1
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 535
Date of Institution - 16.06.2014 Date of Order - 23.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Ashwani Kumar on behalf of Sh. Siri Ram, H. No.1473/2, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Date of Hearing – 23.6.14, 27.6.14, 08.07.2014 and 23.07.14.
1. Sh. Ashwani Kumar on behalf of Sh. Siri Ram, H. No.1473/2, Sector 30-B,
Chandigarh made a complaint vide letter dated 29.11.2013 that he received an excess
bill amounting to Rs.1,04,499/- for the period 26.12.2012 to 26.4.2013, against his
average bill of Rs.1000/-.
2. The Nodal Officer (XEN (OP) Divn.No.3) was asked to submit para-wise reply,
comments, action taken report and also the Consumption data for the last three years of
consumer on dated 02.12.2013. The Nodal Officer concerned supplied the consumption
data of the consumer and other relevant documents vide letter dated 21.01.2014.
3. Thereafter the representation of Sh. Ashwani Kumar was treated as formal
complaint and got registered as Complaint No.535. First hearing was fixed for
23.06.2014. But the SDO concerned did not appear on 23.06.14. Accordingly, next
dates of hearing were fixed for 27.06.14 and 08.07.2014.
4. The case was listed for final hearing on 23.07.2014 when the complainant (the
Petitioner) and the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh (the
Respondent) both were present. It was seen that the consumption of 20799 units
during the period 26.12.2012 to 26.04.2013 appeared to be very much on higher side
2
when compared with the average consumption of last two years (around 400 units). The
complainant stated that the excess reading could be due to meter-jumping.
5. It was also noted from the documents supplied by SDO concerned, that the meter
was got testing in the M & T Laboratory on 06.10.2013 and the same was found to be
O.K. The SDO, however could not attribute any reasons for the high consumption
recorded during the period 26.12.2012 to 26.04.2013. The SDO concerned further
informed that the existing meter has already been replaced with a new meter on
03.10.2013.
6. Since the new meter has already been installed, the SDO concerned was advised
to calculate average on the basis of new meter consumption from date of MCO and
charge the same for the period in question i.e. 26.12.2012 to 03.10.2013 with
simultaneous adjustment of the amount already charged with surcharge. The
complainant and SDO concerned also conveyed their consent to the above
methodology.
7. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
3
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 538
Date of Institution - 16.06.2014 Date of Order - 23.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia, SCO No.48, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Date of Hearing – 20.06.14, 09.07.14 and 23.07.14
Order
Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia, SCO No.48, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh (Petitioner) vide his
letter dated 03.04.2014 intimated that the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, Sector-20,
UT, Chandigarh (the Respondent) raised a bill for Rs.1,10,029/- on average basis for the
period 10.12.2011 to 06.04.2013. He pointed out that he took the possession of
Showroom on 07.12.2011 from M/s Mosaic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and started his business of
Bhatia & Co. from 03 Feb. 2012 onwards. He requested that amount already charged
be withdrawn and a fresh bill based on the consumption recorded by the new meter be
got issued.
2. The details of the record were called from the Respondent Sub Divn. The position
emerged as under :-
3. That the premises namely SCO NO. 48, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh was in
possession of M/s Mosaic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. who were running a liquor wine shop till
31.03.2011. The possession of the said premises was taken over by the complainant
from M/s Mosaic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 07.12.2011.
4. That the meter installed at the premises was declared dead in October, 2012 and
a new meter was installed vide MCO dated 11.03.2013. The Respondent SDO
conveyed that the amount for the period meter remained dead (12/2011 to 04/2013) has
been charged on the basis of average consumption from 06/2011 to 12/2011.
4
5. The representation made by the Petitioner, was taken as formal complaint and
registered as Case No. 538 on 16.06.2014. The first hearing was held on 20.06.2014
followed by another hearing on 09.07.2014.
6. Based on the details furnished in respect of consumption recorded from 08/2010
to 10/2013 by the SDO concerned, it was inferred that the basis of charging to the new
occupant, on the consumption recorded by the old occupant, may not be correct as the
consumption pattern of both occupants may not be same due to different nature of their
business.
7. The sitting of the Forum was held on 23.07.2014 and both parties were present,
it was amicably agreed to charge the consumption for the period meter remained dead
on the following basis :-
a) For the period upto 07.12.2011 when premises was being used by the previous occupant - Average on the basis of previous 6 months’ consumption.
b) For the period after 07.12.2011 when the premises was being used by the complainant - On the basis of consumption recorded by new meter replaced in April, 2013.
8. In view of above, the respondent SDO is directed to overhaul the account
on the basis of methodology as indicated in the para-7 above and charge the
amount to the consumer during the next bill. He may also ensure that the amount
charged earlier is withdrawn alongwith its surcharge.
9. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
5
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 536
Date of Institution - 16.06.2014 Date of Order - 23.07.2014
In the matter of Ms. Karishma on behalf of Sh. Puran Chand, H. No. 22/106, ITBP Complex, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Date of Hearing – 27.6.14, 3.7.14, 17.07.14 and 23.07.14
Order
1. Ms. Karishma on behalf of Sh. Puran Chand, resident of H.No. 22/106, ITBP
Complex, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh vide letter dated 02.05.2014 represented that
they have been issued bills on average basis since 2012 which is very much on
higher side.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, the Nodal
Officer/Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh was asked
for issue-wise comments and action taken report on the representation alongwith
consumption data of the consumer with copy endorsed to the complainant. The
complainant was also directed to submit the list of fittings and appliances installed
in the premises, copy of ownership, lease rent deed and the copy of the disputed
electricity bill.
3. During the final hearing on 23.07.2014, it was seen from the data that the
amount charged by the Sub Division is on higher side. After detailed
discussions, it was amicably agreed between complainant and the respondent
that the amount needs to be overhauled on the basis of consumption
recorded by the meter replaced vide MCO No. 25/733 during June, 2013. The
complainant also informed that they have already made excess payment and
are likely to vacate the premises (a Govt. Accommodation) in a month or two.
6
Accordingly, it was requested that extra amount paid by them may be refunded to
them.
4. In view of above position, the SDO concerned is directed to overhaul the account
of the consumer (for the period average was charged), on the basis of
consumption recorded by the replaced meter vide MCO No. 25/733 dated
15.05.2013 and reflect the revised amount in the next cycle bill. He is also
directed to refund the excess amount through cheque in case the refund amount
is more than 2 cycle billing, if the complainant desires so.
5. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With above amicable settlement, the complaint is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
6.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
7
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 539
Date of Institution - 18.06.2014 Date of Order - 23.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Krishan Lal, H. No. 31/11, Bank Colony, P.W.T. Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Date of Hearing – 27.06.14 and 23.07.14. 1. Sh. Krishan Lal, H. No. 31/11, Bank Colony, P.W.T. Manimajra, Chandigarh vide
application dated 18.03.2014 stated that for the period from 18.12.2012 to
18.02.2013 he received a bill for Rs.30,952/- with consumption of 6397 units. He
stated that the consumption was very much on higher side as compared to his
regular average consumption. The complainant also enclosed a receipt of
payment made by the complainant regarding the check meter fee vide Book No.
873 receipt No. 28 dated 23.4.2014 to the SDO concerned for checking of the
behaviour of the electric meter of complainant. Complainant also stated that he
made a complaint to the SDO concerned with the depositing Rs.10/- for the
challenging fees for the correction of the electricity bill. The complainant visited
number of times the office of SDO concerned regarding his grievance but all in
vain. No sufficient reply has been given by the SDO concerned in this regard.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to
the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh. He was asked to
supply para-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last three years and
action taken report by 04.04.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-
Misc/2013/231-232 dated 20.03.2014 with a copy to the complainant. The
complainant was also directed to supply list of fittings and appliances installed in
8
his house. The complainant submitted his reply on dated 13.04.2014 alongwith
photocopies of the electricity bills and the report of the appliances instruments
fitted in his house.
3. The SDO concerned in his response submitted that the check meter was installed
as per request of the complainant. As per check meter report, the meter was found
OK and as such, no action was taken. He further informed that the meter has
been replaced with new one vide MCO dated 21.03.2013 affected on 17.10.2013.
As per MCO report, the existing meter was dead stop. He also supplied the
consumption data of the said connection for last three years.
4. The consumption data of the complainant supplied by the SDO shows that almost
about 400 units consumption had been consumed by the complainant for the
period February, 2011 to December, 2012. Thereafter, for the 2 month period
(December, 2012 to February, 2013) the recorded consumption was 6397 units.
However, the next three bills were issued for 4370 units on average basis, with
meter status code defected. The consumption recorded by the replaced meter
after October, 2013 has again been found in the range of about 400 units during
the period October, 2013 to February, 2014.
5. In view of above facts, the representation of Sh. Krishan Lal, was treated as formal
complaint No. 539 on 18.06.2014 and a notice was issued to the XEN/Nodal
Officer concerned with a copy to the complainant fixing the case for consideration
on 27.06.2014 vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-539/2014/607 dated 18.06.2014.
6. The first hearing fixed for 27.06.2014 was not attended by both parties. So, it was
decided to send a notice to both the parties for the next date of hearing. As per
relevant regulation, the quorum Forum was not complete.. So, case was
adjourned for next date on 23.07.2014.
7. The sitting of the Forum was also not attended by the both parties, on dated
23.7.14. The complainant, however, subsequently came on dated 28.07.2014 to
pursue the case but the respondent SDO concerned did not appear on the both the
dates of the hearing. The Forum considered the application and the other
submissions submitted by the complainant for reaching the final observations of
this complaint. The arguments of the complainant and also considering all the
9
documents submitted by the SDO concerned and by the complainant regarding the
grievance of the complainant in this regard have been scrutinized. The main
points of the complaint and the submissions of the SDO concerned submitted to
the Forum are given below :-
a) Consumption of the complainant is almost same i.e. about 400 units for the period
of February, 2011 to December, 2012 and after the replacement of the meter i.e.
defective on date October, 2013. The consumption was also found same as in the
previous period i.e. for the period from October, 2013 to February, 2014 - about
400 units.
b) This electricity connection was D.S. category i.e. domestic connection. The
consumption of 6397 units consumed by the consumer for one billing cycle i.e.
18.12.2012 to 18.02.2013 billing cycle, appears to be on higher side before the
meter became “dead stop”. So far, the consumption data concerned, the
consumption of the complainant was same, for the period before the meter became
dead stop and after the change of the electricity meter, the consumption was
almost regularly same.
c) The SDO concerned installed a check meter vide SJO No.22/73 dated 14.05.2013
in response to the application submitted by the complainant. But as per the check
meter report, the meter found OK and no action was taken by the SDO concerned.
SDO concerned in written submissions had stated that the defective meter of the
complainant has been replaced with the new electricity meter vide MCO dated
21.03.2013 affected on 17.10.2013.
d) Under the Section 3.7 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2010, the time for change of
electricity meter and installation of new connection under this Section has been
stipulated as one month but in the present case, the office took much more time for
changing the defective meter.
I. The Forum advises the SDO to ensure that the time limits stipulated under
Section 3.7 of Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2010 are adhered. The
connected load i.e. appliances/instruments fitted in the premises of the
complainant had been with the very small load consumption, in his premises.
The documents submitted by the complainant shows that his consumption
was same in regularly billing cycle.
10
The bill has been raised to the complainant by the department is about 400
units before and after the replacement of defective meter period.
Considering all the points, the Forum concluded that the consumption billed
during the disputed period is on very high side for which no reasons could
be attributed. The SDO is directed to overhaul the account of the consumer
from February, 2011 to 17.10.2013 on the basis of consumption consumed
by the consumer on the new electricity meter installed on 17.10.2013,
keeping in view the actual payment made by the complainant for this period.
II. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
III. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
11
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 541
Date of Institution - 20.06.2014 Date of Order - 23.07.2014
In the matter of Smt. Mona Sharma on behalf of Sh. Surinder Singh, H. No.2775/C, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Mona Sharma on behalf of Sh. Surinder Singh, H. No.2775/C, Sector 49-D,
Chandigarh made a complaint. The main grievance of the complainant was
regarding the sundry charges of Rs.37,489/- levied by the Electricity Department in
the electricity bill received on 12.12.2013. The complainant stated that the SDO
concerned told that sundry charges were raised against the consumer for the
period 6.11.11 to 10.4.13 when the meter was defective and directed her to deposit
the bill including the sundry charges. The consumer also stated that the sundry
charges were raised after passage of 2 years 9 months, without any prior notice.
The complainant stated that they were not living in this house during that period,
when meter was defective and had been living in the Govt. Accommodation at H.
No. 3141D, Sec.48D, Chandigarh allotted to the complainant by the GMCH-32 and
the same was vacated by the complainant in May, 2013.
2. The complainant also stated that in the month of March, 2013, when informed by
the meter reader of Electricity Department that the meter is dead, they made
continued efforts with the concerned department to get the meter changed. The
department never informed the consumer regarding the position of the electricity
meter and the bills continued to be raised on the average basis. She attached
12
disputed electricity bills pertaining to period 6.9.13 to 6.11.13 in which department
raised the bill alongwith sundry charges.
3. This representation was forwarded to the Nodal Officer/Executive Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh for examination and para-wise
comments, action taken report and supply of consumption data for the last three
years by 30.12.2013 to the Forum. The SDO concerned was directed not to
disconnect the supply of complainant and to accept consumption charges of the
current bill till the decision of the Forum, with a copy to the complainant for supply
of proof of ownership, copy of GPA or valid tenancy in respect of the premises, list
of electrical fittings and appliances, copy of the correspondence with the SDO.
4. The complainant submitted reply vide letter dated 26.12.2013 alongwith the GPA
and the list of electrical fittings and appliances installed in the premises to the
Forum. The SDO concerned also submitted his reply vide dated 31.12.2013
regarding the complaint of the consumer.
5. The SDO concerned stated that Rs.37,479/- was charged for the dead meter for
the period 6.11.10 to 10.4.12 and also stated that the consumer did not sent any
intimation to the Sub Divn. concerned that the premises was vacant/not in use,
during the period when the electrical meter was defective. As per the consumption
data, the accommodation/premises was in continuous use of the electricity. The
meter was changed on dated 10.4.13 vide MCO No. 15/596 on dated 11.3.2013.
The meter was dead stop, as such, the sundry charges were levied. The
consumption data for the 3 years was also provided by the Department.
6. The sitting of the Forum on 3.7.14 was attended by the both parties. Due to the
non-completion of the Forum, the case was adjourned for next date of hearing on
23.7.14.
7. The sitting of the Forum on 23.7.14 was attended by both parties. The reply of the
SDO concerned and the complaint of the complainant were seen during the
hearing on 23.7.14. Forum considering the submissions made by the both parties
and observed :-
13
a) Subsequent to hearing, the complainant in response to Forum’s letter dated
04.09.14, supplied a copy of vacant report and copy of last electricity bill of H.
