and the redressal mechanism under this Act is very low, i.e. 26.8 percent
and 27.5 percent respectively.
The DISCOM wise data indicates that the level of awareness about the
Electricity Act among the consumers is 31.7 percent for NDMC followed by 27.8
percent for TPDDL and 26.5 percent BYPL. The consumers of BRPL are least
aware about the Electricity Act (24.8 percent).
3.3 Nature of Complaint Filed and Status of the Problem
Based on the discussions with the DISCOMS and the consumers the
following problems were identified, which are normally faced by the consumers.
1. Failure of Power
2. Failure of Street Light
3. Meter Problem
4. Voltage Fluctuation
5. Transfer of Bill Change
The quality of services can be measured in terms of occurrence of
problems which frequently are being experienced by the consumers. The
respondents were asked whether during the last one year they have
25
experienced the problems mentioned in the table 3.3 or not. The highest
percentage of problem registered as per the respondents (Table 3.3) was in the
case of no current as 30 percent of the respondents faced this problem , 27.8
percent experienced problem of scheduled outages while 24.9 percent faced
problem of voltage fluctuation.
Table 3.3
Complaint Registration and Status of Problem
Experience In-House complaint (For those
who Experienced Problems)
Avenues for Complaint Registration (For those
who filed complaint)
Status of Problem
Y
es
No
Yes
No
Con
sum
er
Car
e C
entr
e
Cal
l C
entr
e
Web
se
rvic
es
Zon
al
Com
pla
int
Res
olv
ed
Unr
eso
lved
No Current 30.7 69.3 66.7 33.3 64.3 7.1 0 28.6 90.5 9.5 Voltage Fluctuation 24.9 75.1 37.3 62.7 26.3 47.4 0 26.3 78.9 21.1Disconnection 6.3 93.7 53.8 46.2 28.5 42.9 0 28.6 85.7 14.3Scheduled outages 27.8 72.2 43.9 56.1 44 36 4 16 80.0 20.0Metering problem 12.2 87.8 60.0 40.0 33.3 20 13.3 33.3 73.3 26.7Billing problem 10.7 89.3 59.1 40.9 38.5 23.1 7.7 30.8 74.6 25.4Service Line broken 4.9 95.1 80.0 20.0 50 12.5 0 37.5 75.0 25.0Power failure of street light 15.6 84.4 37.5 62.5 50 41.7 0 8.3 91.7 8.3 Theft cases 3.9 96.1 37.5 62.5 100 0 0 0 33.3 66.7Transfer of bill charges to other
2.9 97.1 50.0 50.0 0 33.3 0 66.7 66.7 33.3
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
As far as failure of street lights is concerned, 15.6 percent of the
respondents faced this problem. Metering problem was faced by 12.2 percent
and 10.7 percent had the problem with regard to billing. The least problematic
area as per the respondents was the transfer of bill charges to others, as only
2.9 percent faced this problem, followed by theft cases which accounted for 3.9
percent. The problem of service line broken was faced by 4.9 percent of the
respondents.
Out of the total respondents who faced some or the other problem in this
regard, the highest percentage of respondents who approached the in-house
complaint system of the DISCOMs for redressal of their grievances related to
broken service line as 80 percent respondents did so, followed by 70.7 percent
26
of respondents who approached it for the failure of power supply, 66.7 percent
approached it for problem of no current. The results show that majority of the
consumers had approached the in-house complaint system for redressal of their
grievances.
After knowing about the different problems, normally faced by the
consumers, the respondents were asked whether at any time, have they
registered a complaint in the in- house complaint mechanism of the DISCOMs.
Surprisingly a large section of respondents who have experienced any of the
problems had filed a complaint for one or the other reasons. 80 percent of the
respondents who said that they have experienced the problem related with
service line broken had complained to the in-house complaint centres of the
respective DISCOMs, followed by 70.7 percent of the respondents who have
faced problem related with failure of power supply. The least percentage of
complaints filed for the theft cases (37.5 percent) and power failure of street light
(37.5 percent).
The next question of enquiry was related to the preference of the
consumers regarding the avenues available to them to file a complaint. Majority
of them opined that they preferred the Consumer Care Centre for their
complaints followed by Call Centre and Zonal Complaints. The least preferred
avenue was the Web Services for registering the complaints. In the case of theft,
all the complainants have preferred Consumer Care Centre to file their
complaints. 64.3 percent of the complainants related to no current and 50
percent of the complaints for broken service line and power failure of street light
also approached the Consumer Care Centre.
As far as Call Centre as an avenue for complaint registration is
concerned, the (47.4) respondents who used this avenue related to voltage
fluctuation followed by 42.9 percent related to disconnection. In Zonal
Complaints as an avenue, the highest number of complaints related to transfer
of bill charges to other as more than half of the respondents (66.7 percent) said
that they filed their complaints there. As far as Web Services are concerned only
13.3 percent of the respondents said they preferred this option for registering
their complaint of metering, followed by 7.7 percent in case of billing and 4
percent in case of Scheduled Outages.
27
After knowing the preferred avenues for complaint registration, the
respondents were also asked about the status of their complaint- whether
pending or disposed of. Table 3.3 shows that majority of the respondents
complaints had been resolved. Category wise analysis indicates that for
metering problem, 73.3 percent of respondents complaints had been resolved, in
case of power failure of street light, 91.7 percent said that their complaints have
been resolved. Similarly, 90.5 percent respondent’s complaint of no current,
85.7 percent respondent’s complaint of disconnection, 74.6 percent respondent’s
complaint relating to billing problem, 79.3 percent respondent’s complaint of
power supply failure were resolved. Regarding voltage fluctuation, 78.9 percent
respondents said that their problem have been resolved whereas 75 percent
said their complaint of broken service line were resolved, 66.7 percent in case of
transfer of bill charges to others and 33.3 percent in case of theft cases had
been resolved.
Table 3.4 DISCOM wise Problems faced by the Consumers and the Status of the
Complaint
Problems faced by Consumers BRPL BYPL NDMC TPDDL
No Current 39.0 24.4 15.0 16.7Voltage Fluctuation 28.6 26.8 17.5 16.7Disconnection 6.7 12.2 0.0 5.6Scheduled outages 31.4 26.8 15.0 22.2Metering problem 12.4 14.6 12.5 5.6Billing problem 9.5 12.2 10.0 16.7Service Line broken 8.6 2.4 0.0 0.0Power failure of street light 20.0 17.1 5.0 16.7Theft cases 2.9 9.8 2.5 0.0Transfer of bill charges to other 2.9 4.9 2.5 0.0
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
Further DISCOM wise analysis of the incidence of problems shows that
the consumers of BRPL have more complaints than other DISCOMs while the
consumers of NDMC have lesser complaints as compared to others. As per the
data (table 3.4), 39 percent of the respondents of BRPL complained that they
faced problem of no current many times in the last one year. In case of BYPL
also the incidence of power failure is the most common issue. The consumers of
NDMC have lesser number of complaints as compared to others. No respondent
of NDMC complained about disconnection of electricity or broken service line.
As far as the responses from TPDDL area is concerned, the major problem for
28
the respondents relates to scheduled outages (22.2 percent). Interestingly, it is
the only DISCOM area where no consumer has complained about transfer of bill
charges to other, theft charges and problem of broken service line.
3.4 Contacting the DISCOM’s Call Centre
After knowing the status of the complaint registration by the respondents
at different avenues as provided by the DISCOMs, the respondents were asked
as to the number of times they approached the DISCOM’s Call Centre to redress
their complaints. Out of those consumers who approached the Call Centres
(Figure 3.1), only 30.5 percent of them said they had approached the Call Centre
of DISCOM’s only once, 22.2 percent said they did so more than four times, 18.9
percent called it twice whereas 17.9 percent called it thrice and 10.5 percent had
called in the Call Centre four times. Figure 3.1 clearly indicates that the
respondent’s grievances are not addressed on a priority basis and they have to
approach the agency a number of times to get their complaints redressed.
Figure 3.1
Contacting the DISCOM’s Call Centre Frequency of Consumers' Call to DISCOMs Call Centres
18.917.9
10.5
22.2
30.5
Once Twice Thrice Four times More that four times
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
29
3.5 Consumers perception regarding Quality of Service of the DISCOMs Call Centre
When asked about the respondent’s perception regarding quality of
service of the DISCOM Call Centres, (Table 3.5) very less percentage of the
respondents were fully satisfied with quality of services of DISCOMs. As far as
the accessibility of the call centre is concerned only 21.6 percent of the
respondents were fully satisfied with it. It is notable that the effectiveness of any
redressal agency primarily depends upon the easy accessibility of the
agency/forum to the consumers. In case of quality of service, only 26 percent of
them were fully satisfied with the behaviour of the call centre executives. As far
as redressal /remedy to the complaint is concerned, only 17.9 percent of the
respondents are satisfied to large extent and more than one fourth of the
consumers were dissatisfied with the remedy/redressal of the DISCOMs.
Table 3.5 indicates that majority of the consumers seem to be satisfied to
some extent. When asked about particulars, more than half of the respondents
(58.9 percent) were satisfied to some extent with the time taken by the call
centre executive in attending to their complaint, 56.8 percent were satisfied to
some extent with the remedy /redressal of the complaint. As far accessibility
factors to the call centres are concerned, 55.8 percent of the respondents were
satisfied only to some extent, which indicates the need for a more consumer
friendly approach to this issue. Asked about the cost effectiveness and
accessibility of the call centre, 53.8 percent of the respondents were satisfied
with it to some extent.
Table 3.5
Consumers perception regarding Quality of Service of the DISCOMs Call Centre
Particulars Satisfied to large extent
Satisfied to some extent
Not satisfied
Accessibility of the call centre 21.6 55.8 22.6
Time taken by the call centre executive 20.0 58.9 21.1
Behavior of the call centre executive 26.4 48.2 25.4
Cost effectiveness 25.3 53.8 21.9
Remedy/Redressal 17.9 56.8 25.3Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
30
Among the DISCOMs it has been found that consumers of BRPL zone
are comparatively less satisfied with the quality of Call Centres than the
consumers of other three DISCOMs. In case of accessibility of the call centre,
28.1 percent of the respondents of BRPL are not satisfied with the services of
call centre. However, this value is only 7.9 percent for NDMC zone, which is
lowest among all four DISCOMs. In the case of behaviour of the call centre
executives, only 27.3 percent of the respondents of BYPL are satisfied to a large
extent. The level of satisfaction with the behaviour of call centre executive is
again highest in NDMC zone (32.4 percent). Inter DISCOM comparison shows
that consumers of NDMC zone get quick remedy/redressal than other
DISCOMs. Data from table 3.6 indicates that 37.5 percent respondents of this
zone are satisfied to large extent to the remedies/redressal done by the NDMC.
On the other hand only 13.6 percent of the respondents of BYPL are satisfied for
the same. On the other hand 37.7 percent respondents of BRPL are unsatisfied
with the remedies/redressal made available by their DISCOMs.
Table 3.6
DISCOM wise Consumer Perception regarding Quality of Service of the Call Centre
Particulars
Satisfied to large extent
Satisfied to some extent
Not satisfied
BRPL 25.7 46.2 28.1 BYPL 22.7 63.6 13.6 NDMC 33.8 58.3 7.9
Accessibility of the Call Centre
TPDDL 27.5 51.2 21.3 BRPL 19.2 51.9 28.9 BYPL 13.6 72.8 13.6 NDMC 25.0 62.5 12.5
Time taken by the Call Centre Executive
TPDDL 25.0 62.5 12.5 BRPL 24.0 47.2 28.8 BYPL 27.3 59.1 13.6 NDMC 32.4 38.8 18.8
Behavior of the Call Centre Executive
TPDDL 27.5 50.0 22.5 BRPL 21.2 58.3 20.5 BYPL 18.2 59.0 22.8 NDMC 31.2 43.8 25.0
Cost Effectiveness
TPDDL 19.5 55.5 25.0 BRPL 17.0 45.3 37.7 BYPL 13.6 72.7 13.7 NDMC 37.5 56.3 6.2
Remedy/Redressal
TPDDL 20.0 71.6 8.4 Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
31
3.6 Awareness about different Grievance Redressal Mechanism available for Electricity Consumers
There are quite a few number of options that the consumers can choose
from to redress their grievances. They are vertical as well as horizontal
structures where the consumer can file his complaint. However an important
question is whether the consumers are aware about these systems and
structures. Table 3.7 shows the level of awareness among respondents
regarding different grievance redressal mechanisms available to them in the
electricity sector. The results show that majority of the respondents are not even
aware of the grievance redressal mechanism available to them. 73.5 percent of
respondents said that they are unaware about the DCDRF, 69.1 percent did not
know about State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 65.7 percent were not
aware about the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forums. As far as awareness
regarding the Lok Adalats (set up by DERC) is concerned, only 38 percent of
respondents knew about it and the rest 62 percent did not have any idea about
the establishment of such forums. Thus, the results clearly show that the
awareness regarding the mechanism in place for the redressal of grievances is
very low. When consumers are not aware about the mechanism how would they
approach the forums and get their problems redressed. Lack of awareness also
proves to be a hindrance in filing of complaints.
Table 3.7
Awareness about Grievance Redressal Mechanism available to Consumers
Overall Response DISCOM wise Grievance Redressal
Mechanism System
Know Don't know
BRPL BYPL NDMC TPDDL
ECGRF 34.3 65.7 34.3 29.3 37.5 38.9
SERC 30.9 69.1 24.8 18.0 32.5 38.9
PGC 31.4 68.6 29.5 41.5 25.0 33.3
DCDRF 26.5 73.5 20.0 31.5 27.5 38.9
Lok Adalat 38.0 62.0 36.2 51.2 30.0 38.9Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA 3.7 Opinion on Quality of Services Before and After Privatisation
Privatisation of the electricity was done to bring in efficiency and improve
the quality of the services being awaited by the consumers. On comparatives
32
assessment it was important to know the difference in the quality of services
before and after privatisation. Table 3.8 shows that majority of the respondents
are of the opinion that there is improvement in the quality of services as
compared to before privatization. A large majority (85.3 percent) of them said
that the quality of service has improved and only 14.7 percent said it has not
improved.
Table 3.8 Opinion on Comparative Assessment on Quality of Services Before and
After Privatisation
DISCOM Improved Unchanged
BRPL 81.0 19.0
BYPL 87.8 12.2
NDMC 92.5 7.5
TPDDL 88.9 11.1
All 85.3 14.7 Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
3.8 Consumer Opinion Different Aspects/Services before and after Privatisation
The opinion of electricity consumers on the improvement of services was
sought in order to know the difference between the quality of service before and
after privatisation. When asked about the continuity of electricity (Table 3.9),
majority of respondents, 87.8 percent opined that there has been improvement
in the continuity of electricity as compared to past experience, whereas 11.2
percent said it has unchanged. Regarding voltage stability, 79 percent of the
respondents said it has improved and 20 percent said it is the same as before.
As far as maintenance of infrastructure is concerned, 73.5 percent of
respondents said that the infrastructure has improved. For Restoration of
Supply, 72.2 percent of respondents said it has improved while 22.9 percent said
it is remained unchanged.
When asked about Billing Issues, 65.7 percent said that the billing has
improved while 22.9 percent did not find any change. Regarding Metering, 64.8
percent were of the opinion that the services have improved while 26.3 percent
did not find a change. Surprisingly 10.9 percent said that is has deteriorated.
33
As far as Grievance Redressal Mechanism is concerned, 62.8 percent of
the respondents said it has improved from the past practices of redressal of
grievances, 31.6 percent were of the opinion that it has not changed and 5.6
percent said it has deteriorated further. The respondents were also asked about
the change in the behavior of officials while dealing with consumers as
compared to the past. 56.2 percent of the respondents said the behavior has
improved, 35.3 percent said it has not changed and 8.5 percent said it has
deteriorated further.
Table 3.9 Opinion on Service Comparison before and after Privatisation
Particulars Improved Unchanged Deteriorated
Continuity of electricity 87.8 11.2 1.0
Voltage stability 79.0 20.0 1.0
Restoration of supply 72.2 22.9 4.9
Metering 64.8 24.3 10.9
Billing issues 65.7 22.9 11.4
Behavior of officials 56.2 35.3 8.5
Grievance Redressal Mechanism 62.8 31.6 5.6
Maintenance of infrastructure 73.5 18.0 8.5Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
Inter-DISCOM comparison shows that (table 3.10) most of the
respondents of all four DISCOMs opined that quality of various services has
improved as compared to last ten years. However their opinion varies from
service to service and DISCOM to DISCOM. In case of continuity of electricity,
90.2 percent respondents of BRPL and NDMC agreed that there is improvement
in the service, 77.8 percent respondent consumers of TPDDL said the same. As
far as restoration of power supply is concerned 12.5 percent respondents of
NDMC were of the opinion that situation has deteriorated during the last ten
years, which is highest among all the four DISCOMs.
It has been observed that metering and billing issues were the most
common problems faced by the consumers. Even after privatization this problem
still continues. 17.2 percent of the respondents of BYPL zone still faced metering
problems and it has increased now. 11.7 percent respondents of BRPL, 15
percent of NDMC and 10.0 percent of TPDDL are of the same opinion. In case
34
of Billing issues, 17.6 percent respondents of BRPL, 12.9 percent of BYPL, 12.5
percent of NDMC and 10.3 percent of TPDDL said that billing problem have
increased after privatisation.