No. 3141B, Sector 48-D, Chandigarh, Govt. Accommodation allotted by GMCH,
Sector-32, Chandigarh vacated on 19.06.2013.
b) No reply received from Nodal Officer for the queries raised vide Forum’s letter
dated 04.09.2014 and reminded on 16.09.14 in respect of
(i) detailed calculation of sundry charges,
(ii) ascertaining the status of the premises (vacant/occupied) during the
disputed period
(iii) the reasons for average charging, though the bills were issued on Z-
code for the period 06.11.2011 to 06.11.2012.
c) On scrutiny of consumption data, it is observed that the meter was recording
consumption till September, 2012 where after the meter did not record any
consumption and the meter reader reported in March, 2013 that the meter
became dead. However, during the period November, 2011 to May, 2012, the
bills were issued with same (old and new) reading as 5999 with ‘Z’ meter status
code for NIL consumption where after bills were prepared on consumption with
meter status code as Z for the period May, 2012 to September, 2012. Thus
charging of average for the period when meter was recording consumption and
bills were being issued with Z-status code for the period 06.11.2011 to
06.09.2012 is not in order.
d) In view of above, the Forum directs Nodal Officer to re-work out the charges for
the period when the meter became dead at reading 6999 during September,
2012 upto date of its replacement i.e. 10.04.2013.
8. With above directions, the complaint is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
I.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
14
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 470
Date of Institution - 22.10.2013 Date of Order - 24.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Gurdev Singh on behalf of Sh. Atma Singh, SCO. No. 126-127, G.F., Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Gurdev Singh on behalf of Sh. Atma Singh, SCO. No. 126-127, G.F. Sector 8-
C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh vide his representation dated 13.09.2013 stated that
he received a notice from SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh vide
ECR No. 31/533 dated 19.04.2013 that excess load to the tune of 14.320 KW was
detected against NRS connection by the Enforcement Wing on 29.04.2013 during
checking of his premises. He stated that there was a double count in respect of
plug and some appliances (microwave with 1200W) were out of order. He
requested for withdrawal of the notice of the Sub Division.
2. Before treating the representation as formal complaint, para-wise comments on the
representation of the consumer were called from the Addl. Superintending
Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh by the Forum vide letter dated
13.09.2013. The consumption data of the consumer for the last three years was
also called. The applicant was also asked to supply the proof of ownership and list
of electrical fittings and appliances installed in the premises. The SDO through his
written submissions dated 03.10.2013 stated that the electricity meter installed at
the consumer premises was checked by the Enforcement Wing of the department
15
and submitted the report dated 29.04.2013. As per the report, the load was found
24.2 KW against the sanctioned load of 9.880 KW. Thus, unauthorized load of
14.320 KW was found. The penalty amounting to Rs.1,35,259/- was charged
under Section 126 of the Electricity Act through Provisional Assessment Notice
dated 08.05.2013. The Final Assessment Notice was served to the consumer on
23.07.2013. The SDO also stated that the applicant is not the consumer and thus
has no right to file the above complaint for the connection checked by the
Enforcement Wing.
3. The representation was treated as formal complaint and registered vide Complaint
No. 470 on 22.10.2013. The hearings of the case were conducted on 30.10.2013,
14.11.2013, 26.11.2013, 17.12.2013, 14.01.2014, 20.02.2014, 01.04.2014,
07.05.2014, 29.06.2014, 18.07.2014 and on 24.07.2014.
4. During these hearings, the complainant submitted that his case is not covered
under Section 126 of the Act and penalty may be charged on the basis of
amendment issued in the Supply Code Regulation by the Hon’ble JERC on
07.08.2013. On the other hand, SDO stated that the notice was sent under
Section 126 and is beyond the jurisdiction of CGRF.
5. The Forum after carefully examining the submissions made by both the parties
observes as under :-
i) That in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14, notification by Hon’ble JERC, only
Domestic Supply Category consumers have been exempted for treating them
under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in case, the load in excess of the
sanctioned load is found at the premises of the consumer. However, subsequently
through amendments notified on 7.8.2013 vide No. JERC-11/2010, the Hon’ble
Commission has considered all the LT consumers (including domestic consumers)
for not treating as Un-authorised Use of Electricity under Section 126, if connected
load is found to be at variance from the sanctioned/contracted load, as a result of
increase of load.
ii) The Forum has further noted that the checking was done on 29.04.2013 and the
connection is NRS category, whereas the amendments in Supply Code were
notified subsequently on 07.08.2013, as such, the amendments issued vide
Notification No. JERC-11/2010, are not applicable to the complainant.
16
iii) The Chandigarh Administration, Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) through
Notification dated 11th June, 2013 vide Notification No. G1-2013/01 has notified as
under :-
“No. G1-2013/1. – In supersession to previous notification issued, vide No.
G1/2011/02, dated 10th August, 2011 and in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) to Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with
notification dated 22nd June, 2004 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the Administrator, Union Territory,
Chandigarh hereby designate the following officers as the “Appellate
Authority” for the purposes of Section 127 of the Electricity, Act, 2003 :-
Sr. No.
Category of Consumers Appellate Authority
1. (a) Domestic, Agriculture Supply, Commercial/NRS Supply and other services (Upto 500 KW) of sanctioned load). (b)Small Power Supply (Industrial)
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (within his jurisdiction)
2. Domestic Supply, Agriculture Supply, Commercial/NRS Supply and other services (above 500KW of sanctioned load)
Additional Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh
3. Industrial :
(a) Medium Supply (b) Large Supply
Additional Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh
6. From above, it is clear that the Appellate Authority in the present case is Sub-
Divisional Magistrate. The Forum has no jurisdiction to take up the case where
notices has been served under Section 126 of the Act. The complainant may
approach the Appellate Authority as notified by Chandigarh Administration,
Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) for redressal of his grievance.
7. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
17
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
18
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 457
Date of Institution - 04.09.2013 Date of Order - 24.07.2014
In the matter of Smt. Kaushalya Devi, H. No. 516, Mauli Jagran, UT Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Date of Hearing - 03.10.2013, 15.10.2013, 02.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 16.01.2014, 03.03.2014, 06.05.2014, 21.05.2014, 25.06.2014, 14.07.2014 and on 24.07.2014.
Order
1. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, H. No. 516, Mauli Jagran, UT Chandigarh through letter
received on 04.07.2013 stated that she had 2 No. Domestic connections whereas
electricity bill for only 1 No. was being sent. It was further informed that her
premises (H. No. 516, Mauli Jagran, UT Chandigarh) was visited by officials from
SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh on 29.05.2013
and pointed out that the working of the meter was in order and for the second
meter, the supply was not connected. Further, the Electricity Department raised
a bill of Rs.89941/- on account of load surcharge and DMC charges.
2. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh was asked to
offer para-wise comments on the representation of the consumer and also to
supply consumption data of the complainant for the last three years vide letter
dated 06.08.2013.
3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh submitted a
reply in response to Forum’s letter dated 06.08.2013 stating that the premises of
the complainant was checked on 29.05.2013 and it was found that the electricity
19
supply was being given to a Mobile Tower i.e. was being used for commercial
purpose also. Accordingly, the case has been treated as Unauthorized Use of
Electricity as per Electricity Supply Code, 2010 and, the consumer was raised bill
for Rs.89941/-, amount assessed as per the Supply Code. It was also submitted
that electricity supply of the other connection has been connected.
4. The representation of Smt. Kaushalya Devi was treated as formal complaint No.
457 and first hearing was fixed for 17.09.2013. Subsequent hearings were held
on 03.10.2013, 15.10.2013, 02.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 16.01.2014, 03.03.2014,
06.05.2014, 2105.2014, 25.06.2014, 14.07.2014 and on 24.07.2014.
5. It emerged from the written/oral submissions made by the respondent and the
representative of the complainant on 24.07.2014 that the complainant had applied
for 2nd D.S. connection in December, 2012. Though the meter against the
second connection was installed yet the supply was connected in the month of
May, 2013. The first connection was released on 14.12.2005. Thereafter, for the
2nd connection, a regular bill is being sent by the Sub Division to the consumer
which was also confirmed by him during the hearing.
6. As per written submissions made by SDO, the charges levied were on account of
use of domestic supply connections for commercial purpose. As per checking on
13.05.2013, it was found that the supply was given to mobile tower i.e.
commercial purpose whereas the connection was D.S. category. The amount
charged to the consumer was worked out on the basis of NRS tariff and as per
Electricity Supply Code, 2010 (Page-204).
7. From the above, it is seen that though the second connection was applied in
December, 2012, same was released on 11.05.2013 as per SDO letter dated
24.06.2014. The checking of the premises was made on 29.05.2013 i.e. after
release of second connection. It appears that the assessment has been made on
the basis of total load of both the connections detected at the time of checking.
The calculation of charges on the basis of total load of both electricity connections
is not in order. The connected load of the two connections are 4.760 KW and
3.60 KW totalling 8.360 KW. The Forum directs the respondent SDO to re-
calculate the charges on account of use of domestic connection for commercial
20
purpose as per relevant instructions for the first connection with connected load
of 4.760 KW.
8. The Forum noted that the time taken for release of 2nd connection was on higher
side. The Forum advises the respondent to adhere to the time limits for
completion of various activities as stipulated under para 3.7 of Electricity Supply
Code Regulation, 2010 and standards of performance Regulation 2009 of JERC
in future.
9. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
21
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - 546-550
Date of Institution - 27.06.2014 Date of Order - 25.07.2014
In the matter of -
(i) Sh. Salinder S/o.Sher Singh, H.No. 3130, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh.
(ii) Smt. Suresh Kumari W/o. Sh. Ram Pher H.No.2804, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh.
(iii) Smt. Rajni, H. No.3511, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh. (iv) Sh.Pritam S/o.Challu, H.No.2896, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony,
Chandigarh. (v) Sh. Tek Chand, H.No. 2897, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Complainants are residents of Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh namely
Sh.Salinder S/o. Sher Singh, House No. 3130, Sector-25/D, Smt. Suresh Kumari
W/o. Sh. Ram Pher House No. 2804, Sector-25/D, Smt. Rajni, House No. 3511,
Sector-25/D, Sh. Pritam S/o. Challu, House No. 2896, Sector-25/D, and Sh. Tek
Chand, House No. 2897, Sector-25/D, Chandigarh. They filed the complaints
regarding the excess/wrong billing. The gist of the complaints is that the bills
raised by the electrical contractor on the basis of average consumption were on
higher side than the consumption of Complainants and that the tariff applied (@
Rs.8-9/- per unit) was more than the notified tariff. They alleged that the excessive
billing against the complainants is continuously going on for the last 8-9 years. The
complainants made the request for refund of all excess money paid by them to the
electrical contractor. The complainants requested that the bills of the electricity
consumed by them be prepared on the basis of Tariff Order of the U.T. Electricity.
22
It was prayed that they stated that their electricity may not be disconnected without
sending any notice in regard of the pending bills. Complainants also attached their
earlier complaints sent to the concerned SDO Electricity and the electrical
contractor from time to time. The disputed electricity bills that were raised by the
electrical contractor against them, were also attached.
2. Before the complaints of the complainants were treated as formal complaints, the
representations were sent to the concerned Nodal officer/XEN vide letter dated
16.06.14, for the para-wise reply and the action taken report on representation of
the consumers alongwith supply of the consumption data for the last 5 years with a
copy to the complainants for supply the following information/documents to Forum
i.e. list of electrical fittings and appliances, proof of ownership and copy of GPA or
valid tenancy in respect of the premises etc.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 01.07.2014 submitted the facts of the case that the power supply in the
Rehabilitation Colony has been allotted to the contractor M/s Rakesh Mishra and
Co. The SDO further submitted that the status of the 5 complaints (as supplied by
Sh. Rakesh Mishra) that the energy meter of all the complainants were burnt and
they were found using direct supply. All the 5 complainants figure in the Defaulter
list of the contractor. He further stated that the JE of the Sub Division deputed to
check status of power supply of all the 5 complainants reported that direct supply
was being used. The photographs showing the uses of electricity directly as
supplied by contractor were also attached. The SDO also enclosed copy of DDR
dated 18.03.2013 regarding damage of the office of contractor and destruction of
register maintained for keeping the record of billing and payment made by all the
consumers.
4. The complaints were registered as formal complaint Nos. 546-550 on 27.06.14 as
the matter of these 5 No. Complainants was same and the respondent parties
were also same. All the complaints have been clubbed for issuance of a single
order.
5. The first hearing was conducted on 04.07.14 when both the parties appeared but
the contractor was not present. Accordingly, another hearing was held on 16.07.14
when all the 5 complainants, SDO concerned and electrical contractor Sh. Rakesh
23
Mishra were present. The electrical contractor stated that the complainants were
indulging in direct supply bypassing the meter which forced him to raise bills on
averages instead of the readings recorded by the meters. The complainants,
however, denied the allegations. The SDO concerned supplied the data in respect
of all the five complainants from March, 2013 to May, 2014 with details of reading
of the meter. The tabulated information included the amount of the bills issued by
the contractor, consumption as well as tariff charged and the revised calculation of
bill amount on the basis of notified Tariff rate and actual consumption/average
consumption (on the basis of previous corresponding period/on load basis). It was
also reported that the meters were found in working order but the consumers were
found using electricity directly by putting kundi on service lines as the power supply
was disconnected due to non-payment.
6. As per the SDO’s calculation, the refundable amount to the complainants on
account of difference in bills raised by the contractor and as revised by the Sub
Division for the period of 12 months worked as follows :-
S. No.
Name Address Refundable Amount
1. Sh. Tek Chand H. No.2897, Sec.25D.
Rs.1866/-
2. Sh. Salinder H. No. 3130, Sec.25D.
Rs.3749/-
3. Sh. Pritam H. No. 2896, Sec.25D.
Rs.758/-
4. Smt. Rajni H. No. 3511, Sec.25D.
Rs.7158/-
7. The Forum also noted that the electrical contractor – Sh. Rakesh Mishra besides
charging higher average was applying higher tariff rate per unit. The SDO vide
Memo.No.1750 dated 17.07.14 supplied month-wise notified tariff rate as under :-
Month & Year Rate (Rs.) per unit
March, 2013 3.85
April, 2013 2.77
May, 2013 3.19
June, 2013 4.17
24
July, 2013 3.86
August, 2013 3.86
September, 2013 3.96
October, 2013 3.34
November, 2013 3.95
December, 2013 2.94
January, 2014 2.92
February, 2014 3.34
8. The Forum after going through the documents and the facts of the case,
observed:-
a) The contractor was issuing bills to the complainants at a higher tariff rate and also
taking higher consumption at random without any basis, on the plea that the
complainants were bypassing the meter and they were not paying the bills issued
by him for quite sometime.
b) The bills issued by the contractor lacks the basic minimum information as
prescribed under Sub-Regulation 20 of the Regulation 8.1 of Supply Code
Regulations, 2010 issued by Hon’ble JERC, such as arrear, connected load, tariff
rate etc.
c) The complainants also admitted that they were not paying the bills of the contractor
for quite sometime on the plea that the inflated bills were being raised.
d) From the photographs shown by the contractor and the report of JE, the use of
direct supply, bypassing the meter/kundi connection cannot be ruled out.
9. Considering above, the Forum is of the view that both electrical contractor and
complainants are indulging in unfair means not permitted under Regulations. The
electrical contractor is bound to issue the bills on the basis of reading at the notified
tariff whereas the consumers are supposed to pay the bills regularly. The
complainants should restrain themselves from kundi/direct connection bypassing
the meter failing which the contractor is free to lodge FIR for theft of electricity as
per the Electricity Act, 2003. The complainants should also clear their defaulting
amounts. The SDO concerned in consultation with the contractor and
complainants may work out the number of instalments to clear the defaulting
amount.
25
10. With regard to complainants submissions for overhauling the account for last 8-9
years, the Forum observed that the Electricity Act, 2003 under Section 56(2)
stipulates that no sum due from any consumer is recoverable after the period of
two years from the date when said sum became first due. The Forum is therefore,
of the view that the account of the consumers can be overhauled for a period upto
2 years.
11. In view of above, the Forum directs the Nodal Officer to get the accounts of
all the 5 complainants overhauled for a period of 2 years as provided under
Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. He is also directed to ensure the
compliance of issuance of proper bills as per recorded consumption and
notified tariff, to the consumers by the contractor in line with Sub-Regulation
20 of the Regulation 8.1 of Supply Code Regulations, 2010. The SDO may
also be directed to make regular checking/inspection of the record of the
contractor to check the compliance.
12. The details of the overhauled amount of all the 5 No. Complainants and the
compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
13. With above directions, the complaints are treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
14. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
I.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
26
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 558
Date of Institution - 07.05.2014 Date of Order - 28.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Bhagwan Dass Ahuja, H. No. 2345, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Bhagwan Dass Ahuja, H. No. 2345, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh represented that
for the period September, 2012 to September, 2013, he went to U.S.A. and all the
floors of his house (GF, FF and SF) remained locked and thus, there was no
consumption of electricity. However, on his return, in September, 2013 he noted
that the bills were being served for all the three connections. Though bills against
two connections were revised, the other bills were incorrect. He requested the
SDO for preparation of bills on the actual reading vide letter dated 12 December,
2013.
2. Before the representation was registered as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer
Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh was
called upon to comment upon the representation and also to supply the
consumption data for the last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 27.12.2013.
3. In response to Forum’s letter, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1,
UT, Chandigarh informed that the bills were corrected on the basis of reading.
4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No. 558 on 23.09.14 and was
fixed for hearing on 16.10.2014. The SDO attended the hearing but the
complainant did not attend. The SDO informed that the bills of the complainant
have already been revised to the satisfaction of the consumer. He also supplied a
27
photocopy of the register showing item of sundry allowance of Rs.1936/- in favour
of the complainant towards account No.2347/234503R.
5. The Forum observed that the grievance of the consumer has already been
redressed to his satisfaction and the complaint stands disposed off.
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
28
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 522
Date of Institution - 07.05.2014 Date of Order - 28.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. N.K. Gupta, H. No.2211-A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. N.K. Gupta, resident of H. No.2211-A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 18.12.2013 complained about receipt of heavy amount bills for the period
10.05.2012 onwards.
2. The complaint was forwarded to Nodal Officer Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’
Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh for examination/comments and also to supply the
consumption data of the consumer for last three years vide Forum letter dated
19.12.13.
3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 19.12.13 to Nodal Officer, the concerned SDO,
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 21.03.14
submitted that the energy meter of the consumer was replaced on 26.02.2013 vide
MCO dated 18.02.2013 as the consumer was found dead stop. The SDO also
submitted that the consumer account is required to be overhauled for the period
10.9.12 to 26.02.13 on the basis of previous consumption. The consumption data
of the consumer for three years was also supplied.
4. The representation of Sh. N.K. Gupta was registered as formal complaint No. 522
on 07.05.14 and was listed for hearing before the Forum on 23.05.14. The hearing
on 23.05.14 was attended by both the parties. Subsequent hearings were
conducted on 11.6.14, 03.07.14 and 28.07.14. The complainant did not attend the
last three hearings which were attended by the SDO only.
29
5. On perusal of the consumption data, it was observed that there was abrupt
increase in the consumption from 10.05.12 onwards as compared to the
consumption for the past one year. The consumption recorded during the disputed
period was more than 3 times the recorded consumption for the corresponding
period during previous year. On comparison of the consumption, it was not found
to be of accumulation of the reading. Both the parties agreed for overhauling of
the account from the period 10.05.12 to date of MCO i.e. 20.02.13 on the basis of
consumption for the period 10.05.11 to 10.05.12.
6. The SDO vide his letter dated 11.06.14, submitted that the consumer account has
been overhauled for the 9 month period from 10.05.12 to 20.02.13 and amount of
Rs.27,113/- was refunded/adjusted vide sundry item No. 30/84 dated 11.06.14, to
be reflected in the next billing cycle.
7. As the consumer account has been overhauled by the SDO to the satisfaction of
the complainant, the complaint stands disposed off.
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
30
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 542
Date of Institution - 20.06.2014 Date of Order - 28.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Sat Parkash on behalf of Sh. Inderjit Bedi, SCO No.284, Sector-32D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Sat Parkash on behalf of Sh. Inderjit Bedi, SCO No.284, Sector-32D,
Chandigarh vide his representation dated 12.6.2014 stated that he has an NRS
connection at SCO No. 284 Sector 32-C, Chandigarh. He stated that he received
a bill wherein sundry charges were levied on account of cost of burnt meter and
average for the period the meter remained burnt. He also raised that the charging
of ACD is un-justified.
2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer i.e.
Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh was called upon to
submit the para-wise comments on the representation and also to supply the
consumption for the last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 16.6.2014.
3. In response to Forum’s letter addressed to the Nodal Officer/Executive Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-
Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh submitted the facts of the case vide letter dated
07.07.2014. It was stated that the meter was burnt due to short circuit as intimated
by the staff deputed for checking on receipt of complaint from the complainant
about disruption of his supply. The service cable of the connection was also found
to be burnt alongwith the meter. The burnt meter was replaced on 04.03.2013 vide
MCO dated 19.02.2013. Regarding charging of amount of Rs.11,526/-, he stated
31
that same was charged vide Half Margin No. 1367 dated 15.10.13, including the
meter cost of Rs.7750/- and Rs.3776/- on account of average for the period
08.01.2013 to 04.03.2013. On the issue of charging of ACD, it was stated that
same is being levied as per instructions, on the basis of consumption recorded
during the previous year. The consumption data for the period 01/11 to 26.03.2014
was also supplied.
4. The representation of Sh. Sat Parkash on behalf of Sh. Inderjit Bedi, SCO No.284,
Sector-32D, Chandigarh was treated as formal complaint No. 542 and was fixed for
consideration by the Forum on 07.07.2014.
5. During the hearing on 07.07.2014, the complainant reiterated his grievances. As
the SDO was not present, the next date of hearing was fixed for 21.07.2014, which
was not attended by any of the party. Subsequent hearing was held on
28.07.2014, when both the parties were present and made oral submissions before
the Forum.
6. From the submissions made by both the parties, the Forum observed that on
3.6.2012, the consumer made a complaint about disruption of his electric supply.
The officials of the Sub Division informed the complainant that the 3 phase cable
got burnt and the meter terminals also got damaged. The meter with burnt
terminals continued to be inoperation and bill was being prepared on the basis of
reading till 4th March, 2013 when it was got replaced with a new meter. The copies
of the complaint register supplied by the SDO also showed that the 3 phase cable
was found burnt alongwith meter.
7. From the representation as well as remarks given in the complaint register, it
appears that the meter terminals and the 3 phase cable got burnt due to some
short circuit/fault in the premises of the consumer.
8. Regarding complainant’s plea for not charging the cost of meter, the Electricity
Supply Code Regulations, 2010, as notified by the Hon’ble JERC provide under
Regulation 7.8 provides :-
“7.8 - Cost of Replacement of Defective/Burnt meters –
(1) The cost of replacement of meter shall be borne by the consumer or by the Licensee subject to following conditions :
(i) If, as a result of testing, it is established that the meter was burnt due to technical reasons viz. Voltage fluctuation,
32
transients etc. attributable to the Licensee the cost of the meter shall be borne by the Licensee. However, if it is established that the meter was burnt due to reasons attributable to the consumer viz. Defect in consumer’s installation, connection of unauthorized load by the consumer etc. the cost shall be borne by the consumer.”
9. From the above facts of the case, it appears that the meter got burnt due to
reasons attributable to the consumers as the 3 phase cable also got burnt
simultaneously. Thus, cost of meter is to be borne by the consumer. It has further
been noted that the Sub division has charged Rs.7750/- towards cost of meter as
clear (from the para 4 of the written submission made by the SDO vide Memo. No.
2456 dated 7.7.2014) as mentioned in para-2 above. However, the Tariff Order for
FY 2014-15 as issued by Hon’ble JERC, provide the charges recoverable from the
consumer when the meter is found burnt owing to negligence or default on the part
of consumer as Rs.1550/- (3 phase meter under Sr. No.O of Miscellaneous and
General Charges) at Page No. 201. Thus, it has come to notice that the cost of
meter to be charged from the consumer may not be correct. So far as charging of
ACD or average during the period meter remained burnt, it is seen that the
charging done by the Sub Division is in order. The complainant also got convinced
about this during hearing on 28.07.2014.
10. With above findings, that the cost of meter is recoverable from the consumer and
charging on account of average is in order, the complaint stands disposed.
However, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the amount to be charged towards
cost of meter from the consumer reconciled as per observation in para-9 above.
11. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days with regard to amount to be charged
towards cost of burnt meter. In the event, the amount charged is found to be in
excess, the same may be refunded.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
33
12. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
13.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
34
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 490
Date of Institution - 13.11.2013 Date of Order - 28.07.2014
In the matter of Smt. Usha Rani, House.No.2255/2, MWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Usha Rani, resident of H.No.2255/2, MWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh vide
letter dated 07.10.2013 , represented that she had applied for Change of name and
Extension of Load of her domestic connection to NRS category to the SDO, Electy.(OP)
Sub Division No.8 on 12.09.2012. The needful was done in respect of Change of Name
and load extension on 04.12.2012. Subsequently, she approached the departments on
20.05.2013 for conversion of this DS to NRS account with extension of load to 18.590
KW for using the connection for Atta Chakki. It has been stated that though she
produced the registration from the Industry Department UT, yet the connection was not
released for want of Pollution Certificate from the Pollution Board of U.T., Administration.
The demand notice was issued on 10.09.2013, after fifteen days of the undertaking
given by her on 26.07.2013. The period of fifteen days was more than the period
specified in the standard performance issued by the JERC. It was further stated that the
demand notice was not accepted in the absence of pollution certificate which is not a
requirement as per the Supply Code but the office is adamant on the issue and her case
is being delayed intentionally.
2. Before this complaint was taken as formal complaint, the Executive Engineer,
Electricity, (OP) Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh was asked to examine and to submit
35
parawise comments/action taken report on the representation of consumer by
31.10.2013 vide Forum’s letter dated 09.10.2013.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy.(OP) Sub Division No.8, Manimajra, Chandigarh
made written submission to the Forum on 30.10.2013 stating that as per Chandigarh
Administration Gazette dated 20.08.2002, the Pollution Certificate is mandatory for
taking any Industrial Connections. He further stated that the applicant has not taken the
consent from pollution authorities and as such the connection has not been released.
He also supplied a copy of guidelines/checklist available on the Internet in respect of
obtaining clearance from Pollution Control Board for Industrial Connections.
4. The representation of Smt. Usha Rani was treated has a formal Complaint
No.490 and was fixed for consideration by the Forum on 22.11.2013.
The first hearing of the Forum was held on 22.11.2013 which was attended by the
complainant. The SDO did not attend. The case was adjourned for 05.12.2013. The
SDO could not come from the proceedings and deputed Sh. Joginder Pal Singh, RA of
the Sub Division. The complainant stated that the connection was not being released for
wants of pollution clearance certificate. The complainant produced a Letter from
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India which provided that there
would be no need for the industry to obtain periodical renewal of the consent and the
acknowledgement by the State Pollution Control Boards would serve the purpose in
respect of small scale industries. The complainant further informed that the Sub Division
has released connection to Mishra Atta Chakki, Mouli Jagran in the absence of pollution
certificate. The representative of the sub division was directed to bring the complete
record of case of release of connection in respect of Mishra, Atta Chakki. The next
hearing of the Forum was held on 12.12.2013 and then on 20.12.2013, the SDO
submitted that the office record of releasing of Electricity Connections to Mishra, Atta
Chakki could not be traced. He however showed the record file of the Pal Atta Chakki.
It was noticed that the applicant had submitted the pollution clearance certificate before
release of connection. The SDO was again directed to trace out the file of Mishra Atta
Chakki before adjourning the case for 10.01.2014.
36
5. On 10.01.2014 only complainant was present and submitted a documents which
provided that Atta Chakki’s were in the list of green categories of industries and
exempted from obtaining NOC/consent of Punjab Pollution Control Board. Similar,
clarification in respect of Haryana was also supplied on the next date of hearing on
05.02.2014, which was attended by both the parties. The SDO again submitted that the
consumer case of Mishra, Atta Chakki, could not traceable after making sincere efforts.
The complainant was also directed to submit consent/NOC of the Pollution Control
Board, U.T., Chandigarh for getting process the application for release of Industrial
Connections. Further, hearing was held on 25.02.2014, 11.04.2014, and on 30.05.2014.
6. During the hearing on 30.05.2014 the representative of SDO informed that the
consumer had submitted the consent from Pollution Control Board and other documents
and the connection has been released vide SJO. No.74/155, dated 09.04.2014. The
photocopy of relevant documents were also submitted to the Forum. The Forum noted
that the department has addressed the Grievances of the consumer by releasing the
connection after the pre-requisite formalities were completed by the applicant. The
Forum however, could not disposed off the case as the quorum was not complete. The
one member Forum extended the limitation period upto 30.07.2014 while adjourning the
case for 28.07.2014.
7. On 28.07.2014, both the complainant and the respondent SDO were present.
The complainant submitted that they were un-necessarily harassed by the respondent
for insisting on consent of the pollution board for releasing the Atta Chakki connection.
The SDO again submitted that the consent of the Pollution Board was mandatory for
release of Atta Chakki connection. As soon as the applicant submitted the clearance
from Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee and other documents the connection, was
released on 09.04.2014.