Table 3.10
DISCOMs wise Consumer Opinion on Comparative Assessment of different Aspects/Services before and after privatization
Particulars Improved Unchanged Deteriorated
BRPL 90.2 8.8 1.0BYPL 78.6 19.0 2.4NDMC 90.2 7.4 2.4
Continuity of Electricity
TPDDL 77.8 22.2 0.0BRPL 79.6 19.4 1.0BYPL 78.0 19.5 2.5NDMC 76.3 21.1 2.6
Voltage Stability
TPDDL 83.3 16.7 0.0BRPL 71.4 23.8 4.8BYPL 66.6 31.0 2.4NDMC 70.0 17.5 12.5
Restoration of Supply
TPDDL 68.4 31.6 0.0BRPL 64.5 23.8 11.7BYPL 68.2 14.6 17.2NDMC 65.0 20.0 15.0
Metering
TPDDL 67.2 22.8 10.0BRPL 61.7 20.7 17.6BYPL 65.2 22.0 12.8NDMC 67.5 20.0 12.5
Billing Issues
TPDDL 58.2 31.6 10.2BRPL 51.4 38.1 10.5BYPL 56.1 34.1 9.8NDMC 67.5 25.5 7.0
Behavior of Officials
TPDDL 57.9 33.8 8.3BRPL 58.1 33.3 8.6BYPL 63.4 26.8 9.8NDMC 72.5 25.0 2.5
Grievance Redressal Mechanism
TPDDL 61.1 35.8 3.1BRPL 71.4 17.2 11.4BYPL 73.2 17.0 9.8NDMC 82.5 10.0 7.5
Maintenance of Infrastructure
TPDDL 61.1 33.3 5.6Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
3.9 Opinion of Consumers on Tariff Structure
As regards the Tariff structure in the electricity sector, more than half of
the respondents (66.5 percent) were of the opinion that the tariff structure of
electricity is reasonable while 33.5 percent of the respondents said it was
unreasonable. DISCOM wise data indicates that respondents of BRPL zone are
more dissatisfied with the tariff structure as 42 percent of them felt that it was
35
unreasonable. Respondents of NDMC (27.5 percent) were comparatively less
dissatisfied with the present electricity tariff. BYPL (36.8 percent) consumers
found it to be unreasonable. Infact the responses are mixed. Quite many of the
respondents feel that the tariff structure is unreasonable and they are forced to
pay a higher tariff.
Table 3.11 Opinion of Consumer on Cost of Tariff
DISCOM Reasonable Unreasonable BRPL 58.0 42.0 BYPL 63.2 36.8 NDMC 72.5 27.5 TPDDL 64.7 35.3 All 66.5 33.5
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
3.10 Consumer Opinion on Improving Grievance Redressal Mechanism
Consumers who use the system can also give the best feedback about its
functioning. There is no doubt that any system which is in place can work
wonders if the people manning it handle it in an effective and efficient manner.
The respondents were of the opinion that there is marked improvement in the
quality of services being provided as compared to previous years, but seeing the
increase in number of complaints in the electricity sector, the respondents were
asked as to how the present system can be further improved. The majority, (82.9
percent) of the respondents (Table 3.12) were of the opinion that it can be
improved only if time bound disposal of the complaints at every level is adhered
to, followed by 78 percent of respondents who were of the opinion that the
mechanism can be improved by educating the consumers through mass
awareness programmes as people will get to know about the redressal
mechanisms and how they can file complaints and seeks remedy. Lack of
adequate information is a major problem.
74.6 percent of respondents said that the mechanism can be improved by
penalizing the dealing officers for non-compliance, while 69.3 percent of them
said that a unified redressal mechanism can bring out improvement in the
existing system of electricity grievance redressal mechanism. 65.9 percent were
of the opinion that the redressal forums should be empowered with execution
powers so that they can function more effectively.
36
Thus, majority the respondents though satisfied but still look for a lot of
improvement in the present structure so that their grievance can be redressed in
a time bound manner and cost effectively.
Table 3.12 Consumer Opinion on Improving Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Electricity
Sector
Particulars Yes No
Through unified redressed mechanism 69.3 30.7
Time bound disposal of the complaints at every level 82.9 17.1
Enabling the forums with execution powers 65.9 34.1
Dealing officers should be penalized for non-compliance 74.6 25.4
By mass awareness programmes 78.0 22.0Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
3.11 Consumers Opinion about the most effective Grievance Redressal Mechanisms
After knowing the opinion of respondents regarding various ways in which
improvement in the present structures can be brought about, the respondents
were also asked as to rank the grievance redressal mechanism which they think
is the best, out of the available mechanisms. (Table 3.13) 51.1 percent of the
respondents rated ECGRF as the best forum followed by 19.3 percent who
found, Public Grievance Cell as the best mechanism, 17.8 percent said DCDRF
is the best forum for redressal of grievances and 11.9 percent said SERC in their
opinion is the best mode of redressal of grievances in the electricity sector. The
results thus show that majority of the respondents supported ECGRF as the
most effective redressal mechanism. However a lot of improvement is required
to be done in the way they are managed, timely disposal of cases and above all
accessibility of forums, so that they are able to serve the consumers in a much
better way.
Table 3.13 Most Effective Grievance Redressal Mechanisms in Consumers’ opinion
Grievance Redressal Mechanisms Consumer opinion
ECGRF 51.1
SERC 11.9
PGC 19.3
DCDRF 17.8Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
37
CHAPTER IV
PERCEPTION OF THE COMPLAINANTS
The Electricity Act 2003 and subsequent developments such as National
Electricity Policy, National Tariff Policy, Rural Electrification and others provide a
strong legal and policy framework to the NCT Delhi for creation of a well
structured, and consumer centric electricity grievance redressal mechanism. For
example, DERC, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE), Ombudsman,
Public Grievance Cell, ECGRFs and other courts of the land like Lok Adalats
and DCDRFs are different avenues available for the electricity consumers. Apart
from this, the guidelines of State Electricity Regulatory Commission have also
laid strong emphasis on strengthening the in-house grievance redressal
mechanism within the DISCOMs. The purpose of these forums is to give quick
and easy redressals to the consumers. At a minimum, the consumers can
expect and deserve a free and fair redressal to their grievances. But how does
these redressal mechanisms actually function, is the question of enquiry.
If a consumer experiences any kind of ‘defect’ or ‘deficiency’ in the
product or service of DISCOMs he/she can approach the aforesaid forums in the
form of complaint/protest/objection for redrassal of their grievances. If a
consumer approaches any of the aforesaid forums to redress his grievances
he/she shall be treated as a complainant as per the DERC (Grievance Redressal
Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011. As per the regulation, complainant
means;
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) an applicant for a new electricity connection;
(iii) any consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any law relating to registration of societies and /or Charitable institutions or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iv) any unregistered association or group of consumers, having common or similar interests;
(v) In case of death of a consumer, his legal heirs or authorised representatives;
38
(vi) Any other person claiming through or authorized by or acting as agent for the consumer and affected by the services or business carried out by the distribution licensee.
Here ‘defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality,
quantity, or standard of service, equipment or material which is required to be
maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract,
express or implied, or under any license or as is claimed by the distribution
licensee in any manner whatsoever in relation to electricity service;
Whereas ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or
inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required
to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any
license or has been undertaken to be performed by distribution licensee in
pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to electricity service or
performance standard; viz Interruption/ failure of Power supply, Voltage
complaints, metering problems including meter shifting, charges/ payments
(billing problems), disconnection/reconnection of power supply to the consumer,
new connections/extensions in load, notice of supply interruptions, violations of
Electricity Supply Code, contravention of Act, rules or regulations made there
under with regard to consumer interest.
The Act has made specific provisions to give easy and inexpensive
remedies to the electricity consumers. On receipt of the consumer grievance, the
Secretary shall send an acknowledgement to the applicant within 7 days of
receipt of a complaint. A copy of the grievance shall be forwarded
simultaneously to the concerned officer of the distribution licensee for redressal
or to file objection if any in writing within 10 days, in case the distribution
licensee is not agreeable to the request of the complainant. On receipt of the
comments from the distribution licensee or otherwise and after conducting or
having such inquiry or local inspection conducted as the forum may consider
necessary, and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties,
the Forum shall pass appropriate orders for disposal of the grievance, as far as
possible, within 60 days of filing the complaint.
39
The Forum shall not be bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the
Civil Procedure. The decision/s of the Forum shall be based on the opinion of
the majority members of the Forum present and voting. The certified copy of the
order of the Forum shall be communicated to the Complainant and distribution
licensee in writing within 7 days from the date of order. The distribution licensee
shall comply with the order of the Forum within 21 days from the date of issue of
the order. The decision/s of the Forum is not binding on consumers; they can
make a representation before the Ombudsman appointed/designated by the
Commission. However, DISCOMs cannot approach Ombudsman against the
decision of Forums.
Seeing the different provisions under the Act, one can easily make out
that the Act is quite consumer friendly keeping in view the welfare of consumers.
It provides a lot of avenues for redressal of grievances of the electricity
consumers. Out of the different avenues in the consumer redressal mechanism,
the electricity forums are the torch bearers. But of late, it is being said that
electricity forums are not able to meet the expectations of the consumers who
file a complaint in these forums. The delay in disposal of the complaints and the
small amount of compensation awarded has not attracted the consumers
towards the redressal forums.
Therefore, it was necessary to have the opinion of complainants of the
four DISCOMs. This Chapter evaluates the perceptions of the cross section of
the respondents about the usefulness and effectiveness of the redressal
mechanism in the electricity sector.
4.1 Distribution of Complainants
Approaching a grievance redressal system would be a last option for an
aggrieved electricity consumer. Though the DISCOMs of Delhi have provided
different in-house grievance redressal avenues to their consumers but it has
been found that many of the electricity consumers are dissatisfied with the
solution/remedies provided by the DISCOMs. Therefore, the opinion of the
respondents was sought with regard to the fact that how many of them
approached the different avenues/forums meant for their welfare.
40
Figure 4.1 shows the DISCOM wise distribution of respondents who have
approached any of the aforesaid forums for their complaint. It can be seen from
the figure that overall 6.6 percent of the respondents have approached these
forums. Among the DISCOMs, 8.2 percent respondents of NDMC have filed their
complaints, which is highest among all the DISCOMs. In TPDDL zone, least
number of respondents (5.6 percent) have approached the forums for their
grievances. Since very less percentage of consumers is approaching the
aforesaid forums, it can be concluded that awareness regarding the redressal
mechanism in electricity sector is very low among the consumers.
Figure 4.1
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.2 Type of Forums approached by the Respondents
Among the respondents who knew about the different redressal
mechanism available to redress their grievances, 60.7 percent of them replied
that they approached the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
(ECGRF) for getting their problems resolved, followed by 36.2 percent who said
they approached the Public Grievance Cell of Delhi, 29.3 percent approached
the Lok Adalat, while 25.9 percent approached the District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum (DCDRF). Only 12.1 percent said that they approached State
Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) for solution to their grievances. (table
4.1) During discussion it was revealed that many consumers approached
41
different forums at different point of time. However the preference was for the
ECGRF.
Table 4.1
Forums approached by complainants
Type of Forum approached by the consumer (out of the consumer who approached to the forum)
ECGRF DERC PGC DCDRF LA BRPL 71.3 18.8 50.0 18.8 37.5BYPL 80.9 0.0 9.1 27.3 18.2NDMC 42.9 5.9 35.3 41.2 47.1TPDDL 54.3 21.4 42.9 14.3 7.1All 60.7 12.1 36.2 25.9 29.3
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.3 Reason for Filing Complaint in a Particular Forum
As the respondents who approached the aforesaid forums are very less,
they were also asked the reason for filing a complaint in a particular forum.
Presently the electricity consumers of Delhi have multiple avenues to redress
their grievance. There may be a case where a consumer in a particular
region/area has access to multiple avenues to file his/her complaint, in the
aforesaid forums.
More than half of the respondents who filed their complaint in ECGRF
(60.7 percent) said they knew only about this forum, followed by 46.4 who
quoted “Easy to Access” as the reason for approaching, cost effectiveness (42.9
percent) was the other reason accorded by the complainants as the reason for
approaching the forum and 42.9 for quick redressal followed by 25 percent of
them who said the reason was the strong compliance mechanism and 21.4
percent agreed it was suggested by others. Regarding approaching DERC, half
of the respondents agreed that they knew only about this forum. For cost
effectiveness and easy to access, 75 percent respondents said that DERC is
neither cost effective nor easy to access. Interestingly all the complainants (100
percent) were of the opinion that the DERC does not provide quick redressal.
Similarly for approaching DCDRFs, the responses were mixed. Out of
the complainants who approached the DCDRFs, 63.9 percent of the
complainants said they knew only about this forum, 55.6 percent said it was
suggested by others while majority of them regarded none of the following - cost
42
effective, easy to access, quick redressal and strong compliance mechanism as
the reasons for approaching the forum. When asked about Lok Adalats, 66.7
percent said they knew about only this forum therefore they approached the Lok
Adalat (table 4.2).
Table 4.2
Reason for Filing Complaint in a Particular Forum
ECGRF DERC DCDRF Lok Adalat Particulars Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Know about this Forum 61.3 38.7 50.0 50.0 63.9 36.1 66.7 33.3 Cost Effective 42.9 57.1 25.0 75.0 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7 Easy to Access 46.4 53.6 25.0 75.0 38.9 61.1 50.0 50.0 Quick Redressal 42.9 57.1 0.0 100.0 30.6 69.4 16.7 83.3
Strong Compliance Mechanism 25.0 75.0 25.0 75.0 22.2 77.8 16.7 83.3 Suggested by Others 21.4 78.6 25.0 75.0 55.6 44.4 33.3 66.7 Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.4 Complainants Experience about the Redressal Mechanism
The effectiveness of any system can be measured by the quality of
service delivery and disposal of complaints in the prescribed time frame. When
asked about the experience of the complainants regarding the redressal
mechanism they approached and the level of satisfaction with the procedures
adopted, 42.9 percent respondents who have filed complaint in ECGRF and 37.3
percent in DCDRF were not satisfied with the redressal mechanism and said the
process and procedure was difficult. (Figure 4.2)
Figure 4.2
Found any difficulty after lodging Complaint
Complaints Experience regarding difficulty after Filling Complaint
42.9
57.1
37.3
62.7
Yes No Yes No
ECGRF DCDRF
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
Figure 4.3 indicates that 37.5 percent of the BRPL complainants have
said that they have experienced difficulty after lodging their complaint, while 34.6
percent complainants of BYPL have opined the same. Complainants of NDMC
43
are the least sufferers as only 9.1 percent of them said that they have
experienced difficulty after filing the complaint. Actually, the NDMC area
constitutes the core of the city. It includes Rashtrapati Bhawan, Parliament
House, Government of India Headquarters, Government Housing, Private
Housing, the Central Business District of the City and Prominent Institutions. As
this area is a VIP Zone and inhabited by high profile people, therefore, their
complaints are being taken care of properly by all the agencies/departments.
Figure 4.3
DISCOM wise Responses regarding Difficulty in Filling Complaint in ECGRF
37.550.0
12.5
34.645.9
19.59.1
80.9
10.0
24.6
69.6
5.8
Yes No NoAnswer
Yes No NoAnswer
Yes No NoAnswer
Yes No NoAnswer
BRPL BYPL NDMC NDPL
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.5: Status of Complaint
The status of the complaint is an important indicator of the effectiveness
of the redressal mechanism. The table 4.3 reveals that a large number of
complaints remained unresolved and were pending. 40.5 percent of the
respondents of ECGRF and 53.8 percent of DCDRF said that their complaints
were still pending in the Forums while 51.8 percent of ECGRF complainants and
43.6 percent of DCDRF complainants said their complaints have been resolved.
The data highlights the performance level of the forums leaves much to be
desired. (table 4.3)
Table 4.3 Status of Complaint
Response ECGRF DCDRF Resolved 51.8 43.6
Pending 40.5 53.8
Rejected 7.7 2.6
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
44
DISCOM wise assessment of status of complaint is shown in Figure 4.4.
According to the data, TPDDL has highest disposal of complaints in comparison
to other three forums. 64.3 percent of the complainant respondents from TPDDL
opined that their complaints had been resolved. NDMC resolved the lowest
number of complaints as only 38.5 percent of the complainant/respondents
confirmed this. It has been found that the post of Chairman in NDMC CGRF has
been vacant for a long period of time and it may be one of the reasons of high
pendency in the forum. In case of BRPL this value is 50 percent and for BYPL it
is 53.3 percent. The study suggests that hardly 50 percent of the complaints on
an average are disposed off and the pendency has been increasing.
Figure 4.4
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.6 Satisfaction with the Relief/Redressal given by the Forums
The satisfaction level of complainants with regard to the way the dispute
has been resolved is an important indicator of the functioning of the redressal
mechanism. 35.3 percent of the complainants of DCDRF were not satisfied with
the relief/redressal given by the Forum while 47.2 percent of ECGRF were not
satisfied with the redressal /relief given by the forum (Figure 4.5). It means that a
large section of the respondent/complainants of ECGRF were not satisfied with
the relief/redressal provided by the forums.
45
Figure 4.5
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
Figure 4.6 illustrates the DISCOM wise satisfaction level with the
relief/redressal provided by the forums. As per the data, 58.3 percent respondent
complainants of TPDDL were satisfied with the relief/redressal given by the
forums, which is highest among all the four ECGRFs. The lowest satisfaction
level is found among NDMC respondents (45.5 percent).
Figure: 4.6 DISCOM wise Satisfaction with the Relief/Redressal
53.3
26.720.0
54.5
27.3
18.2
45.5
36.4
18.1
58.3
25.0
16.7
Yes
No
No
Answ
er
Yes
No
No
Answ
er
Yes
No
No
Answ
er
Yes
No
No
Answ
er
BRPL BYPL NDMC NDPL
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.7 Satisfaction with the procedure adopted by the Forums
As far as satisfaction with the procedures adopted by the Redressal
Forums is concerned, (Table 4.4) 56.7 percent of the complainants said they
were satisfied with the procedures of ECGRF while 49.3 percent of the
respondents of DCDRF satisfied with the procedures of redressal being adopted
by the District Forums. While analyzing the data and also the procedures
adopted by both these forums indicates that DCDRF is taking longer time and
involves a lot of paper work therefore their procedure is more complicated in
46
comparison to the ECGRF. The data also reveals that the satisfaction level is
only moderate.
Table 4.4
Response ECGRF DCDRF
Yes 56.7 49.3
No 35.0 41.6
No Answer 8.3 9.1
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
A comparative study of the satisfaction level with the procedures adopted
by different ECGRF, has been exhibited in the Figure 4.7. It is evident that the
respondents of BYPL zone have comparatively higher level of satisfaction (63.6
percent) with the procedures adopted by respective ECGRF than other three
forums. The respondents of BRPL zone seems to be least satisfied with the
procedures adopted by their ECGRF, as 43.8 percent of them have negative
response. In case of TPDDL, 61.5 percent of the respondents and in NDMC
zone 58.3 percent respondents opined that they are satisfied with the
procedures adopted by the forums.