So, the Forum after examining the documents submitted by the applicant
and respondent reached the conclusion that the consent of pollution was a pre-
requisite for release of Atta Chakki Connection in Chandigarh. The applicant did
not submit the same in September 2013, along with other details and produced
the same to the office of SDO only in the last week of March 2014/ First week of
April 2014, and the connection was released vide SJO. No.74/155, dated
37
09.04.2014. The Forum do not agree with the allegation made by the consumer
that the SDO was un-necessarily demanding the pollution certificate to harass
them. As the connection has already been released and the consumers
Grievances addressed, the cases is considered disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
1.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
38
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 477
Date of Institution - 25.10.2013 Date of Order - 30.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Arvind Oberoi, on behalf of Lt. Col. Saurabh Gupta, H.No.3283, Sector-15/D, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. A complaint was made by Sh. Arvind Oberoi on behalf of Lt. Col. Saurabh Gupta,
the owner of House.No.5724, Sector-38, West, Chandigarh, on 18.09.2013 that the
electricity department served a bill in November 2013, with an arrear of Rs.67,092/-
against the D/S Connection. Mr. Arvind stated that the owner is posted at Jamnagar
(Gujrat) and the house lies vacant and as such there is no consumption in the premises.
He also mentioned that on contacting the Sub Division, he was told that the arrear is on
account of past period when the house remained occupied.
2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the Forum vide letter
dated 18.09.2013 called for parawise comments of the Executive Engineer, Electy.(OP)
Division No.4, Chandigarh along with consumption data of the consumer for last 3
years.
3. In response to Forum letter referred to in Para 2, the SDO, Electy.(OP) Sub
Division No.10, through written submissions dated 27.09.2013 conveyed that the meter
installed at the premises was found defective and was replaced vide MCO.No.171/677
dated 04.05.2013, effected on 16.05.2013. It was also stated the consumption from
20.07.2011 was shown as ‘Nil’ in the bills issued for the period 20.07.2011 to
20.05.2013. Accordingly, the average on the basis of consumption during previous 6
39
month period (from 20.01.2011 to 20.07.2011) was charged to the consumer for the
period of 20.07.2011 to 16.05.2011 (date of replacement of defective meter). The
Consumption data for the last 3 years was also supplied as desired by the Forum.
4. The complaint was treated as formal complaint and registered as Comp.No.477,
on 25.10.2013.
5. The first hearing fixed for 07.11.2013 was not attended by the applicant. The
SDO did not come but deputed his ARA to make submissions in the case. The SDO
was directed to get the position of occupancy enquired from the neighbours to check the
statement made by the complainant. The Forum also decided that complainant he
asked to submit proof/ supporting evidence or affidavit that the house remained un-
occupied during the period under reference.
6. Thereafter hearings were conducted on 13.12.2013, 15.01.2014, 05.03.2014,
26.04.2014, 20.04.2014, 13.05.2014, 05.06.2014 and 30.07.2014. Despite repeated
written notices/ telephone calls, the complainant did not attend any of the hearings
though SDO was present in most of the hearings.
On the basis of subsequent written submissions made by the SDO, the
Forum observed that as per direction of the Forum, Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, JE-I was
deputed by the SDO to enquire from the neighbour with regard to occupancy of the
premises. As per report submitted by official, the house was on rent. For only 3-4
months the house remained vacant after shifting of old occupant (Tenant). The
complainant however did not submit any evidence/affidavit in support of the submissions
made in the representation despite repeated reminders by Forum.
The Forum also noted that the amount of the bill was paid in two
instalments of Rs. 40,000/- vide R.No.41675281 dated 15.10.2013 and Rs.33,341/- vide
R.No.41690735 dated 11.11.2013.
7. The complaint was initiated on 25.10.2013. The case could not he disposed off
within the specified period. The period of limitation was got extended from time to time
by one member as the quorum to announce the decision was not complete. The last
extension was allowed on 05.06.2014 upto 05.08.2014.
40
8. As the complainant does not seem to pursue his case despite number of
opportunities afforded by the Forum and also that the consumer has made payment
for the disputed bill, the Forum see no merit in pursuing the case further and dismiss the
complaint.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
1.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
41
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 540
Date of Institution - 20.06.2014 Date of Order - 30.07.2014
In the matter of Dr. Mangla Dogra, H.No. 8, Sector-19A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Dr. Mangla Dogra, resident of H. No. 8, Sector-19A, Chandigarh vide letter dated
13.01.2014 represented that the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT,
Chandigarh has raised an amount of Rs.5,10,255/- in pursuance of ECR dated
27.11.2013. The Final Assessment Notice included the assessment on account of
meter declared slow and charging of Rs.8529/- on this account besides charging
for commercial activity (Rs.2,54,076/-) and Rs.2,21,760/- towards fixed charges @
Rs.70/- per KW. On the issue of charging for the meter declared slow, the
complainant stated that the department never did any inspection/testing of the
meter as per Regulations 7.4 of the Supply Code Regulations, 2010 and as such,
the amount charged is not justified. On the issue of domestic electricity connection
being used for commercial purposes i.e. Nursing Home and charging of
Rs.2,54,076/- as per Regulations 8.1 (6) of Supply Code, 2010, it was submitted
by the complainant that earlier the category of electricity connection at their
premises was being treated as DMC on account of running of commercial activity
(Nursing Home), the tariff of which is at par with NRS tariff. The Electricity
Department of their own changed the category from DMC to DS and thereafter
inspected the premises and levied the charges on this account. Taking a shelter of
Clause 6.1.2 of Supply Code 2010 that in case of non-sanction of new category,
the licensee shall get it converted to appropriate category after completing of
42
necessary formalities. A reference has also been given on the following orders of
CGRF :
“ a) Order dated 28.12.11 in the matter of Sham Singh Vs. Executive Engineer,
Electricity ‘OP’ Divn. No.2.
b) Order dated 20.07.12 in the matter of Holiday Home Society, Indra Holiday Home, Sec.24B, Chandigarh UT Vs Executive Engineer, Electricity ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, SDO Electricity ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1, UT Chandigarh.
c) Order dated 17.04.13 in the matter of Sh. Tarlochan Singh, Sec.42, Chandigarh UT Vs Executive Engineer, Electricity ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, SDO Electricity ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9, UT Chandigarh.”
It was stated in the representation that the CGRF had already directed the licensee
to convert the DMC consumers to NRS category. The consumer also enclosed the
Chandigarh Administration order dated 27.11.2009 converting the premises from
residential side to Nursing Home. The consumer prayed that electricity supply
charges at the tariff relevant category of actual use i.e. NRS shall be charged by
the Electricity Department. On the issue of charging of fixed charges @ Rs.70/-
per KW from 23.05.12 to 27.11.13 amounting to Rs.2,21,760/-, the consumer
objected that penalty imposed is not justified in view of the objection raised against
the point No.2. It was also stated that amount worked out for fixed charges is not
as per Regulation 10.3(c) (iii) of Supply Code. The consumer also showed
willingness to regularise the DMC/DS connection tariff to NRS connection.
2. Before the complaint was formally registered, the comments on the representation
of the consumer were called upon from the Nodal Officer - Executive Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 14.01.14 alongwith past
consumption data.
3. In response to Forum’s letter, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3,
UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 30.01.14 submitted that the connection of the
complainant was checked vide ECR No. 20/503 dated 27.11.13 by the
Enforcement Wing of the Electricity Department. During checking the meter was
found to be running slow by 8.83%. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.8529/- was
charged as per Regulation No.7.5 of the Supply Code for the period 23.8.13 to
27.11.13. This was also pointed out in the ECR that the domestic connection was
being used for commercial purpose i.e. Nursing Home. The amount of
43
Rs.2,54,076/- was correctly charged as per Supply Code 2013 which provides that
in case of use of supply for the category of which higher tariff is applicable twice
the difference of applicable tariff and the tariff charged already recovered is to be
charged to the consumer. With regard to charging of DMC tariff, the SDO
submitted that in the present notified tariff by Hon’ble JERC, there is no such
category. He also submitted that the consumer was requested through notice
printed on the bill issued on 21.10.12 to regulate the DMC connection to originally
sanctioned connection to avoid penalty but the complainant did not bother to get
his electricity connection converted to NRS. During the checking the connected
load was found in excess for which the penalty was charged as per Regulation
No.7.7 (i) (ii) of the Supply Code Regulation 2010 amounting to Rs.1250/-. For the
commercial tariff, the fixed charges @ Rs.70/- per KW are also applicable which
have been charged from 23.5.12 to 27.11.13 amounting to Rs.2,46,400/- as per
Tariff Order dated 07.05.12 i.e. twice the financial loss to the Electricity
Department. He further submitted that the total amount of Rs.5,10,255/- charged
to the consumer as per checking by the Enforcement Wing is correct and as per
applicable instructions. He also supplied the consumption data of the consumer for
the past 3 years.
4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.540 on 23.06.14. The
hearing of the case was conducted on 30.07.14 when the SDO as well as
representative of the consumer were present.
5. On the basis of the documents placed before the Forum and the position of the
case emerged as under :-
i) Since 1999, the Electricity Department was changing the category of domestic
connections to domestic Misuse Commercial (DMC) whenever it was found that
the consumer was undertaking the commercial activity from his residence. The
tariff charged for DMC category was same as applicable for commercial
consumers. However, the JERC while notifying the various categories of
consumers and the applicable tariff did not include any such category of DMC
(domestic misuse commercial). This fact came to the notice of CGRF in the
year 2011 and after going deep into the matter, the Forum in the order dated
27.7.12 of Holiday Home Society registered in complaint No.290 ruled out that
44
the department of Electricity has not been empowered to declare any connection
use for commercial purpose and already paying the NRS tariff under DMC
category. It was directed that till such time, the DMC consumers is converted to
NRS category, the consumer be considered at par with the NRS category.
Further, the Forum while disposing off the complaint, in the matter of Sh. Sham
Singh Vs. EE, Electy Divn. No.2 vide order dated 28.12.11 specifically
mentioned that there is no DMC category and directed the licensee through
operative part of the order as under :-
“All such, DMC electricity consumers of UT who are paying electricity charges as per tariff applicable for commercial/NRS category be also advised to get necessary formalities completed for conversion of their DMC connection to commercial category to avoid any scope of ambiguity and misinterpretation of the provisions and consequent harassment to the consumers. The compliance of this order be made within four months of the receipt of this order.”
(ii) Similar directions were given by the Forum in the matter of Sh. Tarlochan Singh
(comp No.401) in the order dated 17.4.13 that till such time, the DMC
consumers is converted to NRS category, the consumer be considered at par
with NRS category.
As per the documents submitted by the licensee, the Forum observed that the
licensee got printed out the following message on the bills of all DMC/IMC
consumers :-
“Regularize your DMC/IMC connection to your earlier originally sanctioned connection to avoid heavy penalty as per rules notified by JERC/Electricity Act – 2003”
(iii) The Forum also noted that the Supply Code under Regulation-6 under Sub-
Regulation (7) of Main Regulation 6 provides :-
“Where a consumer has been classified and billed under a particular category and subsequently, it is observed that the previous classification is not correct, the Licensee may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills accordingly.”
(iv) The Hon’ble JERC while notifiying the tariff for the FY 2013-14 under Para 16 of
the terms and conditions of LT tariff at N.P-189 provide -
“Usage of electricity for other purpose than authorized :
If either more than one room or only one room having monthly consumption exceeding 150 KWH for consecutive three months are detected in the domestic premises being used for mixed purposes having
45
DS-II connection or any other premises which is used for a purpose other than for which it was authorized and the tariff applicable for which is higher, it shall be considered under unauthorized use of electricity and shall be dealt as per JERC Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2010 and such connection shall further be billed on appropriate higher tariff category until a separate connection of appropriate tariff is taken for that portion.”
6. On perusal of above orders/regulations, the Forum observed that the licensee
through newspapers as well as through messages on their electricity bills, asked
the DMC consumers for getting their connections regularised by filing the
application alongwith requisite documents to the concerned Sub divn. As per
documents placed before the Forum, it appears that the complainant did not
approach the Sub division for converting the DS connection to NRS connection
after the licensee reverted the DMC tariff (which was equal to NRS tariff) to
domestic tariff.
7. The Forum after going through the sub regulation 7 of main regulation 6 of the
Supply Code and the provisions in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14 as
reproduced above concludes that the licensee was permitted to charge the higher
NRS tariff from the complainant after it was clearly established that the
complainant was using the residence for Nursing Home which is covered under
NRS category as notified by the Hon’ble JERC in the orders on ARR for various
years. The Forum also observed that the complainant was granted the permission
for using the residence for Nursing Home by the Chandigarh Administration on
27.11.2009.
8. In response to specific query, the complainant during the hearing stated that they
applied for change of connection from DS to NRS in the year 2009 but the same
was refused by the office of concerned SDO stating (verbally) that the tariff being
charged under DMC category is equal to commercial tariff.
9. The CGRF in the matter of National Consumer Conference Awareness Group Vs.
CE/SE Electy. ‘OP’ Circle vide order dated 27.07.12 directed the licensee to affect
the regularisation of all the DMC consumers to NRS category without reverting
them to original category in the light of order of Sh. Sham Singh Vs. EE, Electy.
‘OP’ divn. No.2, U.T. on the same issue. In the order dated 27.07.12, it was also
directed that for the change over period from DMC to NRS category, the
46
consumers be considered at par with the NRS consumers and necessary action
which is required to be taken by the Department to complete the paper work and
get the security deposited, if any, be completed without further delay.
10. From the Forum’s earlier orders as well as Regulation-6 sub-regulation 7(1)
Regulations 6.1 of Supply Code, it is clear that the consumer is to be classified as
NRS consumer retrospectively from the date it was changed from DMC to
domestic.
With regard to complainant’s objection to the penalty imposed/charges levied, the
Forum observed as under :-
i) Levy of charges on account of slow meter.
The complainant has relied upon the Regulation 8.1.15 of 7.5.2(ii) of the Supply
Code Regulations stating that it was the responsibility of the meter reader, to
detect the shortcomings of the meter and further the revision of the bills should
have been for previous 3 months rather than charging on the basis of previous 6
months.
In this regard, the attention is drawn towards regulation No.7.4 and 7.5 of the
Supply Code Regulations which provides for periodic testing by the licensee as
well as special checking to confirm the accuracy of the meter. As per Sub-
Regulation 7.5(ii), the action for revision of bills is to be taken only when the
consumer agrees to the report. From the final assessment of bill, as supplied by
SDO, the charges for meter being slow has been calculated for 3 months period
only from 23.8.2013 to 27.11.2013 and not for 6 months as stated by the
complainant in the representation. The Forum concludes that the charges on this
account, have been calculated correctly.
(ii) The penalty on account of change of category (from DS to NRS) –
From the final assessment bill, prepared by the SDO, the Forum observed that the
penalty has been levied twice the fixed charges in addition to difference in the bill
amount from the 23.5.12 to 27.11.13 for the units consumed for DS category and
NRS category. As concluded in para 10 above, the connection is to be treated as
47
NRS from the date it was changed from DMC to domestic i.e. 23.05.12 thus NRS
tariff is to be charged from that date and the payment already made for the bill
raised on DS tariff during this period is to be deducted. In other words, penalty on
account of mis-use, twice the financial loss caused to the department for this
period is not applicable. Only the difference of NRS and domestic tariff is to be
charged from the consumer.
(iii) The amount of Rs.1250/- charged for the excess load of 5 KW is also as per
regulations and is in order.
11. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to re-calculate the amount to be
charged treating the consumer in the NRS category from the date it was changed
from DMC to DS category as concluded in para-11 also. The directions given in the
earlier decision of the Forum conveyed vide Order dated 27.7.12 in the matter of
National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E., Elecy. ‘OP’ Circle, UT
Chandigarh, are reiterated and the licensee is directed to convert all those
connections to NRS category from the retrospective date who were changed from
DMC to DS category and have not come forward to get their connections
converted to NRS category and are still mis-using their domestic
connection/premises for commercial use. All these consumers be informed
through a notice clearly indicating that the NRS tariff is being levied on account of
misuse of their domestic connection and in no way give any right to the consumer
to claim that the connections has been converted to the commercial category
pending the mandatory approval to be obtained from various authorities/
departments for legal conversion of their premises. The compliance be reported
within 6 months of issue of this order.
12. With above, the complaint stands disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No. 0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
48
13. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
1.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
49
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 507
Date of Institution - 17.12.2013 Date of Order - 30.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. N.K. Arora on behalf of Sh. Parkash Singh, SCO. No. 151-152, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. N.K. Arora vide letter dated 14.10.2013 stated that they are having an NRS
electricity connection at their premises i.e. second floor of SCO No. 151-152,
Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. The connection was checked by Electricity Department
on 10.07.2013 and as per the report, vide ECR No. 011/514 dated 10.07.2013,
the load to the tune of 14.896 KW was found in excess than the sanctioned
connected load. Thereafter, notice to deposit a sum of Rs.1,40,399/- was sent
by SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh on 16.7.2013 followed by
supplementary bill dated 23.7.2013. The amount mentioned in the bill was
deposited under protest on 23.7.2013 as mentioned in the complaint. The
complainant has stated that the amount recovered is not justified and prayed for
getting the same refunded from the Sub Division.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to
the Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh
asking him to supply para-wise reply and action taken report alongwith
consumption data for the last three years by 04.11.2013 to the Forum vide Memo.
No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/963-964 dated 14.10.2013 with a copy to the
complainant. The complainant was also directed to supply list of fittings and
appliances provided in his house.
50
3. The SDO concerned vide his letter dated 04.11.2013 stated that the checking of
the premises was carried out on 10.07.2013 by Enforcement Wing. There were
four connections in the premises. Against the applicant’s connection, un-
authorized load to the extent of 14.896 KW in excess was detected and
accordingly, a penalty of Rs.1,40,399/- was charged under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. It has further been submitted that the proceedings under
Section-126, 127 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act are not maintainable before
the Forum.
4. The complaint was treated as formal complaint and registered vide case No. 507
and was fixed for hearing on 03.01.2014. Subsequent hearings were conducted
on 10.02.2014, 27.03.2014, 23.04.2014, 28.05.2014, 01.07.2014, 18.07.2014 and
30.07.2014. As the quorum of the Forum was not complete, the limitation period to
dispose off the complaint has been extended from time to time. The extended
limitation period is upto 30.07.2014. During the hearing on 30.07.2014, the
complainant submitted that as per Hon’ble JERC’s Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14
of the Electricity Deptt. Chandigarh Administration and subsequent amendments
by Hon’ble JERC in Supply Code in respect of detection of excess load under
Section 126 , the amount has been revised as Rs.250/- per KW of the
unauthorized load. He, therefore, requested that the amount charged earlier may
be withdrawn and SDO be directed to charge the amount as per the revised
notification of the Hon’ble Commission @ Rs.250/- per KW.
5. The Forum observed that in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14, notification by
Hon’ble JERC, only Domestic Supply Category consumers have been exempted
for treating them under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in case, the load in
excess of the sanctioned load is found at the premises of the consumer. However,
subsequently through amendments notified on 7.8.2013 vide No. JERC-11/2010,
the Hon’ble Commission has considered all the LT consumers (including domestic
consumers) for not treating as Un-authorised Use of Electricity under Section 126,
if connected load is found to be at variance from the sanctioned/contracted load,
as a result of increase of load.
6. The Forum has further noted that the checking was done on 10.07.2013, whereas
the amendments in Supply Code were notified subsequently on 07.08.2013, as
51
such, the amendments issued vide Notification No. JERC-11/2010, are not
applicable to the complainant.
7. The Chandigarh Administration, Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) through
Notification dated 11th June, 2013 vide Notification No. G1-2013/01 has notified as
under :-
“No. G1-2013/1. – In supersession to previous notification issued, vide No. G1/2011/02, dated 10th August, 2011 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) to Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with notification dated 22nd June, 2004 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh hereby designate the following officers as the “Appellate Authority” for the purposes of Section 127 of the Electricity, Act, 2003 :-
Sr. No.
Category of Consumers Appellate Authority
1. (a)
(b)
Domestic, Agriculture Supply, Commercial/NRS Supply and other services (Upto 500 KW) of sanctioned load). Small Power Supply (Industrial)
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (within his jurisdiction)
8. From above, it is clear that the Appellate Authority in the present case is Sub-
Divisional Magistrate. The Forum has no jurisdiction to take up the case where
notices has been served under Section 126 of the Act. The complainant may
approach the Appellate Authority as notified by Chandigarh Administration,
Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) for redressal of his grievance.
9. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
11.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
52
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 518
Date of Institution - 28.04.2014 Date of Order - 30.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Sunil Sehgal on behalf of M/s Alka Chemicals, Site No.1056, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. A representation dated 06.12.2013 was received from Sh. Sunil Sehgal on behalf
of M/s Alka Chemicals, Site No.1056, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh
regarding receipt of bill on 22.11.2013 with sundry charges of Rs.40,292/- without
giving any details of the same.
2. Before the representation was registered as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer
Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh was called upon to
comment upon the representation and also to supply the consumption data for the
last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 09.01.2014.
3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 09.01.2014, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’
Sub-Divn. No. 5, UT, Chandigarh submitted that the electric connection installed at
the premises was checked by Enforcement Wing on 06.09.2011 and the electric
meter was found running slow by 4.86%. The connected load was
also found to be 6.539 against sanctioned load of 3.2 KW thus, the unauthorized
use of load of 3.339 KW was found running at the time of checking. The
department charged an amount of Rs.5394/- against short assessment and did not
levy any charges for unauthorized use of load being single phase electric meter
and not covered under rules. Subsequently, the audit section framed a Half Margin
based on the instructions of Supply Code Regulations, 2010 issued by Hon’ble
53
JERC and raised an amount of Rs.40,292/- towards the short assessment as per
the provisions in the Supply Code Regulations. The consumption data of the
consumer from the date of checking was also supplied.
4. The representation of Sh. Sunil Sehgal on behalf of M/s Alka Chemicals, Site
No.1056, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was treated as formal complaint
No. 518 on 28.04.2014 and was fixed for consideration by the Forum on
15.05.2014. Subsequently, the hearing of the case was conducted on 09.06.14,
11.06.14, 24.06.14 and 30.07.14. All the hearings were attended by the
complainant. The SDO concerned only attended the hearing on 09.06.14 and on
other dates of hearing, the RA of the Sub Division was deputed. The SDO
concerned through subsequent submissions dated 24.04.14 submitted that the
present case is covered under Unauthorized Use of Electricity as per Section 126
of the Electricity Act, 2003 and instruction No. 10.3 of the Supply Code
Regulations, 2010 and hence, the same is not maintainable before the Forum.
It was further submitted that the remedy for filing appeal is however available
under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as per the Notification issued by
Chandigarh Administration on 11.07.13 and the Appellate Authority is the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate. The procedure and condition for filing the appeal have been
specified in the Joint Electricity Regulation Commission for Goa & UT (procedure
for filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority) Regulations, 2013, available on
web site of JERC notified by the Hon’ble JERC on 29.04.2013.
5. On the facts of the case, it has been noted that the complainant has been charged
for the Unauthorized Usages of Electricity as per provisions made in the Supply
Code Regulations, 2010 issued by Hon’ble JERC. The Forum concludes that the
charging is in order as the same is as per the Regulations.
6. With above, the complaint is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-
122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
54
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
8.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
55
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 527
Date of Institution - 04.06.2014 Date of Order - 31.07.2014
In the matter of Smt. Adarsh, H. No.1, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Adarsh, resident of H. No.1, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh made a complaint
(received on 07.02.2014) about charging an amount of Rs.22,296/- for the period
meter remained defective, taking average of consumption for the summer period in
which A.C. was being used.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to
the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh for supplying
para-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last three years and action
taken report by 21.02.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-
Misc/2013/129-130 dated 11.02.2014 with a copy to the complainant. The
complainant was also directed to supply list of fittings and appliances provided in
his house.
3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh submitted his reply on
21.02.2014 stating that the amount of Rs. 26002/- was charged on the basis of
average for the period 28.10.2012 to 24.07.2013 @ 646 Units Per Month (on the
basis of previous 6 months consumption). He further conveyed that the meter was
replaced vide MCO No. 22/683 dated 05.06.2013, affected on 24.07.2013. He also
supplied the consumption data for the complainant.
4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal complaint on
04.06.2014 and registered vide Complaint No. 527.
56
5. First hearing was held on 17.06.2014 followed by another hearing on 07.07.2014.
During these hearings, both the parties were present. The complainant agreed for
charging the average but insisted that the period for calculating the average should
include both the summer and winter period.
6. During hearing on 07.07.2014, it was observed by the Forum that the limitation of
the period to announce the decision was expiring on 19.07.2014. As the quorum of
the Forum was not complete, the due date for final orders was extended by three
weeks i.e. upto 09.08.2014 while adjourning the case for next date of hearing as
31.07.2014.
7. The complainant and respondent were present on 31.07.2014. The complainant
reiterated her arguments for charging the average on the basis of one year.
8. The Forum found merit in the submissions made by the complainant as the period
for which charging is to be done, includes winter as well as summer period.
Moreover, it was also brought to the notice that the period for calculating the
average has been enhanced from six months to one year by the Hon’ble JERC in
the Supply Code, through Notification dated 07.08.2013.
9. In view of above, the Forum directs the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT,
Chandigarh to re-work out the charges to be levied for the period in question on the
basis of previous one year consumption. The complainant conveyed her consent
to the above.
10. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With above directions, the complaint is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
11. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
11.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
57
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 521
Date of Institution - 07.05.2014 Date of Order - 31.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. John Kumar, H. No.517/2, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. John Kumar, resident of H. No. 517/2, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh vide letter
dated 27.03.2014 stated that he has a Domestic Supply Connection at his
residence. The reading of the electronic meter installed at his house jumped
during the month of September- November, 2013 and recorded a
consumption of 4843 units and a bill amounting to Rs.20,579/- was served to
him. He further stated that his bill for two months in the past one year has
been ranging from Rs.242/- to Rs.2521/-. He requested to get the bill for the
month of September, 2013 to November, 2013 revised on the basis of
average of the bill for the last one year. Through subsequent application
dated 28.03.2014, the applicant submitted that he has received a bill for the
period 18th November, 2013 to 18th January, 2014 on average basis instead of
actual consumption when the meter has already been replaced. He requested
for issuance of bill on actual consumption as recorded by the meter.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent
to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh asking him
to supply para-wise reply and action taken report alongwith consumption data
for the last three years by 17.04.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No.
CGRF/Comp-Misc/2014/252-253 dated 31.03.2014 with a copy to the
58
complainant. The complainant was also directed to supply proof of ownership
and copies of correspondence made with SDO concerned.
3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh through his
submissions dated 22.04.2014 stated that the working of the meter was checked
on 16.01.2014 as per SJO No. 26/708 dated 03.01.2014 on the request by
consumer and was found to be slow by 6%. He also supplied the consumption
data for the last three years and pointed out that the consumption in the past has
been erratic. He also stated that a MCO was issued and the meter was replaced
with a new meter on 13.02.2014. It was also pointed out that in case the account
of the consumer is overhauled from the period 18.11.2011 to date of MCO i.e.
13.022014 on the basis of consumption during the period 18.07.2010 to
18.09.2011 then additional amount will become chargeable and accordingly
prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The representation of the consumer was treated as formal complaint No.521 on
07.05.2014 and first hearing was fixed for 19.05.2014 before the Forum.
5. The hearing on 19.05.2014 was attended by both the parties. From the
consumption data, it was observed that the consumption pattern was inconsistent
in the past with recording of as low as 04 units for the period 18.01.2012 to
18.03.2012 against maximum consumption of 1532 unit during the period
18.05.2011 to 18.07.2011. After deliberations, it was agreed to overhaul the
account for past period whereafter there was sharp defective to 263 units, on the
basis of consumption to be recorded by the new meter installed on 13.02.2014.
6. As the limitation period was expiring on 21.06.2014 and the quorum of the Forum
was not complete, it was decided to extend the limitation period by six weeks i.e.
upto 02.08.2014.
7. On subsequent hearing on 31.07.2014 when both the parties were present, the
Forum decided to overhaul the account from 18.09.2011 and directed the SDO to
overhaul the account of the consumer for the period 18.09.2011 to date of MCO
i.e. 13.02.2014 on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter for one
year as the period to be overhauled was more than one year. The consumer
requested that while overhauling, the payment already made by him, may be
taken care of.
59
8. SDO to report compliance by April, 2015 after issuance of revised overhauled bill.
9. With above, the complaint is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
10.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
60
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 478
Date of Institution - 25.10.2013 Date of Order - 31.07.2014
In the matter of Smt. Parveen on behalf of Sh. Ajij Ahmad, H. No.6637-B, Sector 56, Ambedkar Colony, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
2. Smt. Parveen, resident of H. No.6637-B, Sector 56, Ambedkar Colony,
Chandigarh made a complaint on 13.08.2013 about electricity meter running fast
and also that the Sub Division staff is not attending to her grievances.
3. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to
the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh for supplying
para-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last five years and action taken
report by 26.08.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/731-
732 dated 14.08.2013 with a copy to the complainant.
4. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh through written
submission on 23.08.2013 supplied consumption pattern of last 5 years alongwith
payment made by the consumer. He also pointed out that except for the billing
period April to June (every year) which is peak summer, the consumption pattern is
stable. The allegations of the consumer for not attending by the Sub Division staff
were also denied.
5. The representation of Smt. Parveen was treated as formal complaint No.478 and
was fixed for hearing by the Forum on 07.11.2013. Subsequent hearings were
conducted on 20.12.2013, 23.01.2014, 11.02.2014, 24.03.2014 and 20.05.2014.
61
6. During these hearings, the consumption pattern of the consumer was analysed. In
between, in view of consumer’s complaint that the meter is running fast, the Forum
got installed a check meter vide SJO No. 710/74 dated 08.11.2013 and it was
noted that the consumption of check meter was exactly same as that of existing
meter. This also established the correct working of the meter. The consumer
during these hearings was also made aware of this fact and that the consumption
recorded was in order. However, on consumer’s instance, the meter was got
changed.
7. As the quorum of the Forum was not complete, the limitation period was being
extended from time to time. The last extension was considered during hearing on
25.05.2014 for ten weeks i.e. upto 01.08.2014.