Figure: 4.7
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.8 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Reliefs/Redressal provided by the Forums
The reasons of dissatisfaction among the complainants were many. 55.6
percent of ECGRF and 83.3 percent of DCDRF complainants who are
dissatisfied with their respective forum’s decisions blamed delay in decision by
the forums, followed by 33.2 percent of ECGRF and 26.7 percent of DCDRF
held low compensation as one of the reason of dissatisfaction (table 4.5). It is
notable that were 61.1 percent of the respondents opined that the forums were
biased in favour of DISCOMs. However this factor is pointed out by only 20
47
percent of the respondents of DCDRF. The consumers are of the view that
these redressal mechanism are not fair and favour the DISCOMs. On the other
hand, major complaint against the DCDRF is that their cases are not heard
properly, 60 percent of the DCDRF respondents agreed with this view. The
findings point out that the consumers by and large do not have faith in the
redressal mechanism set up by the DISCOMs but they have little choice.
Table: 4.5 Reason for Dissatisfaction with Redressal Mechanism
Reason for Dissatisfaction ECGRF DCDRF
Delayed decision 55.6 83.3
Unsatisfactory Compensation 33.2 26.7
Case not heard properly 44.4 60.0
Order is not executed 28.4 13.3
Forum biased in favor of DISCOM 61.1 20.0
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA 4.9 Opinion about Functioning of ECGRF
When asked about their views on the functioning of the ECGRF (Table
4.6), 84.2 percent of the complainants said their complaint was acknowledged
within 7 days of receipt of the complaint. When asked about disposal of the
complaint by the ECGRF within period of 60 Days, 57.9 percent said it is done in
the prescribed time while rest of the respondents (42.1 percent) said it is not
disposed of in the given time frame. As regards compliance of the order of the
forum by the DISCOMs within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order, 68.4
percent said that it is being done while 31.6 percent said that there is no
compliance of orders within the prescribed time limit.
Table: 4.6
Opinion about Functioning of ECGRF
Response Particulars
Yes No
Acknowledged your complaint within a period of 7 days of its receipt 84.2 15.8
Disposal of the complaint by the ECGRF within period of 60 Days 57.9 42.1
Compliance of the order of the forum by the DISCOMs within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order
68.4 31.6
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
48
4.10 Opinion about Functioning of DCDRF
When asked about the functioning of the DCDRF, (Table 4.7) 83.9
percent of the complainants said their complaint was registered /rejected within a
period of 21 days of its receipt. On disposal of the complaint by the DCDRF
within a period of 90/150 days, only 37.5 percent of them opined that the
complaints were disposed of within the time limit. For compliance of the orders of
the Forum by the DISCOMs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order,
85.7 percent of them said that the compliance of orders is done. While 14.3
percent said there is no compliance of the order.
Table: 4.7
Opinion about Functioning of DCDRF
Response Particulars
Yes No
Registered/Rejected complaint within a period of 21 days of its receipt
83.9 16.1
Disposal of the complaint by the DCDRF within a period of 90/150 days
37.5 62.5
Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order
85.7 14.3
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.11Awareness about Electricity Ombudsman
Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non –redressal of his grievances by
the forum established by the distribution licensee under the Act, may make a
representation for redressal of his grievance to an authority known as
Ombudsman. The ombudsman shall exercise his general powers as are
available to a Forum , advice the Commission on redressal of grievances of the
Consumer and after hearing a forum or any other interested party, issue orders
,instructions or directions to any forum for the performance of its functions under
these regulations, as it may deem fit.
But the majority of the respondents are not even aware of the existence of
the Electricity Ombudsman. Majority of the complainants (86.4 percent) were not
even aware of the Electricity Ombudsman. Merely 13.6 percent of the
respondents said they were aware of the Electricity Ombudsman (figure 4.8).
49
Awareness about the various institutional mechanism among the consumer is
very low. At the time of field survey the post of ombudsman was vacant therefore
data related with cases filed in ombudsman could not be accessed. However on
May 25, 2012 DERC has appointed an electricity ombudsman for addressing
electricity related grievances of consumers of DISCOMs.
Figure: 4.8
Awareness about Electricity Ombudsman
Yes, 13.6
No, 86.4
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
4.12 Approaching Ombudsman after dissatisfaction with ECGRF Decision
After a complaint is rejected by the ECGRFs the complainant has an
option to file a complaint with the Ombudsman. But as majority of the consumers
are unaware about the existence of the Ombudsman they do not file complaints
there. However, only 1.46 percent of the respondents said that they have
approached ombudsman after dissatisfaction with ECGRFs decision.
Figure 4.9
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
50
However looking at the number of complaints filed in the ECGRFs,
complaint being filed with the Ombudsman is very negligible. It shows that
people are unaware and therefore cannot avail the benefits of the Ombudsman
which is especially established to solve their problems.
4.13 Awareness about CPA, 1986
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent, unique and highly
progressive piece of social welfare legislation providing for simple, speedy and
less expensive remedy for the redressal of consumer grievances in relation to
defective goods and deficient services. The Act provides effective, people
oriented, broad based and efficient remedy to consumers against unfair dealings
and exploitation. Consumer Protection Act is a weapon in the hands of
consumers to fight against exploitation by traders, manufacturers, sellers and
service providers. The Act makes provision for the establishment of Consumer
Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes. The Act
has been operative in all the states of the country except the state of J&K.
Before the CPA came into operation no doubt there were other legislations to
protect the consumers, but the CPA is an improvement over the other existing
laws for consumer protection as it is compensatory in nature. On the other hand
remedies under other laws are basically punitive or preventive in nature and are
designed to provide relief only in specific situations.
Figure: 4.9
Level of Awarness about CP Act, 1986
27.3
72.7
18.2
81.8
37.9
62.1
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Awarness about CPA, 1986 Awarness about SixConsumer Rights
Awarness about theRedressal Mechanism under
Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA
The study also tried to find out the level of awareness about C P Act
among the Complainants (Figure 4.9). Of all the respondents, only 27.3 percent
51
of them knew about the Consumer Protection Act. 72.7 percent were unaware
about this Act.
When asked about the six consumer rights under the CP Act, majority of
the complainants (81.8 percent) were not aware of the six consumer rights while
only 18.2 percent opined that they are aware of the same. Seeing the low level
of awareness regarding CP Act it was quite obvious that the respondents would
also not be knowing much about the redressal mechanism. The data supports it,
as only 37.9 percent of the complainants were aware of the redressal
mechanism under the CPA.
52
Chapter V
PERCEPTION OF CHAIRMAN/ MEMBERS OF CGRFS ON FUNCTIONING OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUMS
The Electricity Act, 2003 made specific provisions seeking to protect the
consumers’ interests. Section 43 of the Act provides for universal service
obligation for the licensee to provide connection to a consumer within a
stipulated period of time, failing which the licensee is liable to pay compensation
to the affected consumer. In pursuance to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003,
in Delhi, the DISCOM-wise CGRFs and the Appellate Institution of the Electricity
Ombudsman were set up in August, 2004. These CGRFs consists of three
members including the Chairperson of the Forum. The Chairman shall have a
degree in electrical engineering, while one member shall have to have a degree
in law and preferable experience in the electricity sector. The third member shall
be from NGO/Consumer Organization background.
At present, the DISCOMs submit a list of recommendations for the
Chairman and Members post to the DERC. The DERC then chooses the
Chairman and other members from the list suggested by the DISCOMs. The
salaries of the staffs and the expenditures incurred at the offices of CGRFs are
met by DISCOMs. At many occasions, the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum (CGRF) has been accused of being biased towards the DISCOMs. They
have been termed as the part of licensee. The DERC has been flooded with
complaints from consumers alleging that the forums are not transparent and fair.
Against this backdrop, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission brought
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011
which said that the Forums shall be independent of the Commission and
distribution licensee. The Commission has right to decide the appropriate
number of forums for each distribution Licensees. Forum shall consist of not
more than three members including the Chairperson of the Forum. The
Commission shall invite applications for selection of Chairman and Members of
the Forum and may prepare a panel of persons who are eligible according to the
53
qualifications hereinafter prescribed and shall appoint them on behalf of the
distribution licensee.
The eligibility criteria for the appointment of the members of the Forums are as
follows:
(i) Chairperson of the Forum shall be a person possessing degree in electrical engineering, having served not below the rank of Superintending Engineer and having experience in the distribution of electricity.
(ii) One member shall be a person possessing degree in law and having at least 10 years of experience in legal matters, which preferably includes experience in electricity sector for a period of at least three years; Provided when the Chairperson of the Forum is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the member indicated in Regulation 4(5) (ii) shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson, until the day on which the Chairperson assumes office.
(iii) Another member shall be a representative of a registered society or NGO/Consumer Organization having one of its main objectives as consumer protection, with at least 5 years of standing or alternatively the representing member should have five years of experience in consumer related matters.
The functioning and usefulness of the CGRFs is not only depends on the
availability of adequate staff, infrastructure, financial support to the forums by the
DISCOMs and DERC but also very much on the competence, efficiency,
punctuality, and the autonomy in decision making of the Chairman and the
Members of CGRFs. Therefore, it was necessary to have the opinion of all the
Members of Electricity Forums about the existing working environment at the
Forums. This Chapter analyses the functioning of ECGRFs and tries to analyse
the type of cases which are being filed and disposed off in the forums.
5.1 Knowledge of the Legal Provisions while Handling Cases The Chairman/ members are the ones who practically deal with the
complaints of electricity consumers and are well versed with their functioning
and have an idea that to what extent these forums are able to provide redressal
to the aggrieved consumers. Therefore, the study tried to find out the functioning
and effectiveness of these forums. The Chairman and members of the ECGRFs
were therefore asked whether Law degree is an important prerequisite for
54
effective decision making or not. Majority of the Chairman /members were of the
opinion that it is not an important prerequisite. However one member was of the
opinion that it is important and would help in effective decision making. When
asked about the Knowledge of the Legal Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 as a
prerequisite, majority of the respondents agreed that the Knowledge of the Legal
Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is very important in deciding the cases. (Table
5.1)
Table5.1
Knowledge of the Legal Provisions while handling cases
Opinion about the Law Degree as a prerequisite for effective decision
making (Responses - Yes/No/NA)
Opinion about the Knowledge of the Legal Provisions of Electricity
Act, 2003 as a prerequisite (Responses - Yes/No/NA)
DISCOMs
Chairman Legal Member
Member (NGO/VCO)
Chairman Legal Member
Member (NGO/VCO)
BRPL NO NO No Reply Yes Yes No Reply
BYPL NA No Reply Yes Yes Yes Yes TPDDL/TPDDL
NO NO NA Yes Yes Yes
NDMC
No Reply NA No Reply No Reply Yes No Reply
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
5.2 Problems faced by the ECGRFs while handling Cases
The Chairman and Members were also asked about the problems which
they are facing while working in the forums.(Table 5.2) The responses of forums
differed on certain issues. All the ECGRFs agreed that shortage of members,
lack of technical knowledge, non-cooperation from DISCOMs, shortage of
stationary (Paper, Stamp, Envelopes, etc) are the problems which are common
in their forums and wanted adequate number of trained and skilled members for
the effective functioning of the forums. In case of lack of supporting staff, lack of
infrastructure, lack of fund for day to day miscellaneous expenses, etc. the
ECGRF of BRPL was of the opinion that they faced these problems while the
55
others- BYPL, TPDDL/TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that they do not
face these problems.
But the major problem as far as forums of TPDDL and BRPL are
concerned relates to accessibility. They are not approachable by public transport
which acts as damper in lodging complaints by the consumers.
Table 5.2 Problems faced by the ECGRFs while handling cases
Opinion of ECGRFs (Yes/No) Type of Problems
BRPL BYPL TPDDL/TPDDL
NDMC
1 Shortage of Members No No No No
2 Lack of Technical Knowledge No No No No
3 Lack of Supporting Staff Yes No No No
4 Lack of Infrastructure Yes No No No
5 Lack of Fund for day to day Miscellaneous Expenses
Yes No No No
6 Non-cooperation from DISCOM No No No No
7 Shortage of Stationary (Paper, Stamp, Envelope etc)
No No No No
8 Shortage of Funds to meet day to day Expenses
Yes No No No
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
5.3 Time Taken by ECGRFs to redress a Complaint
The effectiveness of any system can be gauzed by the way complaints
are disposed or in other words by the timely redressal of consumer grievances.
The Chairman and members of the Forums were asked about the average time
taken by the forums for different procedures to redress a complaint. In reply to
this, said that they abide by the time frame as mentioned in the Electricity Act.
As far as acknowledging the complaint is concerned, BRPL and NDMC
ECGRF’s opined that they acknowledge the complaint within seven days of it’s
receipt while BYPL and TPDDL ECGRF’s said that they acknowledge the
complaint the same day when they receive it.
56
Table 5.3 Time taken by ECGRFs to Redress a Complaint
No. of Days Sl. No.
Procedure
BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC
1 Acknowledging the Complaint 7 1 1 7
2 Furnishing Complaint by nominated employee of DISCOMs
15 – 30 5 15 15
3 Disposal of the Complaint by the CGRF
50 - 60 50 30 - 60 60
4 Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs
Within 21 days
30 21 21
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
For furnishing complaint by nominated employee of DISCOMs, BRPL
furnished the same within 15-30 days, TPDDL and NDMC within 15 days while
BYPL did the same within 5 days as shown in table 5.3. With regard to disposal
of the complaints by the ECGRF, all of them said they disposed off the
complaints within 30-60 days. The compliance of the order of the forum by
DISCOMs BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC is done within 21 days while BYPL does so
within 30 days.
5.4 Reasons for delay in Disposal of Complaints
It is rightly said justice delayed is justice denied. The opinion of the
members and the chairman of the forums was sought with regard to the reasons
for delay in disposal of complaints. The responses varied from one forum to
another. With regard to involvement of advocates, all the ECGRFs agreed that it
was not the reason for delay in disposal of the complaint. Asking for undue
adjournments and disinterested consumers was referred to as the reasons for
the delay in disposal of complaints by the BRPL ECGRF. Delay due to product
testing and technical proceedings were other reasons referred to by the
ECGRFs as the reasons for the delay in disposal of complaints by BRPL and
TPDDL (Table 5.4)
Thus, the forums were of the opinion that they by and large are disposing
of the cases well in time and wherever there is delay it was due to the certain
reasons which if taken care can lead to quicker disposal of complaints.
57
Table 5.4 Reasons for delay in disposal of complaints
Sl. No.
Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL/ TPDDL
NDMC
1 Involvement of advocates No No No No
2 Asking for undue adjournments Yes No No No
3 Consumer disinterested Yes No No No
4 Lack of quorum of district forums No No No No
5 Technical proceedings No No Yes No
6 Due to product testing Yes No Yes No
7 Non cooperation by the advocates No No No No
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.5 Opinion of ECGRFs Members on Execution of Orders and Related Problems
When the ECGRFs were asked about their opinion whether they are
facing problems in the execution of orders of the ECGRF, BYPL and TPDDL
said that they faced problems with this regard only sometimes. While BRPL and
NDMC opined that they never face problem of execution of the order. As far as
matter of getting adequate support from DISCOMs is concerned all the ECGRFs
were of the opinion that they get adequate support from the DISCOMs. BRPL
and TPDDL said that they face problems due to Third Party Meter Testing while
BYPL and NDMC said they do not face this problem. (Table 5.5)
Table 5.5 Opinion of ECGRFS on Execution of Orders and Related Problems
Facing problems in the
execution of the orders of the ECGRF
Getting adequate support from
DISCOMs
Problem due to Third Party Meter Testing
Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes
BRPL √ √ √ BYPL √ √ √ TPDDL √ √ √ NDMC √ √ √
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.6 Type of Problems related with Third Party Meter Testing Procedure
Table 5.6 clearly shows the type of problems faced related to Third Party
Meter Testing Procedure. TPDDL was of the opinion that they are facing
problems regarding Third Party Meter Testing due to shortage of labs for testing,
delay in sending report and difficulty in interpreting report. While BRPL was of
58
the opinion that they find problems in the Third Party Meter testing due to the
failure of contract with agencies. On the other hand BYPL and NDMC did not
mention any such problems in response to this question. The practical problem
which majority of the members mentioned was that the contract with the Third
Party Meter testing agencies was over and therefore it was not possible to
enforce this service properly.
Table 5.6 Type of problems related with Third Party Meter Testing Procedure
Sl. No.
Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC
1 Shortage of labs for testing - - √ -
2 Delay in sending report - - √ -
3 Difficulty in interpreting report - - √ -
4 Labs are influenced by DISCOMs
- - - -
5 Due to failure of contract √ - - -
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.7 Reasons for not filing complaints in the ECGRF by Consumers
When the ECGRFs were asked about the reasons for lesser number of
complaints being filed in the forums ,BRPL,TPDDL and NDMC were of the
opinion that in general the consumers are indifferent and casual towards their
problems and hence not in favour of filing complaints in the ECGRFs.
Table 5.7
Reasons for not filing complaints in the ECGRF by Consumers
Sl. No.
Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC
1 In general, consumers are indifferent and casual towards their problem
√ √ √
2 Don’t want to fight for their rights √
3 Do not have faith in long procedures of redressal
√
4 Do not have much idea about the Act & redressal mechanism
√ √ √ √
5 High cost of litigation
6 Afraid of court’s technicalities √
7 Small compensation amount
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
59
TPDDL was also of the opinion that the consumers don’t want to fight for their
rights while BRPL was of the view that the consumers do not have faith in long
procedures of redressal, therefore they don’t come forward to raise their voice.
All the four ECGRFs were of the opinion that people don’t come forward
because they don’t have much idea and lack awareness about the Act and the
redressal mechanism. This is an area to be addressed and lot more awareness
needs to be created. Some of the members of TPDDL were also of the opinion
that consumers are afraid of court technicalities and therefore do not file
complaints in the forums.
5.8 Level of Satisfaction with Powers to the forums and adoption of
Alternative Redressal Mechanism After knowing the reasons for not many consumers approaching the
forums for redressal of their complaints, the Chairman and Members of the
various electricity redressal forums were asked about their satisfaction with
regard to the administrative and financial powers assigned to the ECGRFs.
Table 5.8 Level of Satisfaction Powers to the Forums and Adoption of
alternative Redressal Mechanism
Satisfaction with the administrative
and financial powers given to
ECGRF
Are the decisions based on the opinion of the
majority members?
Adopting Alternative Mechanism of
Dispute Settlement? (conciliation/mediation)
Yes No Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes BRPL √ √ √ BYPL √ √ √ TPDDL √ √ √ NDMC √ √ √ Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
To this query, all the four forums were not satisfied with the powers given
to them. They were of the opinion that for the smooth functioning of any system
certain amount of discretion to carry out functions needs to be given to them.