8. The case was listed for final hearing on 31.07.2014 when the complainant did not
appear. The SDO ‘op’ intimated that the consumer got convinced that the bills
issued by the Sub division were in order. He also conveyed that the consumer had
made payment for previous bills, cleared the defaulting amount and was making
regular payments for the future bills.
9. Since the consumer has cleared previous bills, the accuracy of meter got
established through check meter, the Forum sees no merit in the complaint and
dismiss the same.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
10.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
62
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 503
Date of Institution - 11.12.2013 Date of Order - 31.07.2014
In the matter of Sh. Sushil Gupta, H. No.26, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Sushil Gupta H. No.26, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh through his email dated
June 27, 2013 stated that he vacated the H. No. 3959, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh
and requested the SDO for final bill as well as refund of security. He stated that
excess amount was shown while preparing the final bill.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, the Addl.
Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh was asked to
examine and submit issue-wise comments/action taken report on the
representation alongwith consumption data for the last two years by 11.7.2013 to
the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/615-616 dated 02.07.2013
with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was also requested to supply
copy of representation duly signed and the correspondence made with the SDO.
3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated
27.6.2013 on receipt of Forum’s letter referred to in para-2 above, refunded the
security amounting to Rs.560/- to the consumer through cheque and also
transferred an amount of Rs.113/- on account of different final bill (of his previous
consumption) to his new electricity account.
63
4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal Complaint No. 503
and fixed for hearing before the Forum on 26.12.2013.
5. The complainant Sh. Sushil Gupta in response to the notice of hearing vide his
letter dated 16.12.2013 confirmed that the security has been refunded and the
amount has been adjusted and now he has no grievances.
6. Though the grievance of the consumer was redressed and he confirmed in writing
that he had no further grievance, the case could not be disposed off due to non-
completion of quorum of the Forum and was adjourned for further date.
7. The Forum during hearing on 31.07.2014 considered the case and it was noted
that the grievances of the complainant have already been taken care.
Accordingly, the Forum decides to close the case.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
64
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 517
Date of Institution - 13.02.2014 Date of Order - 06.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of Maloya East, Near Saini Hardware Shop, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of Maloya East, Near Saini Hardware Shop,
Chandigarh through his letter dated 14.01.2014 stated that he has been receiving
wrongly prepared high consumption bills and further the arrear charged are wrong.
He also requested for waiving off amount of Additional ACD charged in the bill.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to
the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh asking him to
supply para-wise reply and action taken report alongwith consumption data for the
last three years by 27.04.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-
Misc/2014/50-51 dated 20.01.2014 with a copy to the complainant. The
complainant was also directed to supply list of electrical fittings and appliances in
the premises, proof of ownership and copies of correspondence made with SDO
concerned.
3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated
27.01.2014 informed that the consumer is not making payment of electricity dues
after May, 2013. The notice for disconnection was pasted on the premises. The
consumer did not make the payment of electricity dues and supply was
65
disconnected. The consumption data for the last three years was also supplied
alongwith letter.
4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal complaint No. 517
and fixed for consideration by the Forum on 19.02.2014.
5. The hearing on 19.02.2014 was attended by both the parties. The consumption
pattern was seen. On the next date of hearing on 09.04.2014, the complainant did
not attend whereas the SDO deputed his ARA Sh. Narinder Kumar. On the
subsequent date of hearing on 22.05.2014, also the complainant did not come.
The SDO concerned through telephonic message conveyed that the complainant
has deputed the total amount which was raised by the department against him.
The SDO concerned was directed to submit the overhauling account of the
consumer on the next date of hearing fixed for 26.6.2014. The hearing of the
Forum on 26.06.2014 was not attended by both the parties and the case was
adjourned for 06.08.2014.
6. The period of limitation to announce the award from the date of institution i.e.
13.02.2014, was extended from time to time and the last extension was allowed on
26.06.2014 upto 08.08.2014.
7. Both the complainant and the respondent SDI were present before the Forum on
06.08.2014. The SDO concerned informed that the applicant sought new electric
connection without clearing his defaulting amount of Rs.58,482/-. The applicant
was called and was asked to clear the defaulting amount as the bill was being
issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter. He also informed that the
consumer cleared the defaulting amount and the account was overhauled as
desired by the Forum on the previous hearings. He also supplied a copy of his
written submissions made on 23.05.2014 wherein it was stated that a credit of
Rs.7180/- is standing against the account closed permanently in favour of the
complainant. It was also confirmed that the same has been allowed to the
complainant.
8. The complainant conveyed his satisfaction to the overhauling done by the Sub-
Division as the complainant has cleared the pending payment and has no
complaint about billing against the Sub-Division, the complaint is treated as
disposed.
66
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
11.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
67
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 543
Date of Institution - 26.06.2014 Date of Order - 10.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Ashok Kumar Nagpal, Booth No.48, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Ashok Kumar Nagpal, occupant of Booth No.48, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh
made a complaint on 21.02.2014 about charging an amount of Rs.45,165/- in
their bill issued during December, 2014 for the period 08.05.2011 to 08.04.2013
meter remained defective. It was stated that the average charged on the basis of
future consumption is on higher side.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to
the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh asking him to
supply para-wise reply and action taken report on the representation of the
consumer alongwith consumption data for the last three years by 21.02.2014 to
the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2014/159-160 dated 25.02.2014
with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was also directed to supply
proof of ownership, copy of correspondence made with SDO and list of electrical
fittings and appliances installed in his house.
3. The XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 19.03.2014
forwarded the reply dated 10.03.2014 of SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3 stating
that the amount of Rs. 45,165/- was charged on the basis of average for the period
05/2011 to 04/2013 @ 885 Units Per Month (on the basis of new meter
consumption). The meter was replaced vide MCO No. 49/599 dated 07.03.2013
68
affected on 08.04.2013. He also supplied the consumption data for the
complainant.
4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal complaint on
26.06.2014 and registered vide Complaint No. 543.
5. First hearing was held on 07.07.2014. Both the parties were present. The
consumption data as supplied by SDO was seen. It was observed that the meter
remained defective w.e.f. 05/2011 and bill was being issued on average
consumption. The complainant also pointed out that he had deposited bill
challenging fee of Rs.250/-. It was also noted from the written submissions made
by the SDO on 24.04.2014 that the bill of the consumer issued for the month of
11/2013 to 01/2014 was wrongly prepared due to wrong reading by the Meter
Reader and same was amended by the SDO. The case was adjourned for next
date of hearing as 31.07.2014.
6. The complainant and respondent were present on 31.07.2014. The complainant
reiterated his arguments for charging the average on the basis of one year.
7. The Forum found merit in the submissions made by the complainant as the period
for which charging is to be done, includes winter as well as summer period.
Moreover, it was also brought to the notice that the period for calculating the
average has been enhanced from six months to one year by the Hon’ble JERC in
the Supply Code, through Notification dated 07.08.2013.
8. In view of above, the Forum directs the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT,
Chandigarh to re-work out the charges to be levied for the period in question on the
basis of period of one year consumption recorded by the new meter replaced on
08.04.2013. The complainant conveyed his consent to the above.
9. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With above amicable settlement, the complaint is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
69
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
11.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
70
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 519
Date of Institution - 25.10.2013 Date of Order - 11.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Oliver Tyagi, & Others residents of M/s Uppal’s Marble Arch. Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executivae Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Oliver Tyagi, Pawan Valecha, Asha Tayal, Vijay Nayar, Amit Singh Brar, Maj.
Gen. J.S. Sighu , Neeru Saggi, all residents of Uppal Marble Arch. Manimajra,
Chandigarh through their joint petition dated 30.12.2013 submitted before the
Forum that they had purchased 3/4 bed room flats at the Uppal Marble Arch.
Manimajra, Chandigarh in the year 2009-2010, and are receiving the electricity
bills from Petals Management Services Pvt Ltd. (the sister concern of Uppal
Housing Pvt. Ltd responsible for maintenance). It has been indicated in the
petition that Petals Management Services Pvt. Ltd has one single HT Bulk
connection from the electricity department taken by the builder, for further
distribution at LT voltage. It has been stated that they are being billed at much
higher per unit rate then Domestic tariff besides demand charges. Despite their
representation and meeting with concerned XEN/SE, the tariff being charged is
HT Bulk instead of domestic. In this regard a copy of application dated
20.04.2011 addressed to S.E/(OP), UT has also been enclosed. In the petition
prayer has been made for issuance of directions to UT, Electricity department and
Uppal Housing Pvt Ltd. to either allot the individual connection to the applicants or
71
to change the category of existing load from HT Bulk to domestic till the time their
Flats get individual connections.
2. Before the petition was registered as formal complaint, parawise comments were
called from the Nodal Officer, i.e. XEN, Electy (OP) Division No.2, Chandigarh vide
Forum letter dated 21.01.2014.
3. In response to Forum’s letter to the nodal officer (XEN, Electy.(OP) Division No.2),
the concerned SDO, Electy.(OP) Sub Division No.8, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 12.02.2014 submitted that the Electricity Connection exists in the name of
M/s Uppal Marble Arch Housing Complex with sanctioned load of 1583 KW under
Bulk supply and are being billed as per tariff notified by Hon’ble JERC for the year
Financial Year- 2012-13 vide notification dated 07.05.2012. It was further
submitted that Uppal Housing Society neither approached to his office for taking an
individual connection nor the society applied for taking Electricity connection as
per Clause 3.6(18) of the Electricity Supply Regulation 2010 notified by Hon’ble
JERC. The tariff was being levied as per the category opted by the consumer at
the time of taking the Electricity Connection. With regard to prayer by the
applicants for individual connection, the SDO submitted that individual electricity
connection can be released as per regulation 3.6 (20) of the Electricity Supply
Code Regulations 2010, in case distribution is further made by licensee for which
the applicants may apply for the individual electricity connection after completing
the departmental formalities as stipulated in the Supply Code Regulations.
4. The petition of the applicants was registered as formal Complaint No.519 on
06.05.2014 and was fixed for hearing by the Forum on 20.05.2014. The Uppal
Housing Pvt. Ltd. was also requested to depute representative for the hearing as
performa respondent. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 27.05.2014,
10.06.2014, 19.06.2014, 15.07.2014 and 11.08.2014. The hearings have been
attended by the applicants, representative of M/s Uppal Marble Housing and M/s
Uppal Housing Pvt.Ltd, XEN, Electy.(OP) Divn.No.2, and SDO, Electy. (OP) Sub
Division No.8, Chandigarh.
5. It has been noted by the Forum that the main concern of the applicants is payment
of demand charges as well as levy of higher per unit tariff then the domestic supply
category for the electricity being consumed by them. The single point Bulk supply
72
connection is in the name of M/s Upppal Marble Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Petal
Management services Pvt.Ltd (the agency responsible for maintenance of the
society) is collecting electricity charges from the owners of the flats and making the
payment to the electricity department for the one single bill being issued by them.
6. The Forum noted the relevant provision made in the Electricity Supply Code
Regulations notified by Hon’ble JERC as under:-
Regulation 3.6 (B):- LT Supply to Multi-Consumer Complex including Commercial Complexes:-
(9) In case of multi consumer complexes, such as Group Housing Societies and Commercial Complexes, the new connection sought, shall preferably be provided with single meter on LT if load is below 100 KW and on HT if load is 100 KW or more. However this shall not restrict the individual owner or occupier of any premises for applying for individual connection and the licensee shall sanction such connection on LT. In case the connected/contracted load of any connection is projected to be 100 KW or more, a separate transformer of adequate capacity shall be installed at consumer’s cost. The space/room required for housing the transformer, substation, switch gears, meters and panels shall be provided by the consumer, free of cost, which is easily accessible in the licensee.
The distribution licensee shall be responsible to develop, construct,
augment and maintain the entire infrastructure required for distribution system, including 33/11 KV or 11/0.4 KV substation, at his own cost. The cost of augmentation and extension of infrastructure/distribution system shall be allowed to be recovered in ARR through tariff approved by the Commission, after prudent check. However, the consumer shall be liable to pay service connection charges i.e. cost of service connection from distribution main to the point of supply, as approved by the Commission from time to time.
Note:- The developer/builder/society/consumer includes any agency whether Government, local body or private that constructs the Multi-Consumer Complex.
(12) Connections for common facilities like lift, water pumps etc., shall be given in the name of the builder/developer/society.
Regulation 3.6 (C):-Supply to Group Users:-
(18) The Group user shall be eligible to opt supply by a distribution licensee at a single point provided that the supply shall be used for residential purpose including the loads of common amenities for the group user like pumps for pumping water supply and lighting of common area. The consumption of energy for common services shall be separately metered with meters installed by the consumer and tested and sealed by licensee and billed at highest slab of domestic tariff.
The Group user shall inform the details of every non-domestic activity
along with the connected load to the licensee at the time of seeking connection or at the time of enhancement in contract demand & non-domestic activity shall be separately metered & billed under non-domestic tariff category. The consumption of energy for common services under such case shall be billed under non-domestic tariff category.
(20) The provisions of these regulations shall not in any way affect the right
of a person residing in the housing unit sold or leased by Cooperative Group Housing Society to demand supply of electricity directly from the distribution licensee of the area on the following terms and conditions:-
73
(i) The Cooperative Group Housing society must permit any person of
the society to avail supply of electricity from the Distribution licensee directly.
(ii) The Cooperative Group Housing Society shall have no objection in respect of the following:-
------------(a) to (d)----------
(e) The licensee shall recover the charges for the electricity
consumed by such person at the approved rate applicable to the domestic category.
Regulation 6.1;- Change of category:-
(7) Where a consumer has been classified and billed under a particular
category and subsequently, it is observed that the previous classification is not correct, the Licensee may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills accordingly.
7. In addition to above, the Forum observed that the Hon’ble Commission in the Tariff
Order for Financial Year-2014-15 has notified the tariff for various categories. The
relevant portion applicable to this case are at page No.184-185 as under:-
Keeping in view of above of above judgement by the Hon’ble High Court, the Commission hereby approves separate tariff for the single point delivery – JJ Clusters/Unauthorized colonies/ Slum Dwellers. However, the Commission is of view that there is no requirement of creation of separate category all together and therefore, approves separate sub-category in the domestic category as “SPD-JJ Clusters/Unauthorized Colonies/ Slum Dwellers”.
The Commission has approved the flat tariff for this slab a
equivalent to 0-150 kWh slab of the Domestic Category as the current consumption for 15247 consumers (projected for FY 2014-15) comes out to be 19.64 MU’s annually i.e. approx. 107 units per consumer per month which is well within the range of 0-150 kWh.
Further, as the projected revenue in FY 2014-15 from these
consumers is only 4.52 Crores, the Commission is of view that recovery because of FPPCA will be negligible from these consumers and thus exempts this slab from recovery of FPPCA.
However, if the monthly consumption of a consumer exceeds
150 kwh in any month in any months, then billing for that month shall be on applicable slab of the domestic category and FPPCA shall be applicable for that month.