(Table 5.8) When asked whether the decisions of the forums are based on the
opinion of majority of the members of the forums, TPDDL and NDMC said they
are, while BYPL and BRPL said the decisions are not based on majority
member’s opinion. For adopting alternative mechanism for dispute settlement
60
BRPL and NDMC were of the opinion that alternative redressal mechanism were
adopted sometimes, BYPL adopted such mechanisms while TPDDL never
adopted such ADR’s for dispute settlement.
5.9 Opinion about Functioning of the ECGRFs Table 5.9 shows the opinion of Chairman and Members about the
functioning of the ECGRFs. When asked about whether the members are
involved in judgment writing while handling cases, all members and chairman of
TPDDL were of the opinion that the members are involved in the judgment
writing and due consideration is given to their viewpoint in the final judgment.
Chairman /Members of BYPL were of the opinion that the members are involved
but only sometimes, similarly Chairman/Members of NDMC opined that the
Members are involved in the judgment writing.
Whereas the Chairman/Members of BRPL did not answer to this
question. Further when asked about the functioning of the Forums, leaving aside
the NGO members of all the ECGRFs (except TPDDL) all other Members and
Chairmen were of the opinion that the forums are functioning fairly well.
Table 5.9
Opinion about Functioning of the ECGRFs Are members involved in judgment
writing? (Responses - Yes/No/NA)
Opinion about the functioning of your Forum
(Good/Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory)
Chairman Legal Member
Member (NGO/VCO)
Chairman Legal Member
Member (NGO/VCO)
BRPL No Answer No Answer No Answer Good Good No Answer
BYPL Rarely Sometimes Sometimes Good Good No Answer
TPDDL Yes Yes Yes Good Good Good
NDMC Yes Yes No Answer Good Good No Answer
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
5.10 Level of awareness among Consumers about their Rights The functioning of the forums would be better if only more and more
consumers make use of these forums to redress their grievances. This is only
possible if consumers are aware of their rights as consumers and also about the
redressal mechanism for their welfare. The Chairman/members were also asked
about their opinion on the level of awareness among consumers about their
rights. In reply to this question all the forums were of the opinion that the
61
consumers at large are having very little knowledge of their rights as a
consumer. Therefore they fall prey to the exploitation at the hands of the
manufacturers and traders who in turn cheat and exploit the consumers for petty
gains. Due to ignorance the consumers are not able to raise their voice against
the exploitation.
Table 5.10 Level of Awareness among Consumers about Their Rights
Sl. No.
Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC
1 Very much aware of their rights as a consumer
2 Very less knowledge of their rights as a consumer
√ √ √ √
3 Do not know anything Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.11 Opinion about involvement of advocates /NGOs in the proceedings of
the Complaints Under the Consumer Protection Act the NGO’s can file a complaint on
behalf of the consumer. In response to the question whether the NGOs should
play an active role in filing complaints in the forums, all the forum members were
against the involvement of NGOs in filing cases. When asked whether the
appearance of advocates in the forum is helpful to the consumers, BRPL, BYPL
and NDMC were of the opinion that their appearance doesn’t prove to be helpful
while TPDDL said their presence is sometimes helpful. The involvement of
advocates prolongs the proceedings, makes it too technical and also becomes
expensive.
Table 5.11 Opinion about involvement of advocates /NGOs in the proceedings
of the complaints Sl. No.
Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC
1 Do you like the NGOs to play an active role in filing of complaints?
No No No No
2 Does appearance of advocates in the forum help consumers?
No No Sometimes No
3 Do you think advocates prolong the cases on grounds other than the merit?
Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Yes
4 Do you think the involvement of the lawyers has made the Proceedings too technical and difficult for the consumers to understand?
No No No Yes
62
Seeking opinion on the fact that advocates prolonging the cases on
grounds other than merit, BRPL, BYPL and TPDDL opined that the advocates
do prolong the cases sometimes while NDMC ECGRF was of the view that the
advocates prolong the cases. Except NDMC ECGRF all other forums were of
the opinion that the involvement of lawyers has not made the proceedings too
technical and difficult for consumers to understand. But in practice it has been
observed that due to the involvement of the advocates the consumers are at a
disadvantage as the proceedings have no doubt become to technical and
expensive. Due to the cost factor many small consumes do not approach the
forums. (Table 5.11)
5.12 Availability of Funds with Forums for Consumer Education
The consumers lack awareness about the redressal mechanism. Funds
are required for creating awareness. When the forum Chairman/Members were
asked whether the forums have separate funds for consumer education and
awareness (Table 5.12), all the forums indicated that they do not have funds to
educate the people and organize awareness campaigns for the benefit of the
consumers and also about the redressal machinery available to them. This is a
major drawback because if people are not educated and are not aware about
their rights then they cannot take the benefit of the redressal machinery.
Table 5.12
Availability of Funds with Forums for Consumer Education Do the Forums have separate funds
for consumer education?
Yes No BRPL - √ BYPL - √ TPDDL/TPDDL - √ NDMC - √
Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA
The forums were of the opinion that either fund may be provided to them
for making people aware or DERC/DISCOMs themselves should organise
awareness campaigns to educate the consumers about their rights and the
redressal machinery in place.
63
5.14 Complaint handling by ECGRF
When a consumer does not get a satisfactory remedy from the in-house
complaint handling centres of DISCOMs, he/she can approach the ECGRF to
redress the grievances. Here they can also demand for appropriate
compensation for their loss and agony. As per the data provided by the three
CGRFs, maximum number of complaints have been filed in the CGRF of TPDDL
zone (1362), followed by BRPL (579) and BYPL (346) (table 5.13). Interestingly
when we compare this data with the tables 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15, there is a big
anomaly between the number of in-house complaints in each DISCOM and the
complaint filed in their respective CGRFs. The number of complaints filed in the
in-house complaint centres was highest in BRPL but the number of cases filed in
its CGRF was lower than TPDDL. On the other hand, the in-house complaints
centres of TPDDL received lowest number of complaints as compared to other
two DISCOMs but the number of cases filed in its CGRF is highest among all the
three DISCOMs. It means either consumers of BRPL and BYPL zone are
reluctant to approach CGRFs or DISCOMs are redressing the grievance of
consumers at their own level.
Table: 5.13 Comparative statements of CGRFs regarding Complaints (Jan 2011- Dec
2011)
ECGRFs
Filed (During Jan 2011 -Dec 2011)
Disposed (During Jan 2011 -Dec 2011)
Pending as on 31st Dec 2011)
Number of Customers (in Lakh)
BRPL 579 470 109 18.8
BYPL 346 311 35 11.9
TPDDL 1362 1313 183 12.2 Source: Data provided by all three DISCOMs.
Another important fact came out from the data provided by the BRPL and
BYPL is that there is no pendency of complaints at their in-house complaint
centres, even for the problems related with the metering and billing, they are
indicating that all the complaints are being sorted out at the in-house level.
However, the data of respective CGRFs indicates that more than 75 percent of
cases filed in the forums relate to metering and billing complaints. (Table 5.14,
5.15 and 5.16)
64
5.15 Type of Complaint filed in ECGRFs (Jan 2011- Dec 2011)
The functioning of the forums would be better if only more and more
consumers make use of these forums to redress their grievances. Based on the
discussions with the ECGRFs and the consumers the following problems were
identified for which the consumers normally complaint to the forums – metering
and billing complaints, connection/disconnection/ reconnection, complaints
relating to change in the name of registered consumer, complaints relating to
electrification of no-electrified area, complaints relating to street light, complaints
regarding frequent breakdown, complaints relating to load enhancement-load
reduction, complaints relating to unified premises, complaints taken up suo-moto
by the CGRF.
Table: 5.14 Type of complaints filed in BRPL CGRF (Jan 2011- Dec 2011)
Type of Complaints
No. of Complaints Received
Type of Complaints Received (in %)
No. of Complaints Disposed off
Disposal Rate of Complaints
1 Metering and Billing Complaints
448 77.4 361 80.6
2 Connection/disconnection/ reconnection
68 11.7 60 88.2
3 Complaints relating to change in the name of registered consumer
23 4.0 16
69.6 4 Complaints relating to
electrification of no-electrified area
3 0.5 3
100.0 5 Complaints relating to street
light 13 2.2 12
92.3 6 Complaints regarding
frequent breakdown 4 0.7 3
75.0 7 Complaints relating to load
enhancement-load reduction 20 3.5 15
75.0 8 Complaints relating to unified
premises NIL 0.0 NIL
Nil 9 Complaints taken up suo-
moto by the CGRF NIL 0.0 NIL
Nil
Total 579 100 470 81.2
Source: BRPL, CGRF
It can be observed from the tables 5.14, 5.15 & 5.16 that majority of the
complaint filed in all the three DISCOMs are on excess billing due to meter
defect or improper meter readings entered by meter readers. For example,
during Jan 2011 – Dec 2011, out of the total complaints filed in BRPL ECGRF,
65
77.4 percent of them are related to metering and billing problems. Similarly in
BYPL CGRF and TPDDL CGRG, the percentage of this type of complaints was
75.4 percent and 61.3 percent respectively. Many of the respondents have
complaint that they have not received electricity bill on time and despite that they
have been forced to pay hefty charges as late fine. As far as meter problem is
concerned, many of the consumers are of the opinion that their meter is not
functioning properly. It has also been informed that the replacement of burnt
meters was not done within the prescribed time limit.
Table: 5.15 Type of complaints filed in BYPL CGRF (2007)*
Type of Complaints
No. of Complaints Received
Type of Complaints Received (in %)
No. of Complaints Disposed off
No. of Complaints Pending
1 Billing Related Complaints
2 Defective Meters, replacements
3 Disconnection/Reconnections
297 75.4 274 92.3
4 Interruptions (Supply failure, Low Vol.)
3 0.8 3 100.0
5 Giving no connections 83 21.1 69 83.1
6 Category change and title transfer
3 0.8 1 33.3
7 Others
8 2.0 4 50.0
Total
394 100 351 89.1
Source: BYPL, CGRF *BYPL CGRF has not provided the details of cases filed in CGRF during 2010-11
Another similar issue concerned with consumer interests that is reflected
in the tables is the delay or denying of connection/reconnection and also the
disconnection of electricity without giving prior information to the consumers. The
incidence of higher number of complaints for delay in giving
connection/reconnection clearly shows the dissatisfaction of consumers with this
regard. This type of complaint was mostly filed in TPDDL and BYPL CGRFs. As
per the table 5.16, out of the total complaints received by TPDDL CGRF, 34.4
percent were related with delay in grant of new connection/ disconnection/
reconnection. In the same way, the percentage of such type of cases was found
higher in BYPL CGRF, here 21.1 percent complaints filed in 2007-08 were
related with denying of new connection.
66
Table: 5.16
Type of complaints filed in TPDDL CGRF (Jan 2011- Dec 2011)
S.NO
Type of Complaints
No. of Complaints Received
Type of Complaints Received (in %)
No. of Complaints Disposed off
No. of Complaints Pending
1 Metering and Billing Complaints 835 61.3 781 93.52 Complaints relating to delay in
grant of new connection/ disconnection/ reconnection
468 34.4 474 101.3
3 Complaints relating tot change in the name of registered consumer
27 2.0 28 103.7
4 Complaints relating to electrification of no-electrified area
NIL NIL NIL 0
5 complaints relating to street light 2 0.1 2 100.06 Complaints regarding frequent
breakdown 2 0.1 2 100.0
7 Complaints relating to load enhancement-load reduction
28 2.1 25 89.3
8 Complaints relating to unified premises
NIL NIL NIL 0
9 Complaints taken up suo-moto by the CGRF
NIL NIL NIL 0
Total
1362 100 1313 96.4
Source: TPDDL, CGRF
The incidence of higher number of complaints for delay in giving
connection clearly indicates the DISCOMs are not able to deliver the required
services in an efficient and time bound manner. Today electricity is
indispensable for our day-to-day life. As per the Electricity Act, the definition of
consumer is very wide and includes all kinds of consumers. Even unauthorized
consumers have been included in the definition by incorporating the words
person whose premises are connected with the works of the licensee. Though
Act does not consider an applicant of electricity as a consumer but on ethical
ground if a DISCOM denies the genuine demand of a person to get electricity
connection, then it is a gross negligence on part of the agency. Therefore it is
necessary to develop the transparent and time bound procedure to avoid
delay/discrimination in granting new connection of electricity to the consumers.
67
CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS FILED IN THE IN-HOUSE CALL CENTRES OF DISCOMS
The consumer grievance redressal mechanism for electricity consumers
of Delhi have been stratified into different levels. At the first level, each DISCOM
has set up an in-house Customer Care Centre for their consumers and at the
second level, ECGRFs have been set up in accordance with the provisions of
the Electricity Act, 2003. The process of filing a complaint starts with the in-
house complaint redressal centres. Consumers can register their complaints in
the in-house Customer Care Centres /Call Centres/Web based Service/ Zonal
Complaint Centres, established by the DISCOMs through telephone, email or
they can register directly at the zonal centres of DISCOMs. These in-house
complaint centres are the first contact point for an electricity consumer of Delhi
where he/she can lodge their complaint on a centralized telephone number.
They are the most important grievance redressal centres available for the
electricity consumers of Delhi.
A good in-house customer care service also provides vital inputs to the
company to make effective strategy for future to satisfy the needs and demands
of consumers. As informed by the DISCOMs, most of the complaints of
consumers received via call centre are appropriately resolved in a time bound
manner. Therefore, analysis of variation in the numbers as well as types of
complaints filed in these centres can be a good indicator to judge the
performance of DISCOMs.
6.1 Type and Trend of Complaints received by the DISCOMs
It needs to be mentioned here that problems like no current, failure of
street light or voltage fluctuation are frequently occurring and common to
everyone, however, problems related to faulty meter directly affects the
consumers individually and results into financial loss. It also creates lot of other
problems like billing problem and faulty charges. The faith and confidence of
consumers on DISCOMs is very much related with installation of proper meters.
It has been found that majority of the unsolved cases of in-house complaint
68
centres of DISCOMs are either related to faulty meters or bill related problems.
That is why most of the complaints filed in the ECGRFs relate to these two
problems.
Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 show the type and number of complaints filed
during 2008-11 in the in-house complaints centre of three private DISCOMs of
Delhi. BRPL has received maximum number of complaints followed by BYPL
and TPDDL. During 2010-11, BRPL received 10,14,278 complaints as compared
to 7,49,736 of BYPL and 5,52,090 of TPDDL. It can also be easily seen that the
number of complaints filed in all the three DISCOMs are continuously increasing.
Maximum increase has been observed in TPDDL. During 2008-09, TPDDL
received 3,70,196 complaints which increased to 4,35,050 during 2009-10 and
5,52,090 during 2010-2011.(Table 6.3)
Table 6.1
BRPL: Number of Complaints received during last 3 Years
Type of Complaint 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
No current 613468 686133 727333 11.8 8.9
Disconnection 12202 12276 17377 0.6 19.3
Load Shedding/Scheduled outages 1634 1783 1862 9.1 6.7
Metering problem 18011 24208 29464 34.4 27.9
Billing problem 28460 18493 12336 -35.0 -34.2
Service Line broken 5397 3752 2569 -30.5 -31.0
Power failure of street light 25287 23992 23916 -5.1 -2.7
Theft cases 8417 11200 17284 33.1 43.3
Transfer of bill charges to other 1250 1500 2000 20.0 26.5
Availing excess sanction load 19352 20346 12851 5.1 -18.5
Others 185790 181457 167286 -2.3 -5.1
Total 919268 985140 1014278 7.2 5.0Source: BRPL Rajdhani Power Limited
The interruption in power supply is a common problem for the electricity
consumers of Delhi. Even after unbundling of power distribution system, many
parts of the capital city is facing long power cuts, up to 12 hours a day,
particularly in summer season. However at the time of privatization it was
69
promised to the consumers that distributing companies will provide 24×7 power.
But the analyses of data provided by the DISCOMs are telling a different story.
The number of complaints regarding no current is increasing year by year. BRPL
received 6,13,468 complaints in 2008-09 which has increased up to 7,27,333.
Similar trends can be observed in BYPL and TPDDL. In case of BYPL, it was
4,04,861 in 2008-09 and 4,98,373 in 2010-11. Though TPDDL has received
less number of complaints as compared to other two DISCOMs but the number
of complaints during the same period has increased tremendously. The number
of complaints were 1,62,125 in 2008-09 which increased to 2,36,650 during
2010-11 (table 6.3)
Table 6.2
BYPL: Number of Complaints received in last 3 Years
Type of complaint 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
No current 404861 354909 498376 -12.3 10.9
Voltage Fluctuation 24502 20126 21174 -17.9 -7.0
Disconnections 5459 4792 5134 -12.2 -3.0
Load Shedding/Scheduled outages 2800 3485 2841 24.5 0.7
Metering problem 47933 60945 75839 27.1 25.8
Billing problem 18290 13072 9778 -28.5 -26.9
Service Line broken 22005 17719 33812 -19.5 24.0
Power failure of street light 15891 11820 12226 -25.6 -12.3
Theft cases 14998 16106 13375 7.4 -5.6
Transfer of bill charges to other 4799 2964 3455 -38.2 -15.2
Availing excess sanction load 15953 20333 73726 27.5 115.0
Total 577491 526271 749736 -8.9 13.9Source: BYPL Yamuna Power Limited
A comparative analysis of the problems related with metering is showing
an increasing trend during 2008-11 in all the three DISCOMs. In case of BYPL
and BRPL the numbers of complaints relating to metering problem are not only
very high but are also increasing continuously. During 2008 -09, BYPL received
47,933 complaints with regard to metering problem which increased to 75,839
during 2010-11(Table 6.2). TPDDL comes second among three DISCOMs and
received 47,711 cases during 2008-09 which has increased up to 53082 cases.
BRPL received 18,011 metering related cases which increased up to 29,464.
70
In percentage terms, there is an increase of 63.2 percent in meter related
problems. Similar trend can also be seen in BRPL (Table 6.1). During 2008-09,
BRPL received 28,460 complaints related to metering problem which has
increased up to 29,464 during 2010-11, an increase of 61.1 percent. In case of
TPDDL (Table 6.3), though the increase is less as compared to BYPL and BRPL
but the number of cases related with metering problem is also very high.
Table 6.3
TPDDL: Number of Complaints received in last 3 Years
Type of complaint 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
No current 162125 191076 236650 17.9 20.8
Voltage Fluctuation 12849 14499 17531 12.8 16.8
Disconnection 9895 9694 11831 -2.0 9.3
Load Shedding/Scheduled outages 11531 22403 32263 94.3 67.3
Metering problem 47711 53959 53082 13.1 5.5
Billing problem 6406 7049 4912 10.0 -12.4
Service Line broken 75681 76098 117072 0.6 24.4
Power failure of street light 15710 20916 44753 33.1 68.8
Theft cases 612 1299 1130 112.3 35.9
Transfer of bill charges to other 41 19 12 -53.7 -45.9
Availing excess sanction load 27635 38038 32854 37.6 9.0
Total 370196 435050 552090 17.5 22.1Source: TPDDL Tata Power Limited
Complaints about billing problems are showing a declining trend in all the
three DISCOMs; however their number is still very high in BRPL region.
According to table 6.1, the in-house complaint centres of BRPL received 28, 460
complaints which declined to 12,336 complaints. BYPL received 18,290
complaints during 2008-09 (Table 6.2) which declined to 9778 complaints.
TPDDL received lowest complaints for billing related problems (Table 6.3). It
was 6406 during 2008-09 and 4912 during 2010-11. Accordingly BRPL is
receiving almost three times more billing related complaints as compared to
TPDDL. It can be concluded that both BRPL and BYPL have not been able to
address the problems relating to billing and have to take this matter seriously to
gain the confidence of the consumers.
71
6.2 Disposal of Complaints received by the DISCOMs
While discussing the reasons for the rise in number of complaints with the
CGRF members and also with DISCOMs, it has been told that with the
increasing awareness, the expectation of consumers for quality services is also
increasing; they want easy and speedy solution to their problems. Hence there is
a rise in the number of complaints lodged in the in-house care centres of the
DISCOMs. At the same time, it has also been said that in spite of rise in the
number of complaints, DISCOMs are resolving all the grievances of consumers
appropriately in time bound manner.
A quick perusal at the tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 indicates that since 2008,
the disposal rate of in-house consumer care centres of all the three DISCOM’s is
almost 100 percent. It means that there shall not be any aggrieved consumers in
Delhi. But it has been found that lot of complaints are being filed at the different
grievance redressal forums available to the electricity consumers of Delhi, such
as; CGRF, District Forums, Lok Adalat and PGC. During 2010-11, BRPL
ECGRF received 579 complaints and the corresponding figure for TPDDL CGRF
was 1362 complaints. All these facts are contradicting the claims of respective
DISCOMs.
The claim of 100 percent disposal of the complaints by the DISCOMs
seems to be unrealistic as if we see the percentage of complaints coming to the
ECGRFs is also on the increasing trend which clearly shows the dissatisfaction
of the electricity consumers with regard to the redressal being provided by the
DISCOMs. The solution provided by the DISCOMs is treated as the complaint
disposed off but it is for the end user, the consumer to decide whether the
redressal is up to his expectations or not.
72
Tab
le 6
.4
BS
ES
Raj
dh
ani P
ower
Ltd
. (N
um
ber
of
Com
pla
ints
rec
eive
d/D
isp
osed
off
in L
ast
Th
ree
Yea
rs)
2008
- 0
9 20
09 –
10
2010
- 2
011
Sr.
N
o.
Typ
e of
Com
pla
int
No
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
No
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
No
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
1
No
Cur
rent
Com
plai
nt
6134
68
6134
68
6861
33
6861
33
7273
33
7273
33
2 F
ailu
re o
f P
ower
Sup
ply#
-
- -
- -
-
3 V
olta
ge F
luct
uati
on
- -
- -
- -
4 D
isco
nnec
tion
12
202
1220
2 12
276
1227
6 17
377
1737
7
5 L
oad
Sha
ding
/Sch
edul
ed O
utag
es
1634
16
34
1783
17
83
1862
18
62
6 M
eter
ing
Pro
blem
s (B
urnt
& F
ault
y M
eter
)
1801
1 18
011
2420
8 24
208
2946
4 29
464
7 B
illi
ng P
robl
em
2846
0 28
460
1849
3 18
493
1233
6 12
336
8 S
ervi
ce L
ine
Bro
ken
5397
53
97
3752
37
52
2569
25
69
9 P
ower
Fai
lure
of
Str
eet L
ight
s 25
287
2528
7 23
992
2399
2 23
916
2391
6
10
The
ft C
ases
84
17
8417
11
200
1120
0 17
284
1728
4
11
Tra
nsfe
r of
Bil
l Cha
rges
to O
ther
12
50
1250
15
00
1500
20
00
2000
12
Ava
ilin
g E
xces
s S
anct
ion
Loa
d 19
352
1935
2 20
346
2034
6 12
851
1285
1
13
Oth
ers*
18
5790
18
5790
18
1457
18
1457
16
7286
16
7286
Yea
r W
ise
Tot
al
9192
68
9192
68
985,
140
985,
140
1,01
4,27
8 1,
014,
278
Not
e:
# N
o C
urre
nt c
om
plai
nts
incl
ude
d th
e c
om
pla
ints
of F
ailu
re o
f Po
we
r S
upp
ly &
Vol
tag
e F
luct
uatio
n
* O
ther
s in
clu
ded
the
Ca
teg
ory
Ch
ange
, Tes
ting
of
Me
ter,
Ne
w C
onn
ectio
n, R
econ
nec
tion
, Rec
onn
ectio
n &
Na
me
Cha
nge
Re
ques
t
73
Tab
le 6
.5
BS
ES
Yam
un
a P
ower
Ltd
. (N
um
ber
of
Com
pla
ints
rec
eive
d/D
isp
osed
off
in L
ast
Th
ree
Yea
rs)
2008
- 0
9 20
09 –
10
2010
- 2
011
Sr.
N
o.
Typ
e of
Com
pla
int
No
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
No
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
No
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
1
No
Cur
rent
/Fai
lure
of
Pow
er S
uppl
y 40
4861
40
4861
35
4909
35
4909
49
8376
49
8376
2 V
olta
ge F
luct
uati
on
2450
2 24
502
2012
6 20
126
2117
4 21
174
3 D
isco
nnec
tion
54
59
5459
47
92
4792
51
34
5134
4 L
oad
Sha
ding
/Sch
edul
ed O
utag
es
2800
28
00
3485
34
85
2841
28
41
5 M
eter
ing
Pro
blem
s
4793
3 47
933
6094
5 60
945
7583
9 75
839
6 B
illi
ng P
robl
em
1829
0 18
290
1307
2 13
072
9778
97
78
7 S
ervi
ce L
ine
Bro
ken
2200
5 22
005
1771
9 17
719
3381
2 33
812
8 P
ower
Fai
lure
of
Str
eet L
ight
s 15
891
1589
1 11
820
1182
0 12
226
1222
6
9 T
heft
Cas
es
1499
8 14
998
1610
6 16
106
1337
5 13
375
10
Tra
nsfe
r of
Bil
l Cha
rges
to O
ther
47
99
4799
29
64
2964
34
55
3455
11
Ava
ilin
g E
xces
s S
anct
ion
Loa
d (L
oad
Enh
ance
men
t 15
953
1595
3 20
333
2033
3 73
726
7372
6
12
Oth
ers
- -
- -
- -
Yea
r W
ise
Tot
al
5774
91
5774
91
5262
71
5262
71
7497
36
7497
36
74
Tab
le 6
.6
TP
DD
L (
Nu
mb
er o
f C
omp
lain
ts r
ecei
ved
/Dis
pos
ed o
ff in
Las
t T
hre
e Y
ears
) 20
08 -
09
2009
– 1
0 20
10 -
201
1
Sr.
N
o.
Typ
e of
Com
pla
int
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
*No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
*No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
No.
of
Com
pla
ints
R
ecei
ved
*No.
of
Com
pla
ints
D
isp
osed
off
1
No
Cur
rent
16
2125
16
2125
19
1076
19
1076
23
6650
23
6650
2 V
olta
ge F
luct
uati
on
1284
9 12
849
1449
9 14
499
1753
1 17
531
3 D
isco
nnec
tion
98
95
9895
96
94
9690
11
831
1150
2
4 L
oad
Sha
ding
/Sch
edul
ed O
utag
es
1153
1 11
531
2240
3 22
403
3226
3 32
263
5 M
eter
ing
Pro
blem
s
4771
1 47
711
5395
9 53
954
5308
2 52
274
6 B
illi
ng P
robl
em
6406
64
06
7049
70
48
4912
48
63
7 S
ervi
ce L
ine
Bro
ken
7568
1 75
681
7609
8 76
098
1170
72
1170
72
8 P
ower
Fai
lure
of
Str
eet L
ight
s 15
710
1571
0 20
916
2091
6 44
753
4475
3
9 T
heft
Cas
es
612
612
1299
78
1 11
30
827
10
Tra
nsfe
r of
Bil
l Cha
rges
to O
ther
41
41
19
19
12
12
11
Ava
ilin
g E
xces
s S
anct
ion
Loa
d
2763
5 27
635
3803
8 38
026
3285
4 31
058
12
Oth
ers
- -
- -
- -
Yea
r W
ise
Tot
al
3701
96
3701
96
4350
50
4345
10
5520
90
5488
05
* In
Som
e ca
ses
ther
e ar
e ga
p b
etw
een
cal
ls r
ecei
ved
and
cal
ls c
lose
d du
e to
so
me
com
plai
nts
wer
e re
solv
ed i
n th
e su
bseq
uent
FY
. H
owev
er
calls
sta
nds
cl
osed
with
in th
e st
ipul
ated
tim
elin
es.
75
Chapter VII
Findings and Suggestions
Grievance redressal mechanism is a platform wherein the citizens can
lodge their complaints related to various services, voice their opinions/feedback
and also get redressal to their grievances. The effectiveness of any mechanism
can be adjudged by the prompt service delivery in terms of attending to the
complaint/consumer grievance and timely disposal of the complaint, making the
consumers believe on the efficiency of the managers manning it. An effective
complaint redressal mechanism helps both the consumers and the service
providers equally. Based on the field data and information collected from various
sources the major findings of the study are as follows:
Findings Based on the field data and information collected from various sources the major findings of the study are as follows: General Observations
1. Consumers are of the opinion that the quality of electricity supply has improved during the past 10 years, but there are several issues which needs to be taken care of.
2. The level of awareness among consumers about the electricity bill is not satisfactory. Most of the consumers are not aware about the slab wise energy charges and third party meter testing. Most of the complaints filed in the CGRFs relate to these two issues.
3. The quality of in –house complaints centres needs to be improved as many of the consumers have complained that these centres are not easily accessible. The behavior of call centre executives is not consumer friendly and cordial hence they need proper training.
4. Even after nine years of establishment of CGRFs, consumers of Delhi are not fully aware of them. CGRF of BRPL and TPDDL are situated in such periphery areas, where the aggrieved consumers find it difficult to even reach these forums. Wide publicity is required to be given in the media especially electronic media – TV, etc. on the establishment of Forums and their role.
5. Multiplicity of forums for redressal in a way provides opportunities for the consumers to get their grievances redressed through different avenues
76
but on the other hand it leads to state of confusion as to which forum would be best to approach.
6. Lot of complaints are related to billing and metering issues, if the licensees could pay more attention on them, the number of grievances / complaints filed both in the customer care centres as well as in the CGRFs would drastically come down.
7. A general perception among many of the consumers is that the decisions of the CGRFs are biased and in favour of DISCOMs. Presently DERC appoints the Chairman and Members to the CGRFs in accordance with the list recommended by the DISCOMs.
8. The problem regarding the functioning of ECGRF’s relates to the compliance of their orders. During survey it was found that the representatives of the DISCOMs don’t come fully prepared at the time of hearing, which leads to undue adjournments. It has also been found that on many occasions the ECGRFs ask for lot of documents from the consumers as well as from DISCOMs which delays the disposal of cases.
9. There is no enforcement mechanism/power given to the CGRFs to implement or execute the orders. At present, there is no fixed accountability on the part of licensee to implement the decisions/ orders of the Forums. As a result the consumer runs from pillar to post to execute the order.
10. A general perception among the consumers is that the mechanism for the implementation of the decisions of Forums should be such that individual officers / employees be made accountable for non-compliance of orders and accordingly action taken.
11. During discussion with the CGRFs and from the feedback of the consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters. There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of the consumers are not aware of this aspect. And those who are aware, they do not think the system is reliable and fair.
12. With the unbundling of Delhi Electricity Sector in 2001, the objective was that consumers will be allowed to purchase electricity from any of the three DISCOMs. But after ten years, there is no competition in Delhi’s electricity market as there is only one electricity distributor in each power supply area hence there is always a chance of increase in the electricity charges and exploitation of the consumers. It also affects consumer’s right to choice.
Findings: Perception of Cross Section
1. As far as respondent’s knowledge about information printed on the electricity bill is concerned, 73.5 percent of them read the details printed on the electricity bill and rest 26.5 percent of the respondents never read the information provided on the electricity bill.
77
2. As far as the information printed on the electricity bill, 81 percent knew about the meter No, 66.8 percent were aware of the Circle/zone, 65.9 were aware of the type of supply, 64.9 percent knew about the meter type, 60.5 percent of the respondents knew about the CRN No., 54.6 percent knew about the C A No., 54.1 percent of the respondents were aware about the sanctioned load and 52.7 percent knew about the pole number.
3. As far as slab-wise energy charge is concerned half of the respondents, 51.2 percent were aware of it. Only 39 percent of respondents were aware about the knowledge regarding Third Party Meter Testing.
4. Awareness about the Electricity Act is very less. Only 26.8 percent of the total respondents knew about the Act while majority of them, 73.2 percent were not aware of the Electricity Act.
5. The DISCOM wise data indicates that the level of awareness about the Electricity Act is highest among the consumers of NDMC (31.7 percent) followed by TPDDL (27.8 percent) and BYPL (26.5 percent). The consumers of BRPL are least aware about the Electricity Act (24.8 percent).
6. Awareness about the Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the Act is very low as only 27.5 percent of respondents know about the mechanism while 72.5 percent are not aware about any such mechanism for redressal of grievances.
7. As far as the nature of problem is concerned, 30 percent of the respondents opined that they faced the problem of no current many times followed by 27.8 percent who faced the problem of scheduled outages, while 24.9 percent faced problem of voltage fluctuation.
8. 80 percent of the respondents said they have approached the in-house complaint system for disruption in service line.
9. Among the respondents who complained to the Call Centres, 47.4 percent were concerned with voltage fluctuation followed by 42.9 percent relating to disconnection.
10. More than half of the respondents (66.7 percent) said that they used the Zonal Complaints Centre for complaint registration. As far as Web Services are concerned only 13.3 percent of the respondents said they opted for this avenue for registering their complaint of metering, followed by 7.7 percent in case of billing and 4 percent in case of Scheduled Outages.
11. As regards complaint relating to metering problem, 73.3 percent of the respondents said that their complaints had been resolved, in case of power failure of street light, 91.7 percent said that their complaints had been resolved. Similarly, 90.5 percent respondent’s complaint relating to no current, 85.7 percent respondent’s complaint regarding disconnection,
78
74.6 percent respondent’s complaint of billing problem had been resolved . Regarding voltage fluctuation 78.9 percent respondents said that their problems have been resolved, whereas 75 percent said their complaint of broken service line were resolved, 66.7 percent in case of transfer of bill charges to others and 33.3 percent in case of theft cases have been resolved.
12. Consumers of BRPL have more complaints than consumers of other DISCOMs while the consumers of NDMC have lesser complaints as compared to others. 47.6 percent of the respondents of BRPL complained that they have faced inconvenience due to failure of power supply many times in the last one year.
13. Only 30.5 percent of respondents said they approached the call centre of DISCOMs once, 18.9 percent called it twice, whereas 17.9 percent called it thrice, 10.5 percent had called in the call centre four times and rest of the 22.1 percent said they called the call centre more than four times.
14. As far as accessibility of the call centre is concerned only 21.6 percent of the respondents were satisfied to large extent. In case of the behaviour of the call centre executives, only 26.4 percent of the respondents were satisfied to large extent with the response of call centre executives. On the other hand, only 20 percent of the consumers were satisfied to large extent with the time taken by the executives of Call Centre.
15. As far as redressal /remedy to the complaint is concerned only 17.9 percent of the respondents said they were satisfied to large extent with it and more than one fourth of the consumers were dissatisfied with the remedy/redressal of the DISCOMs.
16. It was found that the awareness about the mechanism for redressal of grievances is very low. 73.5 percent of the respondents did not know about the DCDRF, 69.1 percent did not know about State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 65.7 percent were not aware about the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forums. As far as awareness regarding the Lok Adalats (set up by DERC) is concerned, only 38.2 percent of respondents knew about it and rest 62 percent did not have any idea about the existence of such a forum.
17. 85.3 percent of the respondents said that the quality of service has improved after privatization. Respondents seem to be satisfied with the electricity tariff.
18. 66.5 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the tariff cost in electricity sector is reasonable, while only 33.5 percent of the respondents said it is unreasonable. Consumers of BRPL zone are more dissatisfied with the cost of tariffs as 41 percent of them said that it is unreasonable for the consumers. Consumers of NDMC (27.5 percent) are comparatively less dissatisfied with the present cost of electricity tariff. Consumers of BYPL (36.8 found it to be unreasonable).
79
19. 82.9 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the redressal mechanism needs improvement. Time bound disposal of the complaints at every level should be adhered to, followed by 78 percent of respondents who were of the opinion that the mechanism can be improved by creating awareness among the as people regarding the redressal mechanism.
20. 74.6 percent of the respondents said that the mechanism can be improved if the dealing officers are penalized for non-compliance while 69.3 percent of them said that a unified redressal mechanism can bring a lot of improvement in the existing system of redressal mechanism. 65.9 percent were of the opinion that if the redressal forums are vested with execution powers, then they can be more effective.
21. Among the existing grievance redressal mechanism 51.1 percent of the respondents said ECGRF is the best grievance redressal mechanism followed by 19.3 percent who supported, Public Grievance Cell as the best mechanism, 17.8 percent said DCDRF is the best forum for redressal of grievances and 11.9 percent said SERC in their opinion is the best mode of redressal of their grievances.
Findings: Perception of Complainants
1. Only 6.6 percent of the total respondents had approached some or the other forum for redressal of grievances whereas majority 93.6 percent opined that they never approached any forum for their complaints.
2. Among those respondents who have approached any of the available forums, 60.7 percent of them approached the ECGRF, 36.2 percent approached the Delhi State Public Grievance Cell, 25.9 percent of them had approached DCDRFs and 29.3 percent of them approached Lok Adalats (set up by DERC). SERC is the least approached (12.1 percent) forum by the electricity consumers.
3. As regards the reason for approaching ECGRF, 61.3 percent said that they knew only about this forum, followed by 46.4 who quoted “Easy to Access” as the reason for approaching, cost effectiveness and quick redressal (42.9 percent each) were other reasons given by the complainants as the reason for approaching the forum.
4. For approaching DCDRF’s, the responses were mixed. 66.9 percent of the complainants said they knew only about this forum, 55.6 percent said it was suggested by others, while majority of them regarded none of the following - cost effective, easy to access, quick redressal and strong compliance mechanism as reasons for approaching the forum. 66.7 percent said that they knew only Lok Adalats, therefore they approached the Lok Adalat.
80
5. 42.9 percent of the respondents who filed complaint in the ECGRF and 37.3 percent in DCDRF, faced difficulty after lodging their complaint in the respective forums.
6. 37.5 percent of the BRPL complainants said that they faced difficulty after lodging their complaint, while 34.6 percent complainant of BYPL opined the same. Complainants of NDMC are the least sufferers as only 9.1 percent of them said that they faced difficulty after filing the complaint.
7. 40.5 percent for ECGRF complainants and 53.8 percent for DCDRF complainants said that their complaint is still pending in the Forums and merely 51.8 percent of ECGRF cases and 43.6 percent of DCDRF said it has been resolved.
8. 64.7 percent of the Complainants of DCDRF are satisfied with relief/redressal given by the Forum while those of ECGRF, 51.8 percent of complainants were satisfied with the redressal /relief from the forum.
9. 56.7 percent of the complainants were satisfied with the procedures adopted by ECGRF while 49.3 percent were not satisfied with the procedures of redressal being adopted by the DCDRF. BYPL zone has comparatively higher level of satisfaction with the procedures adopted by respective ECGRF than other three forums.
10. 55.6 percent of ECGRF and 83.3 percent of DCDRF complainants who are dissatisfied with their respective forum’s decisions is due to delay in decision by the forums, followed by 33.2 percent of ECGRF and 26.7 percent of DCDRF were unsatisfied with the compensation. It is notable that ECGRFs respondents who were dissatisfied with the reliefs/redressal given by the respective forums, 58.3 percent of them opined that their forums are biased in favour of DISCOMs. However this factor is pointed out by only 20 percent respondents of DCDRFs.
11. In case of functioning of ECGRF, 84.2 percent of the complainants said their complaint was acknowledged within 7 days of receipt of the complaint, 42.1 percent said it was not disposed of in time while 31.6 percent said that there is no compliance of orders.
12. In case of functioning of DCRF, 83.9 percent of the complainants said their complaint was registered/rejected within a period of 21 days of its receipt. Only 37.5 percent said that the complaints are disposed of within the time limit. 85.7 percent of them said that the compliance of orders is done. While 14.3 percent said there is no compliance.
13. 86.4 percent of complainants were not aware of the Electricity Ombudsman.
14. 27.3 percent of the respondents knew about the Consumer Protection Act. Majority of the complainants (81.8 percent) are not aware of the consumer rights. Only 37.9 percent of the complainants were aware of the redressal mechanism under the CPA, 1986.
81
15. During discussions Complainants said that DISCOMs are having resources such as technical, financial, legal & even consultants thereby they can easily counter the objections of consumers. Thus the results are in favour of licensees making the consumer aggrieved and isolated.
Findings: Perception of Chairman/Members of ECGRF
1. Majority of the Chairman /Members were of the opinion that knowledge of the Legal Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is a prerequisite and necessary in deciding the cases. One need not have a degree in law to function effectively.
2. All the ECGRFs agreed that shortage of Members, lack of technical knowledge, non-cooperation from DISCOM, shortage of stationary are the common problems faced by the forums. In case of lack of supporting staff, lack of infrastructure, lack of fund for day to day miscellaneous expenses, only ECGRF of BRPL was of the opinion that they faced these problems while the others- BYPL, TPDDL/TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that they do not face these problems.
3. BRPL furnished the complaint within 15-30 days, TPDDL and NDMC within 15 days while BYPL did the same within 5 days.
4. All ECGRF disposed off the complaints within 30-60 days. For compliance of the order of the forum by DISCOMs BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC said the compliance of orders is within 21 days while BYPL was of the opinion that it is within 30 days. Asking for undue adjournments and disinterested consumers was referred to as the reasons for the delay in disposal of complaints by the BRPL
5. BYPL and TPDDL said that they faced sometimes problems in the execution of the order. While BRPL and NDMC said that they never faced this problem. All the ECGRFs were of the opinion that they get adequate support from the DISCOMs. For Third Party Meter Testing, BRPL and TPDDL said that they face problems due to Third Party Meter Testing while BYPL and NDMC said they never faced this problem.
6. BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that the consumers are indifferent and casual towards their problems and hence not in favour of filing of complaints in the ECGRFs. All ECGRFs were of the opinion that people don’t come forward because they don’t have much idea about the Act and the redressal mechanism.
7. Members and Chairman of TPDDL were of the opinion that the members are involved in the judgment writing and due consideration is given to their viewpoint in final judgments. Chairman /Members of BYPL said that the members are involved but only sometimes, similarly Chairman/Members of NDMC said that the members are involved in the
82
judgment writing. Whereas the Chairman/members of BRPL did not answer to this question.
8. All the forums said that they don’t have funds to educate people and organize awareness campaigns to educate consumers about their rights
9. The Chairman and the Members of ECGRFs are of the opinion that they don’t have any administrative and financial powers.
10. As far as opinion regarding delay in decisions of complaint is concerned, The common reasons for delay highlighted by the ECGRFs Members are:
a. Reports are required from test labs, etc which are not in time
b. Local reports unreliable
c. Documentation not complete
d. Undue Adjournment (should not be more than two).
11. The officers/officials working in DERC are on deputation or short term assignment. By the time they understand the depth of issues, their term comes to an end.
Suggestions
Almost every year there are public protests on one pre-text or the other.
Such protests reflect that the grievances continued to persist. It also reflects that
the consumers lack faith and confidence in the functioning of the licensees.
Therefore effective, efficient, responsive and reliable consumer grievance
redressal mechanism is necessary to win consumer confidence and ensure that
consumer grievances are redressed in a time bound manner.
1. The grievance redressal mechanism in electricity sector starts with the in-house redressal mechanism. The findings suggest that a lot of improvement required in the services that they provide .For this:
a) Training of the councillors/staff/members manning the helplines, call centres, forums be done on regular basis for effective handling of the complaints. Call centres executives should have proper skills to handle a complaint. The call centres/ in house call centres needs to be more vibrant and work with a spirit of consumer welfare to increase consumer satisfaction.
b) The number of call centre executives need to be increased as most of the
time the numbers on which the consumers call are busy and therefore the consumers are not able to lodge their complaints easily.
83
c) In the present scenario consumers have to wait for a longer period on the phone line which is a costly affair and further discourages the consumers to make use of this avenue. For this a toll free number can be provided to consumers for easy access.
d) Provision of online status enquiry of the grievance should be introduced
2. The findings clearly show that the level of consumer awareness regarding
redressal mechanism in electricity sector is considerably low because of which the consumers are not able get the benefit of the provisions of Electricity Act. DERC and the DISCOMs should take the following measures to give wide publicity to forums (CGRFs):
a. Funds should be earmarked by DISCOMs & DERC to the ECGRFs for creating awareness on grievance redressal machinery and wise use of electricity as in the present scenario no such provisions of separate fund is available to ECGRFs.
b. To increase awareness about the grievance redressal mechanism prominent hoardings / signages at public places should be put up .Wide awareness/ publicity by medium of T.V. visual aids, internet be created. DERC should give adds in the FM Radio and television for wider publicity of forums for redressal.
c. Accessibility to the forum is a problem due to their poor location
hence the very aim of the forum –welfare/redressal of consumer grievances is difficult. Connectivity / accessibility of redressal forums needs to be taken care of for better and effective redressal mechanism and should be within the reach of consumers. Location of forum offices be such that they are approachable by public transport.
d. Workshops and Seminars need to be organized in association with various RWA’s to spread awareness.
3. During discussion with the ECGRFs and from the feedback of the
consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters. There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of the consumers are not aware of this. And those who are aware, they are not able to get the benefit of this provision as the contract with the third party meter agency has already expired. Therefore, it is suggested that some independent agency from Delhi/NCT region be identified and responsibility given for providing third party meter testing.
4. Mediation, conciliation can be the first step before the complaints go to the forums. Mediation centres can reduce the workload of the forums. Mediation/reconciliation system should be set up under the supervision of ECGRFs for the convenience of both ECGRFs and the consumers.
84
5. There is a need to simplify procedures and reduce documentation to
reduce delay in disposal of complaints.
6. Adequate measures should be taken to ensure that compliance of orders of the forums is ensured. The power for monitoring the compliance of the order be given to ECGRFs and in case the orders are not complied with, then ECGRF be empowered for levying penalty on DISCOMs. Provisions of sec. 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be adopted in CGRF Rules/ regulations.
7. There is no clarity as to who is controlling the forums. It should be clarified in the rules/Act as to who controls the forums – DERC or the licensee.
8. For more transparency, the DISCOMs should be brought under the RTI Act, 2005. Apart from that the forums should come up with more openness to consumer problems and should also frame a Citizen Charter for their services.
9. Powers vested with the Chairman of the ECGRF are quite limited as he has no control over other forum members. Delegations need to be defined. Punctuality in sittings/ hearings/ holding & conducting the court should be adhered to.
10. DERC should take up the overall responsibility in appointing the Forum Chairman/Members.
11. The forums should be given more administrative/ financial powers to
carry out the work effectively. ECGRFs be made independent, directly under the DERC.
12. For greater access to justice, the Forums can have sittings / hearings at different locations in their jurisdictions with a specified schedule so that all the consumers need not come to headquarters of the Forum.
13. Efforts should be made to appoint qualified people in the Forums. They should have adequate knowledge of the electricity sector.
14. For better management and effective decision making, duties/
responsibilities of the members should be prescribed w.r.t. attendance, hearing the cases, decisions, judgment writing, etc. Members should be involved and mandated in judgment writing independently. Like CDRFs, members should also be asked to write some percentage of total judgments.
15. There is a general impression among the consumers that ECGRFs are
biased in favour of licensees. The main reason is that they impose very less penalty on licensees and provide less compensation to the
85
consumers. The compensation provision may be revised in the interest of consumers and adequate amount of compensation be allowed on case to case basis.
16. Open access being one of the objectives in privatisation could not materialise even after ten years. Consumer continues to face monopolistic decision on the part of DISCOMS/ Regulator, thus competitions in the sector needs to be encouraged.
17. There is no competition as far as distribution of electricity is concerned this has made the service providers a monopoly entity which goes against the consumers. They have no choice.
86
REFERENCES
1. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011, DERC, New Delhi.
2. DERC (Guidelines for Establishments of Forum for redressal of Grievances of
Consumers and Ombudsman)Regulations 2003 ,DERC Notification,Delhi,11 March
,2004 (Published in Delhi Gazette Extraordinary Part IV), Delhi Electricity Regulatory
Commission, http://www.derc.gov.in/
3. Consumer Satisfaction Survey conducted by DERC, Feb 2009,Nielson
4. Consumer Complaint Handling Procedures Relating To Distribution And Retail
Supply(APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003)
5. Complaint Handling Procedures Relating To Distribution And Retail Supply ,BSES
Rajdhani /Yamuna Limited(APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003)
6. 10 Years of BSES Delhi DISCOMS Journey so
far…,http://www.bsesdelhi.com/docs/pdf/BSES_Delhi_10_Yrs_Journey.pdf,March 2013
7. Report on Privatisation of Power in Delhi ,PAC Third Report, Delhi Legislative
Assembly, March 2006,Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat ,Delhi-54
8. Raj Singh Niranjan, Guide to Electricity Laws in India, Part E – Consumer Protection,
Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., Chapter 18,19
9. Position Paper on the Power in India, ,Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of
Finance ,Government of India, December
2009www.pppinindia.com/pdf/ppp_position_paper_power_122k9.pdf
10. Consumer Grievance in Electricity Sector, Chapter 3,TERI Report no.2009/AO1
11. Consumer Courts and Consumer Grievance redressal Mechanisms(A study by
Voice),New Delhi
12. National Electricity Policy, Ministry of Power, dated 12th February, 2005.
87
Annexure I
List of Officials Consulted during the Study Ms. Jayshree Raghuraman Secretary
DERC Viniyamak Bhawan, C-BLOCK, Malviya Nagar New Delhi -110017
DERC
Shri Rajasekhar Devaguptapu
DERC Viniyamak Bhawan, C-BLOCK, Malviya Nagar New Delhi -110017
Mr. H.C. Chawla Chairman-cum Member (Tech) CGRF BRPL Sub Station Building Sector-V, Pushp Vihar New Delhi -17
CGRF - BRPL
Sh. Sunil Johry
Secretary CGRF BRPL Sub Station Building Sector-V, Pushp Vihar New Delhi -17
Shri K.C. Modi Chairman-cum Member (Tech) Sub-Station Building Adjacent to BYPL Regd. Off Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi – 32
Shri Ashok Ahuja Secretary Sub-Station Building Adjacent to BYPL Regd. Off Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi – 32
CGRF - BYPL
MS. Krishna Gupta NGO Member Sub-Station Building Adjacent to BYPL Regd. Off Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi – 32
Shri T.C. Gupta Chairman Chairman-cum Member (Tech) 11Kv Sub-Station Building New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009
Mr. V. B. Pandey
Member (Legal) 11Kv Sub-Station Building New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009
CGRF - TPDDL
Sh. Om Singh Deswal Member (NGO) 11Kv Sub-Station Building
88
New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009
Mr. B.M. Bhatnagar
Secretary 11Kv Sub-Station Building New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009
BSES Yamuna Power Limited
Mr. Deepanshu Agrawal Head Customer Care BSES Yamuna Power Limited Shaktikiran Building, Karkardooma Delhi- 110032
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
Ms. Renu Antony Gen. Manager, Head Customer Care BSES Rajdhani Power Limited BSES Bhawan Nehru Place New Delhi-110019
TPDDL Mr. Puneet Munjal Sr. Gen Manager, Corporate Strategy & Planning Group NDPL House Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp DELHI-110009
89
Annexure II
COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCEDURES RELATING
TO DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY
BSES Rajdhani/Yamuna Limited
(APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003) 1. Introduction: This “Complaint Handling Procedure relating to Distribution and Retail Supply” as approved by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby adopted by the licensee. 2. Nature of complaints: • No current/failure of power supply • Voltage fluctuations • Load shedding/scheduled outages • Scheduled outages/ load shedding • Metering Problems • Billing Problems 3. Where to lodge Complaints: The contact telephone number(s) where consumers can lodge their complaints as also the name and contact telephone number of the Asst. Engineer concerned, who can be approached in case of delay in the redressal of complaint would be notified as under :
• By display/dissemination of the above information on separate handouts attached to the electricity bills from time to time
• By display of the above information at the Bill collection centres
• By Display on the company Website
4. No Current/failure of power supply Power supply in premises could fail due to one of the following reasons, which could be attributed to Distribution Companies (DISCOM):
i. Fuse blown out tripping of MCB ii. Burnt meter iii. Service line broken iv. Service line snapped from pole v. Fault in distribution mains vi. Distribution transformer failed/burnt vii. HT mains failed viii. Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation ix. Planned/scheduled/emergency Maintenance work. x. Load Shedding
In case of failure or interruption of power supply, complaint can be lodged over the telephone to the Centralized Call Center of the Licensee giving the details of name, address and brief nature of the complaint.
90
“No supply” complaints received at the Centralized Call Center shall be immediately acknowledged by providing a unique complaint number to the complainant. The Centralized Call Center shall keep a detailed log of all complaints received in a database/ register.
In case the Centralized Call Center is aware that the complaint is due to any of the reasons listed at (v)-(x) above, he shall inform the complainant the reason(s) for power failure and also indicate the approximate time required for restoration of power supply. Nevertheless, he shall register each complaint received and issue a unique complaint number for such complaints also.
The Centralized Call Center shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centers. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem. Upon resolution of the complaint, the complaint-receiving center (No-current Complaint centre / Centralized Call Center) shall be informed of the status.
In case, the cause of the complaint is more severe, due to any reason(s) listed at (v)-(x) above, the Mobile service group shall inform the nature of the fault and approximate time required for rectification to the complainant and also to the Centralized Call Center. He shall also inform the next higher authority to take appropriate action to deploy additional resources and materials to resolve the complaint.
All complaints shall be monitored by the Centralized Call Center regarding resolution of the complaint within the stipulated time limit as given below:
Nature of cause of power supply failure
Maximum Time Limit for restoration.
Fuse blown out or MCB tripped Within 3 hours Suburban – 8 hours
Service line broken Service line snapped from the pole
Within 6 hours Suburban – 12 hours
Fault in distribution mains
Temporary Supply to be restored within 4 hours from alternate source, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault and thereafter Restoration of power supply within 12 hours
Distribution transformer failed/burnt
Temporary Restoration of supply through mobile transformer or another backup source within 8 hours, wherever feasible Replacement of failed transformer within 48 hours
91
HT mains failed Temporary restoration of power supply within 4 hours, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault within 12 hours
Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation
Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hoursRoster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Repair and restoration of supply within 48 hours
Failure of Power Transformer
Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hoursRoster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Replacement action to be intimated to DERC within 72 hours
Burnt meter
Restoration of supply by bypassing the burnt meter within 6 hours Replacement of burnt meter within 3 days
In case no information is received by the complaint-receiving center within the stipulated time given above, the Call Centre shall escalate the complaint to the concerned Executive Engineer.
The escalation process shall be inbuilt within the system and the calls shall escalate automatically every two hours up to the level of GM (Operations) using the server-based system until the resolution of the complaint is logged. All complaint-handling officers shall be provided with mobile wireless based communication devices for the dissemination of complaint related information.
The concerned authority would then appraise the call center about the resolution of complaint.
In the event that the next higher authority is unavailable or is unable to resolve the problem within the stipulated time, the complaint will be escalated, through the proper channel, to the General Engineer (Operations).
Daily MIS reports shall be provided to the CEO, the GM (Operations) and DGM / Chief Engineers (Distribution) giving the status of pending complaints. MIS reports, giving category-wise total number of complaints received and details of the complaints which could not be attended within the stipulated time, along with reasons thereof, shall be submitted to the Commission on quarterly basis.
92
5. Voltage Complaints
In the case of Low / High voltage, the complaint should be lodged at the Centralised Call Centre giving name, address of the complainant along with brief nature of the problem faced. The operator on duty shall register the complaint and intimate the complaint number in every case.
The Centralized Call Centre shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centres. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem.
In case problem is local e.g. due to loose connection of service line, the mobile group shall rectify the fault themselves. In case the voltage problem is due to some other reason(s), such as, deficiency in the system, the mobile group shall bring this to the notice of the Area Assistant Engineer.
The Area Assistant Engineer shall ascertain if the problem can be rectified by changing the Tap position of the transformer, and if possible, he shall do so after getting the approval from the Executive Engineer. However, in case the Assistant Engineer find that problem is due to deficiency in the distribution system requiring up-gradation of distribution lines, transformers, capacitors etc., he shall inform the Executive Engineer for taking further necessary action. The voltage problem shall be resolved with the time limits specified in Table given
below:
S.No. Cause of Problem related to voltage
variation
Time limit for the rendering
service
Authorised Person
Next higher level for
complaint
1 Local problem Within 4 hours Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
2 Tap of transformer Within 3 days Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
3 Repair of distribution line / transformer / capacitor
Within 60 days Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
4 Installation & Up-gradation of HT / LT System
Within 180 days
Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS reports giving category-wise number of complaints received and the complaints, which could not be resolved within the stipulated time and reasons thereof.
6. Scheduled outages/load shedding:
In case of frequent load shedding or scheduled outages (excluding statutory power cuts), amounting to more than 12 hours on any day, the complaint can be lodged with the Executive Engineer of the concerned area in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the receipt of such complaint and arrange to prevent such recurrences.
7. Metering Problems
93
(i) Where meter has been provided by the Licensee
As per Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, the responsibility of installing a standard meter on demand and its maintenance is that of the licensee and hence, the Licensee is required to check the meter for proper functioning at regular intervals. However, if a consumer has reasons to believe that the meter is not functioning properly, he may file application for the testing of his meter together with meter testing fee as applicable with the Asst. Engineer of the area. The Asst. Engineer would attend to the complaint as per provisions laid down in Commission’s Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations (M&B Regulations) as below:
Within 7 days of filing the application together with the testing fee, a tested check meter would be installed in series with the existing meter. If after a reasonable period of time which would not be less than 7 days, the existing meter is found to be slow or fast beyond the permissible limits, then the same would be removed leaving the check meter in its place for future metering. The account of the consumer would be adjusted suitably as per the provisions of the Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations and the testing fee deposited by the consumer would be refunded. However, if the existing meter is found to be correct, the same would be left in place and the testing fee would be forfeited.
(ii) Where meter has been provided by the Consumer
If the meter is the property of the consumer and its testing with the above procedure indicates the need for its replacement, then the Licensee shall leave the test meter at the premises of the consumer. If the consumer wishes to put his meter again he shall inform the licensee for installation. For the period the licensee's meter remains at the consumer's premises, he would pay the meter rental and usual charges as applicable. However, if the Consumer does not put his meter within a period of 1 month, and the cost of the meter shall be recovered from the consumer and meter will be left at the consumer’s premises for all future billings.
In case the problem is not resolved within the time specified, the consumer may lodge the complaint with the Executive Engineer concerned in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the complaint and take remedial action without any delay.
The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS report giving category wise number of the complaints received number of meters tested and number of meters found to be defective
8 Billing Problems
Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations have already been notified on 19th August 2003 and amended from time to time.
The procedure for resolution of complaints relating to billing has been laid in the said regulations. The complaints shall be lodged with the Asst. Engineer for resolution as per the procedure laid down. The Appellate Authority in such matters shall be the Executive Engineer.
9 Periodic Inspection by next higher authority A database comprising the complaints lodged by various categories of consumers,
type of complaint, period of redressal etc shall be maintained by the Licensee. The complaint register maintained at the complaint centre/office will be inspected by the next supervisory authorities every month that will record his views regarding the adequacy of the measures taken and the response time.
94
10 Petition before DERC for grievance redressal
SIt is the obligation on the Licensee to respond to a consumer’s complaint in a timely and effective manner as laid down above. However, if the consumer is not satisfied with the action taken by the Licensee (up to the General Manger level), he may make a complaint to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in accordance with Commission’s Grievance Handling Procedure.
Note: These procedures would be effective from the 1st of July 2003 and would be valid till further orders.
Performa for Complaints
1. Name of the complainant : 2. Address of the complainant : 3. Telephone No., if any of the complainant : 4. Consumer account Number (Optional) : 5. Brief description of the complaint : Date :
______________________ (Signature of Applicant)
--------------------------------Tear at this line--------------------------------
Acknowledgement to be handed over to the consumer
1. Complaint reference No. : (To be given by Licensee) 2. Complaint received on date : 3. Complaint received by : (Name & Designation)
_________ (Signature
95
Annexure III
COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCEDURES RELATING TO DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY (APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003)
1. Introduction: This “Complaint Handling Procedure relating to Distribution and Retail Supply” as approved by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby adopted by the licensee. 2. Nature of complaints: • No current/failure of power supply • Voltage fluctuations • Load shedding/scheduled outages • Scheduled outages/ load shedding • Metering Problems • Billing Problems 3. Where to lodge Complaints: The contact telephone number(s) where consumers can lodge their complaints as also the name and contact telephone number of the Asst. Engineer concerned, who can be approached in case of delay in the redressal of complaint would be notified as under:
• By display/dissemination of the above information on separate handouts attached to the electricity bills from time to time
• By display of the above information at the Bill collection centres • By Display on the company Website
4. No Current/failure of power supply Power supply in premises could fail due to one of the following reasons, which could be attributed to Distribution Companies (DISCOM):
i. Fuse blown out tripping of MCB ii. Burnt meter iii. Service line broken iv. Service line snapped from pole v. Fault in distribution mains vi. Distribution transformer failed/burnt vii. HT mains failed viii. Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation ix. Planned/scheduled/emergency Maintenance work. x. Load Shedding
In case of failure or interruption of power supply, complaint can be lodged over the telephone to the Centralized Call Center of the Licensee giving the details of name, address and brief nature of the complaint.
“No supply” complaints received at the Centralized Call Center shall be immediately acknowledged by providing a unique complaint number to the complainant. The Centralized Call Center shall keep a detailed log of all complaints received in a database/ register.
In case the Centralized Call Center is aware that the complaint is due to any of the reasons listed at (v)-(x) above, he shall inform the complainant the reason(s) for
96
power failure and also indicate the approximate time required for restoration of power supply. Nevertheless, he shall register each complaint received and issue a unique complaint number for such complaints also.
The Centralized Call Center shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centers. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem. Upon resolution of the complaint, the complaint-receiving center (No-current Complaint centre / Centralized Call Center) shall be informed of the status.
In case, the cause of the complaint is more severe, due to any reason(s) listed at (v)-(x) above, the Mobile service group shall inform the nature of the fault and approximate time required for rectification to the complainant and also to the Centralized Call Center. He shall also inform the next higher authority to take appropriate action to deploy additional resources and materials to resolve the complaint.
All complaints shall be monitored by the Centralized Call Center regarding resolution of the complaint within the stipulated time limit as given below:
Nature of cause of power supply failure
Maximum Time Limit for restoration.
Fuse blown out or MCB tripped Within 3 hours Suburban – 8 hours
Service line broken Service line snapped from the pole
Within 6 hours Suburban – 12 hours
Fault in distribution mains
Temporary Supply to be restored within 4 hours from alternate source, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault and thereafter Restoration of power supply within 12 hours
Distribution transformer failed/burnt
Temporary Restoration of supply through mobile transformer or another backup source within 8 hours, wherever feasible Replacement of failed transformer within 48 hours
HT mains failed Temporary restoration of power supply within 4 hours, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault within 12 hours
97
Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation
Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hours Roster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Repair and restoration of supply within 48 hours
Failure of Power Transformer
Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hours Roster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Replacement action to be intimated to DERC within 72 hours
Burnt meter
Restoration of supply by bypassing the burnt meter within 6 hours Replacement of burnt meter within 3 days
In case no information is received by the complaint-receiving center within the stipulated time given above, the Call Centre shall escalate the complaint to the concerned Executive Engineer.
The escalation process shall be inbuilt within the system and the calls shall escalate automatically every two hours up to the level of GM (Operations) using the server-based system until the resolution of the complaint is logged. All complaint-handling officers shall be provided with mobile wireless based communication devices for the dissemination of complaint related information.
The concerned authority would then appraise the call center about the resolution of complaint.
In the event that the next higher authority is unavailable or is unable to resolve the problem within the stipulated time, the complaint will be escalated, through the proper channel, to the General Engineer (Operations).
Daily MIS reports shall be provided to the CEO, the GM (Operations) and DGM / Chief Engineers (Distribution) giving the status of pending complaints. MIS reports, giving category-wise total number of complaints received and details of the complaints which could not be attended within the stipulated time, along with reasons thereof, shall be submitted to the Commission on quarterly basis.
5. Voltage Complaints
In the case of Low / High voltage, the complaint should be lodged at the Centralised Call Centre giving name, address of the complainant along with brief nature of the problem faced. The operator on duty shall register the complaint and intimate the complaint number in every case.
98
The Centralized Call Centre shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centres. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem.
In case problem is local e.g. due to loose connection of service line, the mobile group shall rectify the fault themselves. In case the voltage problem is due to some other reason(s), such as, deficiency in the system, the mobile group shall bring this to the notice of the Area Assistant Engineer.
The Area Assistant Engineer shall ascertain if the problem can be rectified by changing the Tap position of the transformer, and if possible, he shall do so after getting the approval from the Executive Engineer. However, in case the Assistant Engineer find that problem is due to deficiency in the distribution system requiring up-gradation of distribution lines, transformers, capacitors etc., he shall inform the Executive Engineer for taking further necessary action.
The voltage problem shall be resolved with the time limits specified in Table given below:
S.No. Cause of Problem related to voltage
variation
Time limit for the rendering
service
Authorised Person
Next higher level for
complaint
1 Local problem Within 4 hours Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
2 Tap of transformer Within 3 days Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
3 Repair of distribution line / transformer / capacitor
Within 60 days Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
4 Installation & Up-gradation of HT / LT System
Within 180 days
Assistant Engineer
Executive Engineer
The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS reports giving category-wise number of complaints received and the complaints, which could not be resolved within the stipulated time and reasons thereof.
6. Scheduled outages/load shedding:
In case of frequent load shedding or scheduled outages (excluding statutory power cuts), amounting to more than 12 hours on any day, the complaint can be lodged with the Executive Engineer of the concerned area in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the receipt of such complaint and arrange to prevent such recurrences.
7. Metering Problems (i) Where meter has been provided by the Licensee
As per Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, the responsibility of installing a standard meter on demand and its maintenance is that of the licensee and hence, the Licensee is required to check the meter for proper functioning at regular intervals. However, if a consumer has reasons to believe that the meter
99
is not functioning properly, he may file application for the testing of his meter together with meter testing fee as applicable with the Asst. Engineer of the area. The Asst. Engineer would attend to the complaint as per provisions laid down in Commission’s Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations (M&B Regulations) as below:
Within 7 days of filing the application together with the testing fee, a tested check meter would be installed in series with the existing meter. If after a reasonable period of time which would not be less than 7 days, the existing meter is found to be slow or fast beyond the permissible limits, then the same would be removed leaving the check meter in its place for future metering. The account of the consumer would be adjusted suitably as per the provisions of the Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations and the testing fee deposited by the consumer would be refunded. However, if the existing meter is found to be correct, the same would be left in place and the testing fee would be forfeited.
(ii) Where meter has been provided by the Consumer
If the meter is the property of the consumer and its testing with the above procedure indicates the need for its replacement, then the Licensee shall leave the test meter at the premises of the consumer. If the consumer wishes to put his meter again he shall inform the licensee for installation. For the period the licensee's meter remains at the consumer's premises, he would pay the meter rental and usual charges as applicable. However, if the Consumer does not put his meter within a period of 1 month, and the cost of the meter shall be recovered from the consumer and meter will be left at the consumer’s premises for all future billings.
In case the problem is not resolved within the time specified, the consumer may lodge the complaint with the Executive Engineer concerned in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the complaint and take remedial action without any delay.
The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS report giving category wise number of the complaints received number of meters tested and number of meters found to be defective
8 Billing Problems
Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations have already been notified on 19th August 2003 and amended from time to time.
The procedure for resolution of complaints relating to billing has been laid in the said regulations. The complaints shall be lodged with the Asst. Engineer for resolution as per the procedure laid down. The Appellate Authority in such matters shall be the Executive Engineer.
9 Periodic Inspection by next higher authority A database comprising the complaints lodged by various categories of
consumers, type of complaint, period of redressal etc shall be maintained by the Licensee. The complaint register maintained at the complaint centre/office will be inspected by the next supervisory authorities every month that will record his views regarding the adequacy of the measures taken and the response time.
10 Petition before DERC for grievance redressal
It is the obligation on the Licensee to respond to a consumer’s complaint in a timely and effective manner as laid down above. However, if the consumer is not satisfied with the action taken by the Licensee (up to the General Manger level),
100
he may make a complaint to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in accordance with Commission’s Grievance Handling Procedure.
Note: These procedures would be effective from the 1st of July 2003 and would be valid till further orders.
Performa for Complaints
1. Name of the complainant : 2. Address of the complainant : 3. Telephone No., if any of the complainant : 4. Consumer account Number (Optional) : 5. Brief description of the complaint : Date :
______________________ (Signature of Applicant)
--------------------------------Tear at this line--------------------------------
Acknowledgement to be handed over to the consumer
1. Complaint reference No. : (To be given by Licensee) 2. Complaint received on date : 3. Complaint received by : (Name & Designation)
_________ (Signature)
101
Annexure IV
DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Viniyamak Bhavan, C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011. No. 11(29)/DERC/2003-04/1265 In exercise of the powers conferred on the Commission, by Section 181 read with sub-section (5) to (7) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act 2003 (36 of 2003) and all powers enabling it in that behalf, the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission hereby frames the following Regulations, namely: 1. Short title These Regulations may be called the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011.
2. Commencement and application i. These Regulations shall be applicable to all Distribution & Retail Supply Licensees. ii. These Regulations shall extend to all the areas under the jurisdiction of the Commission. iii. These shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official Gazette.
3. Definitions In these guidelines, unless the context otherwise requires:-
(a) ―Act� means the Electricity Act, 2003;
(b) ―Chairperson� and ―member� shall mean the Chairperson of the Forum and the member, respectively and unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ‗member‘ shall also include the Chairperson;
(c) ―Commission� means Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission;
(d) ―complainant� means—
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) an applicant for a new electricity connection;
(iii) any consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any law relating to registration of societies and /or Charitable institutions or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iv) any unregistered association or group of consumers, having common or similar interests;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heirs or authorised representatives;
(vi) Any other person claiming through or authorized by or acting as agent for the consumer and affected by the services or business carried out by the distribution licensee.
(e) ―complaint� means any grievance in writing made by a complainant that—
(i) an unfair practice has been adopted by the distribution licensee in providing electricity service;
(ii) the electricity services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from defect or deficiency in any respect;
102
(iii) a distribution licensee has charged or recovered for electricity services mentioned in the complaint, a price or charge in excess of the price or charge fixed by the Commission; 2
(iv) electricity services which are hazardous to life and safety when availed, are being offered for use to the public in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force or of any license ;
(v) violation of any law or terms and conditions of license requiring the distribution licensee to display the information in regard to the manner or effect of use of the electrical services;
(vi) breach of any obligation by the distribution licensee which adversely affects any consumer;
(g) ―consumer� any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;
(h) ―consumer grievance� means a complaint/protest/objection filed by the Consumer;
(i) ―distribution licensee� means a licensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply;
(j) ―defect� means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, or standard of service, equipment or material which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or under any license or as is claimed by the distribution licensee in any manner whatsoever in relation to electricity service;
(k) ―deficiency� means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any license or has been undertaken to be performed by distribution licensee in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to electricity service or performance standard; viz Interruption/ failure of Power supply, Voltage complaints, metering problems including meter shifting, charges/ payments (billing problems), disconnection/reconnection of power supply to the consumer, new connections/extensions in load, notice of supply interruptions, violations of Electricity Supply Code, contravention of Act, rules or regulations made there under with regard to consumer interest;
(l) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the term the ―electricity service� means supply, billing, metering & maintenance of electrical energy to the consumer and all other attendant sub-services etc;
(m) ―Forum� means ‗Forum for redressal of consumer grievances‘ constituted by distribution licensee under section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003;
(n) ―Ombudsman� means an authority appointed/designated by the Commission, under sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Act;
(o) ―Commission� means the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission;
(p) Words and expressions used and not defined in these Regulations but defined in the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) or in the Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000 or in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in these Acts and in case of any conflict, the meaning assigned in the Electricity Act, 2003 shall prevail. 3
103
CHAPTER I – FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES OF THE CONSUMERS 4. Constitution of forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers (1) Every distribution licensee, shall within six months from the appointed date or grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish one or more Forums for redressal of consumer grievances in accordance with these Regulations. The Forum shall be independent of the Commission and distribution licensee. (1A) The Commission shall decide appropriate number of forums for each distribution Licensees to ensure adequacy of number of forums to consider all matters and direct the distribution licensee to establish such number of Forums. (2) Forum shall consist of not more than three members including the Chairperson of the Forum. The Commission shall invite applications for selection of Chairman and Members of the Forum and may prepare a panel of persons who are eligible according to the qualifications hereinafter prescribed and shall appoint them on behalf of the distribution licensee. (3) No person shall be eligible to be appointed to the Forum within two years of his retirement if, immediately before such retirement, he has been in the service of a distribution licensee or in the holding company or subsidiary of such holding company of a distribution licensee. 4) No person shall be appointed to the Forum or continue to be a member if he suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Regulation 5 (2) or if he has reached the age of 65. Provided that the above change in age limit from the limit prescribed in the ―Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Guidelines for establishment of Forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers and Ombudsman) Regulations 2003� would not be applicable to the Chairman and Members, who have occupied the position before the date of notification of these Regulations, till the completion of their respective tenure. (5) No persons shall be eligible to be appointed to the Forum unless he has the following qualifications: (i) Chairperson of the Forum shall be a person possessing degree in electrical engineering, having served not below the rank of Superintending Engineer and having experience in the distribution of electricity. (ii) One member shall be a person possessing degree in law and having at least 10 years of experience in legal matters, which preferably includes experience in electricity sector for a period of at least three years; Provided when the Chairperson of the Forum is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the member indicated in Regulation 4(5) (ii) shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson, until the day on which the Chairperson assumes office. (iii) Another member shall be a representative of a registered society or NGO/Consumer Organization having one of its main objectives as consumer protection, with at least 5 years of standing or alternatively the representing member should have five years of experience in consumer related matters. (6) Subject to clause (4) the term of the members of Forum shall be upto a period of three years from the date of joining the Forum. 4
104
(7) The Commission shall, on behalf of the distribution licensee, for the purpose of appointment of the Chairman and the Members of the Forum, invite applications through public advertisement and after receipt of the applications, shall select a panel of candidates, in order of merit, against each post, through a method as decided by the Commissions on case to case basis. (08) Every member of the Forum shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe to an oath in such manner and before such authority as the Commission may direct. (09) The Chairman and Members appointed shall devote their whole time to the affairs of the Forum. They shall not undertake any other part-time or honorary work. (10) The Chairman shall exercise general powers of superintendence and administrative control over his office including Members / Secretary / Staff, and shall be responsible for the conduct of business of the office. (11) The Commission shall invite applications, to select and appoint Secretary for the Forum, through an appropriate mode of selection such as Contract basis, Deputation . (12) Without prejudice to any other arrangement, the salary and allowances, if any, to be paid to the Chairman, Members and Secretary of the forum shall be paid by the Commission. The distribution licensees as may be determined by the Commission, through a mechanism as specified by the Commission from time to time shall reimburse such expenditure. The Commission may also specify the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members of the Forum. (13) The distribution licensee shall give wide publicity to the formation of the Forum and shall necessarily obtain a post box number and start a web based complaint registration mechanism, to facilitate easy registration of grievances by consumers. (13A) The address of the Forum shall be displayed at all the office(s), website(s) and in the electricity bills of the distribution licensee and wide publicity shall be given in their areas of operation (14) The Secretary shall call for the meeting of the Forum to be held at such time and at such place as directed by the Chairperson. (15) The Forum shall have sittings at the headquarters of the Forum or at any other place in the distribution licensee‘s area as may be decided by the Chairperson (16) The quorum for the Forum meeting shall be two and each member shall have one vote and in case of equality of votes on any issue or resolution, the Chairperson or as the case may be, the member of the Forum discharging the functions of the Chairperson under Regulation 4(5) (ii) presiding over the meeting shall, in addition, have a casting vote. 17) All decisions of the Forum shall be on the basis of majority of the members present and voting 18) The Commission shall direct the distribution licensee to provide secretariat and such staff to the forum, identified through the process as specified by the Commission, as it may consider necessary. Without prejudice to any other arrangement that may be made, the Commission may also direct the distribution licensees to make available such staff for the forum as it considers necessary and the distribution licensees shall promptly
105
comply with such direction. The staff so provided for the forum shall work under the administrative control of the Chairman of the forum for the duration in the forum. No staff member shall continue in the office upon attaining the age of 65 years. However, positions of staff, including that of Secretary, filled under the mode of Deputation, shall be governed by the age limit as specified by the Commission from time to time. 5. Removal of the members (1) No member shall be removed from office except in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation. (2) The Commission, by order remove from office any member, if he – (i) has been adjudged an insolvent; (ii) has been convicted of an offence which in the opinion of the appropriate Commission involves moral turpitude; (iii) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a member; (iv) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member; (v) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest; (vi) has been guilty of proved misbehavior. (3) A member shall be liable to be removed from his office in the event of any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-regulation (1) arising or being discovered: Provided that, no member shall be removed from his office on any ground specified in clauses (iv), (v) or (vi) of Sub-Regulation. (2) unless any member or nominee of the Commission, has on an inquiry held by him reported that such member ought on such ground or grounds to be removed. (4) No member of the Forum shall be removed without prior approval of the Commission .In case an enquiry as specified in the proviso to the foregoing clause has been conducted, such approval shall be granted only after the Commission has considered the report of such inquiry. 6. Other conditions of appointment (1) The Commission shall be free to consider members of the forum for re-appointment for another term, not exceeding three years, on case to case basis, with duly recorded reasons thereof, subject to fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility and no further re-appointment shall be made. (2) Remuneration and other terms of office of the members shall not be varied to the disadvantage of the member after his appointment. 7. Jurisdiction of the forum (1) The Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the complainants with respect to the electricity services provided by the Distribution Licensee except the grievances arising u/s 126,127,135 to 139, 152 and 161 of the Act and to take up a matter suo-moto if the same fulfils the requirements specified in Regulation clauses (i) to (vi) of sub-regulation (f) of Regulation 3. 6 (2) The Forum shall entertain only those complaints where the complainant has approached the appropriate authority of the distribution licensee as prescribed in the complaint handling procedure of the distribution licensee approved by the Commission
106
from time to time and either is not satisfied with the response of the distribution licensee or there is no response within the time prescribed therein or within reasonable time: The complaint shall be entertained if it is filed before the Forum within three months from the date the consumer exhausted the remedy under the complaint handling procedure or when no action is taken by the authority prescribed in that procedure within the period prescribed therein, from the expiry of such period as aforesaid, whichever is earlier; Provided further that the Forum may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain a complaint which does not meet the aforesaid requirements; (3) The Forum shall not entertain a complaint if it pertains to the same subject matter for which any proceedings before any court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or any other Forum is pending or a decree, award or a final order has already been passed by any competent court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or forum; 8. Grievance filing (1) Every grievance to the Forum must be submitted in writing or through e-mail or website based grievance registration process to the Forum stating; (a) the name of the individual or the organization, postal address, K No, and telephone number, fax number and the E-mail address (if any) of the complainant; (b) the name of the office of the origin of complaint, name of the electricity district etc; (c) a full description of the matter, which is the source of the grievance, including copies of any relevant and supporting documents, if any; (d) the relief prayed for. (e) a statement that the matter is not pending before any other court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or forum. (2) A copy of response if any from the distribution licensee shall be enclosed. 9. Grievance handling procedure for the forum (1) On receipt of the consumer grievance, the Secretary shall make an endorsement on the grievance subscribing his dated initial. (2) Within 7 days of receipt of a consumer grievance, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement to the applicant. Consumer grievances received shall be registered and serially numbered for each year, and shall be referred e.g. C.G. No. 1/2002, 2/2003 and so on. A copy of the grievance shall be forwarded simultaneously to the concerned officer of the distribution licensee for redressal or to file objection if any in writing within 10 days, in case the distribution licensee is not agreeable to the request of the complainant. 7 (3) The employee nominated / authorized in this regard by the distribution licensee or the employee named in the complaint shall furnish the parawise comments on the grievance within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter from the Forum, failing which the Forum shall proceed on the basis of the material available on record. (4) The Forum may call for, any record of the distribution licensee or from the complainant relevant for examination and disposal of the grievance and the parties shall be under obligation to provide such information, document or record as the Forum may call for. (5) On receipt of the comments from the distribution licensee or otherwise and after conducting or having such inquiry or local inspection conducted as the forum may consider necessary, and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties,
107
the Forum shall pass appropriate orders for disposal of the grievance, as far as possible, within 60 days of filing the complaint. Provided also that in the event of grievance being disposed of after the maximum period specified above, the Forum should record in writing, the reasons for the same at the time of disposing the said grievance and inform the Ombudsman. (6) The proceedings and decisions of the Forum shall be recorded and shall be supported by reasons. The decision/s of the Forum shall be based on the opinion of the majority members of the Forum present and voting. The certified copy of the order of the Forum shall be communicated to the Complainant and distribution licensee in writing within 7 days from the date of order. The distribution licensee shall comply with the order of the Forum within 21 days from the date of issue of the order. (7) The Forum may, subject to the Regulations made by the Commission in this regard, award such compensation to the complainants as it considers just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Such compensation shall be borne by the distribution licensee and would not be allowed in the ARR petition filled by the distribution licensee. (8) The Forum may issue such interim orders pending final disposal of the complaint as it may consider necessary. (9) The Forum may settle any complaint in terms of an agreement reached between the parties at any stage of the proceedings before it and there shall be no right of representation before the Ombudsman against such order. (10) The Forum shall not be bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code 1908(Act 5 of 1908). Subject to these Regulations the Forum may evolve procedure conforming to the principles of fair play and justice for efficient discharge of its functions. (11) Any complainant aggrieved by orders of the Forum may prefer a representation before the Ombudsman appointed/designated by the Commission. (12) In case of complaints received through web based registration mechanism, Clauses 9(1) and 9(2) would be applicable in such manner, as prescribed by the Commission. 8 10. Reasoned Orders Every Order made by the Forum shall be a Reasoned Order and signed by the members conducting the proceedings. Where the members differ on any point or points, the opinion of the majority shall be the Order of the Forum. The opinion of the minority shall however, be recorded and form part of the Order. 11. Orders of the Forum to be binding Subject to the right of the representation before the Ombudsman specified in these Regulations, the Orders of the Forum shall be binding on the consumers and the distribution licensee. 12 Inspection of records and supply of certified copies (1) The consumer and the distribution licensee may obtain certified copies of the Orders, decisions, directions and reasons in support thereof given by the Forum in respect of the complaint.
108
(2) Any person may obtain copy of the Orders of the Forum subject to payment of such fee and after complying with such other terms, which the Forum may specify. 13 Reports and Returns to be submitted by the Forum (1) The Forum will keep a record of consumer grievances reported to it and the results thereof. (2) The Forum shall submit monthly and quarterly report on disposal of grievances and yearly report containing a general review of the activity of the Forum to the distribution licensee, Commission and Ombudsman. The report should be submitted within 15 days of the close of the month and the quarter and within 45 days of the close of the year as per the format prescribed by the Commission from time to time. (3) Without prejudice to any other arrangement, the salary and allowances to be paid to the Chairman, Members and the staff and all other expenses to be incurred in connection with this office and establishment shall be borne by the distribution licensee as per the budget approved by the Commission. CHAPTER II - REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES BY OMBUDSMAN 14. Appointment of Ombudsman The Commission shall designate or appoint a person to be known as Ombudsman to carry out the functions entrusted to him by the Act and these Regulations. The Commission may appoint more than one Ombudsman if so deemed necessary. The Commission shall, for the purpose of appointment of the Ombudsman, invite applications through public advertisement and after receipt of the applications, shall select a panel of candidates, in order of merit, against each post, or through a method as decided by the Commission on case to case basis. 15. Qualifications, terms of appointment and removal of Ombudsman (1) (a) The Ombudsman shall be a person of integrity and repute and standing in any of the areas of law, management, engineering, finance, commerce, public administration or in non-government organizations. (b) Ombudsman shall be appointed from among such persons who have served at the level of the Secretary to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi or equivalent and in case of the persons having served in any public or private sector 9 undertaking or an NGO, whose level of experience, in the opinion of the Commission, can be treated as comparable to the aforesaid. (c) No person shall be eligible to be appointed as Ombudsman within two years of his retirement if, immediately before such retirement, he has been in the service of a distribution licensee or in the holding company or subsidiary of such holding company of such distribution licensee. (2) The appointment of Ombudsman shall be for a period of three years. (3) The Ombudsman appointed under sub-clause (1) shall devote his whole time to the affairs of his office. He shall not undertake any other part-time or honorary work. (4) The Ombudsman shall be paid such salary and allowances as the Commission may by order, decide. (5) The Ombudsman shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe to an oath in such manner and before such authority as the Commission may specify.
109
(6) The conditions mentioned in Regulation 4 regarding age and the other terms and conditions of appointment of the Chairperson & Members of the Forum specified in Regulation 6 shall, mutatis mutandis apply to the appointment of the Ombudsman. (7) The Commission may, by order in writing, remove the Ombudsman from his office on the grounds and in the manner specified in Regulation 5. (8) The Commission shall invite applications through public advertisement for appointment of the Ombudsman. 16. Location of office and temporary headquarters The office of the Ombudsman shall be located at such place as may be specified by the Commission. In order to expedite disposal of complaints, the Ombudsman may hold sittings at such other places within his area of jurisdiction as he may consider necessary. 17. Staff The Commission shall provide secretariat and staff which includes a Secretary, an Advisor (Engineering) and an Advisor (Law) to the Ombudsman, with appropriate qualifications and experience, and other necessary terms and conditions, it may consider necessary from time to time. Without prejudice to any other arrangement that may be made, the Commission may also direct the distribution licensees to make available such staff for the Ombudsman as it considers necessary and the distribution licensees shall comply with such direction/order. The staff so provided shall work under the administrative control of the Ombudsman. No staff member can continue in the office upon attaining the age of 65 years. The Commission may also specify the other terms and conditions of service of the Ombudsman, Secretary, Advisors and staff from time to time. However, positions of staff, including that of Secretary, Advisors, filled under the mode of Deputation, shall be governed by the age limit as specified by the Commission from time to time. 10 18. Expenses on Ombudsman Without prejudice to any other arrangement, the salary and allowances to be paid to the Ombudsman and to the staff and all other expenses to be incurred in connection with his office and establishment shall be shared by the distribution licensees in the proportion of power drawl during the previous year and as per the budget approved by the Commission. 19. Powers and duties of the ombudsman The Ombudsman shall have the following powers and duties: (1) To receive the representation from complainants or distribution licensee aggrieved by any order of the Forum and to exercise all the powers as are available to a Forum under these Regulations and such other powers as may be delegated by the Commission from time to time. (2) The Ombudsman shall exercise general powers of superintendence and control over his office and shall be responsible for the conduct of business of the office. (3) To advise the Commission on redressal of grievances of the Consumers.
110
20. Filing of Representation before the Ombudsman (1) Any complainant, aggrieved by orders of the Forum may himself or through his authorized representative make a representation in writing, or through e-mail or website based grievance registration process to the Ombudsman. (2) The representation shall state clearly: (i) the name/s and address of the consumer/s, service connection number, category, the name of the local distribution licensees‘ office, against which the representation is made, the facts giving rise to the representation, the grounds thereof, the relief sought from the Ombudsman. (ii) the name of the Forum, date of order or decision of the Forum shall, as the case may be, mentioned in or enclosed with the representation. (3) No representation to the Ombudsman shall lie unless: (i)The consumer had, before making a representation to the Ombudsman approached the Forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for redressal of his grievance; Provided it pertains to the same subject matter for which any proceedings before any court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or any other Forum is not pending or a decree , award or a final order has not already been passed by any competent court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or forum; (ii)The representation may be made within 30 days from the date of issue of the order of the Forum: Provided that the Ombudsman may entertain a representation beyond 30 days on sufficient cause being shown by the person filing the representation that he had sufficient reasons for not filing the representation within the aforesaid period of 30 days . 11 (iii) The person filing the representation deposits an amount equal to one third of the amount assessed by the Forum in cash or by way of bank draft with the distribution licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit is enclosed with the representation. 21. Procedure before the Ombudsman (1) Within 7 days of receipt of a consumer grievance, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement to the applicant. Consumer grievances received shall be registered and serially numbered for each year, and shall referred be referred e.g. C.G. No. 1/2002, 2/2003 and so on. Within seven days of registration, the Ombudsman shall call for records relating to the representation from the concerned Forum. The concerned Forum shall send the entire records within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice to the office of the Ombudsman. (1A) In suitable cases, the Ombudsman may endeavor to promote a settlement of the grievance through conciliation or mediation and in doing so, the Ombudsman may follow such procedure, as he considers appropriate. (2) The Ombudsman may determine the manner, the place, the date and the time of the hearing of the matter as the Ombudsman considers appropriate. (3) The Ombudsman may hear the parties and direct the parties to submit written statements /submissions in the matter. (4) The Ombudsman shall pass a written order giving reasons for all his findings and award.
111
(5) The Ombudsman shall pass an award as early as possible but in any case, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Where there is delay in disposal of a representation within the said period of three months, the Ombudsman shall record reasons of such delay. A copy of the order or award shall be sent to the parties within 7 days from the date of order. (6) The distribution licensee shall duly comply with and implement the decision of the Ombudsman on the representation filed by the Complainant within 21 days of the issue of the Order. (7) Non Compliance of the Ombudsman‘s order shall be treated as contravention of these Regulations and punishable u/s 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 22. Finality of award The award or the orders of the Ombudsman shall be final and binding on the parties. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the complainant and the distribution licensee to seek appropriate remedy against the order passed by the Ombudsman before other appropriate judicial bodies. 23. Power to call information For the purpose of carrying out his duties, Ombudsman shall have the same powers to call for records or information as are available to the Forum under Regulation 9(4). 12 24. Power to remove difficulties If any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these regulations, the commission may, by general or special order, do anything, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003, which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulties. 25. General (1) The Ombudsman shall submit to the Commission, a monthly / half-yearly report on all the representation filled during the period and a yearly report containing general review of the activities of the Ombudsman office. The report should be submitted within 30 days of the close of the period to which it relates as per the format prescribed by the Commission from time to time. (2) The Commission may, if it considers necessary in the public interest so to do, publish the reports of the Ombudsman in such consolidated form or otherwise as it deems fit. (3) The Commission may by order provide for or clarify any matter on which no provision is made in these Regulations or the provision made is insufficient. (4) The Forum and Ombudsman shall exercise such other powers as the Commission may, by order, delegate from time to time. (5) Chairman and Members of the Forum, the Secretary and the staff thereof, the Ombudsman and the staff thereof, when purporting to act under any provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 or under any provision of these Regulations or directions or orders issued there under shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
112
(6) Subject to these Regulations, the Forum and the Ombudsman shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall have powers to regulate their own procedure. 26. Power to relax
The Commission may, in public interest and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any provision of these Regulations. 27. Inherent powers of the Commission
Nothing in these Regulations shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Commission to make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Commission. 28. Repeal and Savings (1) Nothing contained in these regulations shall affect the rights and privileges of the consumers under any other law for the time being in force, including the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). (2) The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers and Ombudsman) Regulations 2003 shall stand repealed with effect from the date of notification of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011.