The approved tariff schedule specified in Section 9 of this order is summarized in table 8.2.2 below:-
Sr.No
Category/Consumption Slab
FY 2014-15 @ Approved Tariff Demand Charges (Rs./KW/Month)
Variable Charges (Rs./Kwh)
A Domestic
1. SPD-JJ Clusters/ Unauthorized
2.30
74
Colonies/ Slum Dwellers.
2. 0-150 KWh 2.30
3. 151 kWh-400 kWh 4.20
4. Above 400 kWh 4.40
H Bulk Supply 70 4.50
8. The detail tariff schedule as approved by Hon’ble JERC in the Tariff Order for
Financial year 2014-15 at NP-206/207 for Domestic Supply (DS) and Bulk Supply
(BS) at NP-213/214 is also reproduced below:-
1. DOMESTIC SUPPLY DS)
APPLICABILITY This schedule shall apply for light, fan, domestic pumping sets and household appliances in the following premises:- ---------(a) to (d)------------
e) Housing colonies and multi storied flats/buildings as defined in
Electricity Supply Code Regulations notified by the JERC. ------- (f) to (j)---------
k) Single Point Delivery – JJ Clusters/Unauthorized Colonies/Slum
Dwellers. CHARACTER OF SERVICE:-
Ac, 50 cycle, Single phase 230 volts or three phase 400 volts or 11 Kilo volts.
For loads upto 5 KW supply shall be given on single phase 230 volts and above 5 KW upto 60 KW supply shall be given on three phase 400 volts. For loads above 60 KW, supply shall be given on 11 KV and a separate transformer of adequate capacity shall be installed at consumers cost as per Electricity Supply Code Regulations notified by JERC. In case of consumers where the metering is being done on low voltage side of the transformer instead of high voltage side, the consumption should be computed by adding 3% extra on account of transformation/losses. This arrangement shall be continued for a maximum of one year within which metering shall be shifted to HT(11 KV) side of the transformers. TARIFF
Consumption range Fixed Charge Rs. Per KW per month
Energy Charge Rs./KWh.
SPD-JJ, Clusters/UnauthorizedColonies/Slum Dwellers
0.00 2.30
0-150 KWh 0.00 2.30
151 kWh-400 kWh 0.00 4.20
Above 400 kWh 0.00 4.40
Note:- SPD- JJ Clusters/Unauthorized Colonies/Slum Dwellers sub-category shall be applicable limited to maximum 150 KWh/month and FPPCA shall be exempted for this category. If the monthly consumption under this sub-category exceeds 150 Kwh in any month, then billing for that month shall be done on applicable slab of the domestic category and FPPCA shall be applicable for that month.
75
(8) BULK SUPPLY (BS)
APPLICABILITY:- This tariff schedule shall apply to general or mixed loads exceeding 10 KW to MES, Defence establishments,- Railways, Central PWD, Institutions, Hospitals, Departmental Colonies and other similar establishments where further distribution is to be done by the consumer. Above schedule shall not be applicable, if 50 % or more of the total sanctioned load is motive/manufacturing load. CHARACTER OF SERVICE AC, 50 cycles, three phase, 400 volts or 11 Kv or higher voltage at the option of the department. Loads exceeding 60 KW shall be released on HT only. TARIFF
Fixed charge
EnergyCharge
Consumption range
Rs. Per KW per month
Rs./Kwh
All units 70.00 4.50
9. After carefully going through the provisions in the Supply Code Regulation 2010
and Tariff Order for Financial Year-2014-15, with regard to DS and BS categories,
and the prayer by the applicants in the petition, the Forum infers:-
a) Applicants prayer for individual connection:- The occupants of the
Group Housing Societies have the option for having one single connection
as well as individual connection as per Supply Code Regulations (Reg.3.6
(B)(9) and Reg.3.6 (C) 20). In the present case as HT connection is
already in existence, it may not be practically feasible for some of the
occupants to opt for individual connection at this stage. For an individual
connection, all the flat owners/occupants along with connection for common
services (Total 165 Nos.) will have to apply as per provisions contained in
the Supply Code Regulation No.3.6 (C) (20). The existing system from
licensees’ point of supply upto the individual meters will be required to be
handed over to licensee for maintenance in view of provision contained in
Para 2 of Reg. 3.6 (B) (9). The Licensee may retain the existing meters
after getting them tested at lab or install new meters. All formalities as
stipulated in the Supply Code Regulations will be required to be completed
by consumer as well as by licensee.
76
(b) Alternate prayer by the applicant to change the category of the existing
load from HT Bulk to domestic:- It is noted that Bulk Supply Connection
was sought by the builder in the first instant. Subsequently, on completion
of flats, the owners/occupants started using electricity for domestic use. As
per provisions in the Hon’ble JERC Tariff Order for FY-2013-2014 and FY-
2014-15, the present use of electricity by the consumer does not fall under
BS Tariff as per ‘Applicability’ as reproduced at page-7 of this order. The
connection is now covered under DS category and not under BS category
tariff. The DS supply ‘Applicability’ as per para ‘e’ (Page 6 of this order)
includes Housing Colonies and Multi Storied flats/buildings. The Demand
charges per KW per month being levied from the applicant is not applicable
for this category of the consumer.
The Sub Regulation (7) of Regulation 6.1- Change of Category provide:-
“Where a consumer has been classified and billed under
particular category and subsequently, it is observed that the previous
classification is not correct, the Licensee may alter the classification
and suitable revise the bill accordingly”.
From above regulations, it is seen that the Licensee has been
permitted to revise the bill on observing that the previous clarification is not
correct. In the event the existing connection is classified as DS, the levy of
Demand charges goes. Thus, redressal of one of the concern of the applicants.
Further, the Electricity Supply Code Regulations allows the Licensee to assess
the amount to be charged from the consumers for the entire period during which it
is established that amount charged was not correct (on account of defective
meter or unauthorised use of Electricity etc) by overhauling the account of the
consumer for the entire period under consideration. This is also applicable when
the consumer is entitled for refund.
After it is established that the tariff applicable in present case should be
DS instead of BS, the Forum takes the applicants player for charging on slab
basis.
10. At present, the entire consumption is being charged at Rs. 4.50 P.U. (as per BS
Tariff notified for FY-2013-2014 and FY-2014-2015) whereas for the consumption
77
above, 400 unit, the tariff chargeable for DS consumers is Rs.4.40 P.U. The
benefit of lower slab tariff of Rs.2.30 per unit for first 150 units and Rs.4.20 per
unit for next 250 units also becomes applicable.
The condition specified under Regulation 3.6(c)(18) of Supply Code that
the consumption towards common services shall be separately metered and
billed at highest slab of domestic tariff is also met with as the total consumption
against this single connection is much more than 400 units per month.
The Forum has also noted that the Hon’ble JERC in Tariff Order for
Financial Year 2014-2015 has allowed Single Point Delivery (SPD) JJ clusters/
Unauthorised Colonies/slum Dwellers the benefit of lower slabs per
connection/Dweller unit.
The Hon’ble Commission Tariff Order/Regulations are silent about
allowing the benefit of lower slabs per house/flat when the society opts for a
single connection. On the other hand, the Regulations allow the individual
persons residing in the housing units to demand supply from the distribution
licensee of the area in which case the benefit of lower slabs of tariff would accrue
to all the connections of the Housing Society. In such a scenario, no Group
Housing Society may opt for one single connection.
11. On the basis of above inferences, the Forum concludes:-
(i) The category of the connection taken by M/s Uppal’s Marble Arch.
Manimajra, Chandigarh at present falls under Domestic Supply and not
under B.S.
(ii) As per provisions of Sub Regulations (7) of regulates 6.1 of Supply Code
Regulations the bill is required to be revised suitably by the licensee. The
applicants requested for change of category of connection from BS to DS
through their petition on 30.12.2013 and are therefore entitled for revision
of the bill from BS to DS category.
(iii) Allowing the benefit of lower slab per flat/ Housing unit is beyond the
perview of the Forum as this is neither covered in the Supply Code
Regulation nor in the Tariff Order. The Applicants/ M/s Uppal’s Marble
Arch. Manimajra, Chandigarh may file a petition with Hon’ble JERC in this
regard, to get the relief if they desires.
(iv) The applicants have the option to demand individual connection as per
provisions of Regulation 3.6(c)(20) in order to enjoy the benefits of lower
slab tariffs. As already mentioned above, in this scenario, all the
flat/Housing unit owners/occupants along with M/s Uppal Marble Arch
Housing Complex (for common facilities) will have to apply together
78
individually and also will be required to fulfil other conditions as stipulated
in the Supply Code Regulations.
12. In view of above, the Forum directs licensee to change the category of the
connection for BS to DS category in line with Sub Regulation (7) of Regulation 6.1
of Electricity Supply Code Regulation of Hon’ble JERC and revise the bills w.e.f.
date of first objection raised to the licensee the applicants i.e.20.04.2011.
13. The compliance to the above directions be reported to the Forum by 15.10.2014
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana),
Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
14. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
15.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
79
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 545
Date of Institution - 27.06.2014 Date of Order - 11.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sood, H. No. 1217, Sector-18 C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sood, owner of H. No. 1217, Sector-18 C, Chandigarh and
resident of Shimla vide his letter dated 08.01.2014 stated that the Ground Floor of
his H. No. 1217, Sector 18C, Chandigarh is lying vacant since 02 July, 2011. He
received a bill in the month of December, 2013 with sundry charges equal to
Rs.11,540/- being the average charges on account of meter dead stop from the
period 02.07.11 to 08.03.13. He requested that the sundry charges may be
waived as no less electricity was being consumed as the premises was vacant
during the disputed period.
2. The representation was forwarded to Nodal Officer - Executive Engineer, Electy.
‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh for comments alongwith supply of consumption
data for the last three years vide letter dated 13.01.14.
3. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 30.01.14 submitted that the electricity
connection at the premises was disconnected vide PDCO dated 04.03.13 affected
on 08.03.13 due to change of name. At the time of PDCO, the meter was found
dead stop as per report by JE. The account of the consumer was overhauled and
a sum of Rs.11,540/- was charged on account of average for the period 02.07.11
to 08.03.13 @ 210 U.P.M. on the basis of previous 6 months consumption, as it
was observed that the consumption of the meter was very very less. The SDO
80
further submitted that the consumer failed to submit any evidence regarding the
premises remained locked during the disputed period. The consumption data of
the consumer for the last 3 years was also supplied by the SDO alongwith his
submissions.
4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.545 on 27.06.14. The first
hearing of the case conducted on 01.07.14 was attended by the SDO and the
complainant did not attend and sought further date of hearing on telephone after
expressing his inability to attend. The subsequent hearing conducted on 17.07.14
was attended by both the parties. The complainant reiterated for reversal of
sundry charges on account of premises being vacant/locked thereby consuming
NIL/very less consumption of electricity. The complainant stated that the premises
was occupied by Sh. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate since 2003 who vacated the
same in June, 2011. In support, he submitted an affidavit dated 10.03.14 in this
respect as well as the letter from his ex-tenant Sh. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate.
Subsequently, he also submitted photocopies of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court- Directory for the year 2007-08 and 2011 indicating the details of his tenant
Sh. Yogesh Chaudhary. It was noted that the address in the year 2007 Directory
was H. No.1217 Sector 18-C, Chandigarh whereas the address of the Advocate in
the year 2011, Directory was indicated as H. No. 37, Sector 16A, Chandigarh.
5. In the next hearing conducted on 01.09.14, the SDO was present and the
complainant sought exemption from attending the proceedings expressing the
difficulty of travelling from Shimla to Chandigarh being a senior citizen. The SDO
was directed to ascertain the factual position of the occupancy of the premises
from the neighbours. The SDO confirmed that as per information gathered from
neighbours by the staff, the premises was lying vacant for the last 2-3 years.
6. The Forum while going through the consumption data observed that consumption
dropped significantly from July, 2011 onwards. The bills being prepared by the
Sub Division were showing meter status code as “Z” i.e. working of meter in order.
7. In view of the documents placed before the Forum, it is concluded that the
premises was lying vacant/locked as stated by the complainant for the period July,
2011 onwards. Thus, the charging on account of previous 6 months consumption
for this period is not chargeable.
81
8. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to reverse the sundry charges levied
on account of treating the meter as defective from July, 2011 onwards.
9. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days from receipt of this order.
10. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
11. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
12.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
82
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 525
Date of Institution - 13.05.2014 Date of Order - 12.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Narinder Gill, H. No.46, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Narinder Gill, H. No.46, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh vide his letter dated
10.01.2014 stated that his Domestic Supply connection was checked by the
Enforcement Wing of the U.T. Electricity Department on 21.06.2013. As per the
ECR No. 15/536 and 16/536, the meter was stated to be running 26.9% slow with
the remarks about doubt of authenticity of all 4 No. M&P seals. He also stated that
the SDO has asked him to deposit the amount as assessed by the checking party.
He requested to withdraw the notice and issuance of electricity bill according to his
consumed units.
2. Before treating the representation as formal complaint, the para-wise
comments/action taken report on the representation of the consumer was called
from the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh by the
Forum vide letter dated 14.01.2014 with a copy to the complainant to supply the
details about electrical fittings and appliances and also proof of ownership.
3. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated
30.01.2014 informed that an amount of Rs.2,77,952/- has been charged to the
applicant on account of theft of energy as per commercial instruction No. 5 dated
13.04.2011. He further stated that the electricity connection was checked vide
ECR No.15/536 and 16/536 dated 21.06.2013 by AE (Enforcement ) and meter
83
was found to be slow. The M&P seals also appeared to be fake. Accordingly,
meter was subsequently sent to M&P Lab. for checking, in the presence of
consumer’s representative Sh. H.S. Gill. All the 4 No. M&P seals were found fake
and meter was also found to be slow due to fake seals. The case has been treated
as theft case and an amount of Rs.2,01,952/- as final assessment as per
Regulation No. 10.5 (3) of the Supply Code Regulation, 2010 has been charged.
4. The SDO also stated that since it is a theft case, the same is beyond the
jurisdiction of CGRF.
5. The representation was treated as formal complaint and registered vide No. 525 on
13.05.2014. The hearings of the case were held on 06.04.2014, 01.07.2014,
17.07.2014 and on 12.08.2014. Though parties attended the hearing on
04.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 17.07.2014, nobody attended the hearing on
12.08.2014.
6. From the facts of the case, the Forum observed that it is a clear case of theft and is
beyond the preview/jurisdiction of the Forum. The Forum also noted that the
Chandigarh Administration, Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) through
Notification No. 8/7/2-IH(8)-2-11/17800 dated 03.10.2011 has notified :-
“Conferred under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with
notification dated 22nd June, 2004 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and in view of the concurrence of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh conveyed vide letter No.
23260 Gaz.II(2), dated 21.07.2010 and all other powers enabling him in this
behalf, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to
designate the Courts of all the Additional Sessions Judges in Union Territory
of Chandigarh as Special Courts for Union Territory of Chandigarh for the
purpose of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Section 135 to
139 of Electricity, Act, 2003.”
7. From above, it is clear that the Forum has no jurisdiction to take up the case where
notices have been served under Section 135 of the Act. The complainant may
approach the Specials Courts for Union Territory of Chandigarh for redressal of his
grievance.
8. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as dismissed.
84
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
10.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
85
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.),NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 520
Date of Institution - 06.05.2014 Date of Order - 13.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Harpal Singh, House.No.289, Near Banbhori Mata Mandir, PWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh .
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. A Complaint was made by Sh. Harpal Singh resident of House.No.289, Pipli Wala
Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh on 15.02.2014 that the licensee is issuing inflated
bills during the period June 2013 to February 2014. He stated that he is a Senior
Citizen and drawing pension @ Rs.1780/- per month. He stated that the bills
were issued in the range of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.20,000/- during the period referred
above.
2. Before treating the Complaint as formal, the Nodal Officer, XEN, Electy. (OP)
Division No.2,UT, Chd was called upon to submit para wise comments alongwith
consumption data for the last three years vide letter dated 19.12.2014.
3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 19.02.2014 the concerned SDO, Electy, (OP),
Sub Division No.8, UT, Chd submitted that the bills issued to the consumer were
as per consumption used by him and FPPCA charges/tariff levied to the
consumer were as per the Tariff Order issued by JERC. The consumption data
for the past three years of the consumer was also supplied vide his letter dated
20.05.2014.
4. The representation of Sh. Harpal Singh, was treated as formal Comp No.520 on
06.05.2014 and first hearing was conducted on 22.05.2014. The hearing on
86
22.05.2014 was attended by both the parties. The complainant raised the issue
of charging of ACD and FPPCA charges and other details such as reasons of ‘D’-
Code, in the bill. The issuance of MCO in the past were also called from the
SDO. SDO was also directed to install the check meter to check the behaviour
of the meter.
5. SDO vide letter dated 25.06.2014 submitted that the ACD is calculated by the
computer as per the data of the consumer. The FPPCA is calculated as per the
rates approved by the Hon’ble JERC from time to time. He also informed that the
Consumer got the load extended from 1.440 KW to 7.850 KW. With respect to
appearance of D-Code in the bill, the SDO submitted that the same appears
when the meter was found defective and the defective meter was replaced vide
MCO dated 08.03.2011, effected on 10.03.2011. Copy of SJO dated 23.05.2014
was also supplied as per which the consumer refused to install the check meter
as directed by the Forum during hearing on 22.05.2014. He recorded his refusal
on the SJO stating that he was satisfied with the working of meter and there is no
need for installation of check meter, so as to check the accuracy of the meter.
The consumption data was also supplied by the sub division along with the other
details.
6. The refusal by the complainant to get the check meter installed is not being
appreciated by the Forum as it creates doubt about the genuineness of the
consumer. The licensee has the right to check and confirm the accuracy of the
meters as per provisions contained in Sub Regulations(1) of Regulation 7.5 –
Defective meters, reproduced below:-
(1) “The Licensee shall have the right to test any meter and related apparatus if there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the meter, and the consumer shall provide the licensee necessary assistance in conducting of the test. The consumer shall also be present during the testing”.
The Forum expects the complainant to come forward to get the check meter
installed rather then waiting for the licensee to use his powers so as to clear the
doubts arising in the minds of licensee.
7. Subsequently, hearing conducted on 23.06.2014 was attended by the both
parties. The reply submit by the SDO was seen. Thereafter hearing was
conducted on 22.07.2014 and on 13.08.2014.
87
8. On the basis of the data submitted by SDO and the remarks recorded
complainant on the SJO that he is satisfied with the working of the meter, it is
clear that the complainant has no grievances about the bills issued to him for the
electricity consumed by him. His only grievances seems to be on charging of
ACD and FPPCA. These charges were being levied as per orders of Hon’ble
JERC and are in order, and no action is required to be taken by the Sub Division.
The complaint stands dismissed as no inflated charges were being recovered by
the licensee as alleged by the complainant.
9. With above findings the complaint stands disposed off.
“The Complainant, if still aggrieved, may make a representation/appeal against
this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and
UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-
V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333,
E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt
of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
11.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
88
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 501
Date of Institution - 06.12.2013 Date of Order - 19.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Gurmail Singh, H. No.89, Village–Dadu Majra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Gurmail Singh, H. No.89, Village–Dadu Majra, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 06.12.13 intimated that for the domestic connection, he was getting bill on
average basis for which he made requests to SDO concerned to issue bills on the
basis of consumption.
2. The representation received from Sh. Gurmail Singh was treated as formal
complaint No. 501 and was forwarded to the Nodal Officer/ Executive Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh for taking further action. He was also
requested to give suitable directions to concerned SDO to attend the proceedings
of the Forum fixed for 11.12.2013 vide letter dated 09.12.13. The SDO vide his
letter dated 20.01.14 submitted that the consumer had been allowed electric
connection under domestic category only for “Mali Hut”. The meter of the
consumer was found defective and was replaced vide MCO dated 15.04.13. The
electric connection was also checked vide ECR dated 15.04.13 and it was found
that the domestic connection was being used for commercial purpose. It was
observed that after the incoming service line from LT to meter equipment (about
500 meter), the consumer extended connection from meter to Dharam Kanda by
89
underground wire and to other structure through overhead wire to supply power to
some kabaris. One DG set was also placed near the compressor motor. On
account of misuse of the connection, Provisional Assessment Report for
Rs.82,036/- + Rs.191/- was given to the consumer for which the consumer never
represented. As per directions of the Forum, a check meter was also installed to
check the accuracy of the installed meter. However, reading of check meter/main
meter could not be taken as the consumer was not using electricity from the
electric meter as stated by the SDO. Subsequently, the SDO vide letter dated
14.03.14 submitted that the display of the existing meter was found defective. The
defective meter was replaced on 08.03.14. The consumption data from
18.10.2009 to 18.12.2013 was also supplied by the SDO.
3. The case was listed before the Forum on 11.12.13, 19.12,13, 13.01.14, 19.02.14,
13.03.14, 25.03.14, 17.04.14, 13.05.14, 22.05.14, 02.06.14, 12.06.14, 30.06.14,
04.07.14, 16.07.14, 07.08.14 and 19.08.14.
4. Most of the hearings were attended by the complainant as well as the respondent.
5. On the basis of submissions (oral/written) submitted by the complainant as well as
the respondent SDO, the facts of the case emerged as under :-
9. Sh. Gurmail Singh has taken a domestic connection for “Mali Hut” in the year
2009 with a long service line of around 500 Meter. The consumer’s main
grievance in the initial complaint was receipt of bills on average basis instead of
actual reading. In between the cable from the LT to his meter was removed in the
year 2009 and which was re-laid again after he made number of requests to the
Sub Division as well as higher offices. On 19.12.12, he again noted that his
meter was removed and the supply was disconnected. On contacting the Sub
Division, he was asked to clear his pending bills. He deposited Rs.13,000/- and
requested for issuance of bills on the basis of reading so that he could deposit the
balance amount. Thereafter on 20.05.14, a bill amounting to Rs.1,49,749/- was
handed over to him on account of use of his domestic connection for commercial
purpose and extension of Unauthorized Use of load as detected by Enforcement
Wing on 15.04.2013.
10. As per the written submissions by the SDO, the electric connection of the
consumer was checked vide ECR dated 15.04.13 and the consumer was booked
90
under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as Unauthorised use of supply for
commercial purpose was found. The checking party also reported that –
a) “Meter checked and found Dead Stop.
b) The electric connection is used for commercial purposes (Kabari shops 4 Nos.)
but the supply is mis-used for commercial purpose under Section 126 of Act
2003 for unauthorized electric supply for other purpose.
c) There is one number Dharam Kanda is used at site.
d) One No. Compressor machine running through generator at the time of
checking”.
6. The consumer was issued Provisional Assessment Notice dated 15.04.13 under
Regulation, 10.3 of the Supply Code Regulation for Rs.82,036/- clearly stating
that the domestic connection was being used for commercial purpose and 4 Nos.
Kabari shops were running. The Provisional Assessment Notice could not be
delivered by hand as nobody was at the premises to receive and the same was
sent by post on 29.04.13. The defective meter was replaced immediately on
16.04.2013.
7. During hearings the complainant denied receipt of the Provisional Assessment
Notice and stated that he was handed over the same on 19.12.13. The
complainant during hearing on 19.02.14, raised the objection regarding the ECR
and the load/appliance shown by the department. He stated that the kabaris were
using electricity for lighting purpose through the generator and also showed receipt
of petrol for use by the generator.
8. On perusal of the ECR, it has been noted that the checking was got done as per
written requests of the consumer. The connected load was found to be 2.760 KW
against sanctioned load of 0.486 KW thereby declaring extra load as 2.280 KW.
The load shown in the ECR mainly consisted of 1.5 KW rating welding set, it was
clearly mentioned in the ECR that the domestic connection was being used for
commercial purpose as supply was extended to 4 No. Kabaris.
9. From the above submissions made by the complainant, the concerned SDO and
the provisions in the Supply Code Regulations, the position emerged as under :-
12. That in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14, issued and effective from 15.04.2013
announced by Hon’ble JERC, Domestic Supply Category consumers have been
91
exempted for treating them under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in case,
the load in excess of the sanctioned load is found at the premises of the consumer.
13. The checking was done on 15.04.2013, the date on which the Hon’ble JERC
through tariff order for Financial Year-2013-14 exempted DS consumer for treating
under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on detection of excess load.
10. So far as the overhauling of account for the period the bill was issued on average
basis either on account of meter being defective or on locked or inconsistent
reading, the SDO concerned submitted that the account of consumer has been
overhauled on the basis of current consumption charges for the period 18.04.13 to
18.02.14 to which the consumer expressed his satisfaction.
11. On the basis of above facts, the Forum concludes that treating the present case
under section 126 of Act is not in order. The action is to be taken as per
instructions of the Hon’ble Commission as continued in the Tariff order for FY
2013-14 issued on 15.04.2013. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer-Executive Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT Chandigarh is directed to take further action in the
matter and also to get the account overhauled on the basis of charging for the
period the bill was issued on average basis. The surcharge amount should also be
adjusted.
12. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.
With above directions, the complaint is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
13. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
92
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 511
Date of Institution - 19.12.2013 Date of Order - 20.08.2014
In the matter of Sh. Hans Raj Sharma on behalf of Sh. Kaka Ram, House.No.416/1, Sector-40/A, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. A complaint was made by Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, resident of House.No.416/1,
Sector-40/A, Chandigarh on 07.10.2013 that his electricity meter was found
removed on 12.09.2013. He brought to this notice of SDO concerned and
also lodged the complaint with the Police Station, Sector-39, Chandigarh. He
requested the Forum for restoration of his electric supply.
2. Before this complaint was treated as formal complaint the parawise comments
were called from XEN, Electricity (OP) Division No.4, Chandigarh along with
consumption data vide Forum letter dated 09.10.2013. The complainant was
also asked to supply the Proof of ownership/GPA or valid tenancy in respect
of premises.
3. In response to letter of Forum referred to any Para-2, the SDO, Electy.(OP)
Sub Division No.10, Chandigarh vide his reply dated 22.10.2013 informed that
the complainant (Sh. Hans Raj Sharma) is not the consumer of the Electricity
Department. The electric supply in the premises was got disconnected vide
his application dated 10.09.2013 by Sh. Kaka Ram, the person is in whose
name the electricity connection was released. The PDCO was affected and
93
the meter was removed. The SDO also stated that Sh. Hans Raj Sharma,
(the complainant) was told this fact when he visited the Sub Division. It was
also made clear to him that the department cannot re-install the meter unless
the request from the consumer is received. SDO also stated that Sh. Hans
Raj Sharma, was also informed about the removal of meter vide his office
Endst. Dated 04.10.2013. The consumption pattern of three years was also
supplied along with the request regarding removal of electricity meter dated
10.09.2013 by the owner, and the PDCO dated 10.09.2013.
4. The representation of Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, was registered as formal
Complaint.No.511, and was fixed for consideration/hearing by the Forum on
08.01.14.
5. The Consumer did not turn up on 08.01.2014. Thereafter number of
opportunities were afforded to the consumer to attend the hearing of the
Forum on 26.02.2014, 29.04.2014, 30.05.2014, 08.07.2014 and 20.08.2014,
but the consumer did not turn up. The first notice regarding hearing on
08.01.2014, which was sent to the complainant by Speed-post, was returned
by the post office on 21.12.2013 with the remarks that the addressee had ‘left’.
6. In between SDO vide his letter dated 15.01.2014 submitted that the owner of
the house applied for reconnection of the Electric supply of said premises and
prayed for dismissed of the case by the Forum in view of the request of re-
connection. The subsequent notice of hearing sent through speed-Mail were
also returned back with the same remarks that the consumer had left the
place.
7. During hearing on 20.08.2014, the SDO concerned informed that the
connection has been restored, long back when the differences between tenant
and the owner were resolved and the tenant thereafter vacated the premises
and shifted to some other premises.
8. In view of the above position, Forum do not see any merit in the
representation/complaint by the complainant and dismiss the same.
94
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
12.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
95
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 524
Date of Institution - 13.05.2014 Date of Order - 21.08.2014
In the matter of Smt. Savitri Sihag, House.No.933, Sector-7/B, Chandigarh .
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Additional Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. An application was received from Sh. O.P. Sihag on behalf of Mrs. Savitri Sihag,
resident of House.No.933, Sector-7/B, Chandigarh on 21.01.2014 stating that he
received a notice from AEE, Electy.(OP) Sub Division No.2, Sector-10,
Chandigarh to pay Rs. 18142/- vide No.5762, dated 17.12.2013 on account of
charging of average for the period his meter remained defective (05.10.2012 to
20.10.2013). He stated that the average and the period taken for charging was
not correct as the meter was found to be defective only on 10.09.2013 and
intimation of the same was given to SDO immediately for replacement of the
meter.
2. Before the application was taken as formal complaint, para wise comments of
Addl. S.E., Electy.(OP), Division No.1, were called vide letter dated 22.01.2014
alongwith consumption data for last three years.
3. In response to Forum later, SDO, Electy. (OP) Sub Divn. No.2, informed that the
amount of Rs.18,142/- has been charged by Internal Audit of the Sub division on
account of average for the period 05.10.2012 to 20.10.2013 (13 months) on the
basis of previous consumption during the period 05.10.2011 to 05.10.2012.
Further, that the dead stop meter was replaced vide MCO.No. 32/481, dated
27.09.2013 effected on 28.10.2013. The consumption data for the last three
years was also supplied.
96
4. The representation was treated as formal complaint on 15.05.2014 and registered
as Complaint no.524.
5. The hearing of the case was conducted on 03.06.2014, 13.06.2014 and
21.08.2014. During hearing on 03.06.2014 and 13.06.2014, the consumption
data was analysed. It was noted that for the period 05.02.2011 to 05.08.2013,
the bill was issued on the basis of reading recorded by meter with meter status
code ‘Z’ and only for the period 05.08.2013 to 05.10.2013, bill on average basis
was issued with meter status code as ‘D’(defective). The consumer attributed the
reason for low consumption during the period October, 2012 to July 2013 that
they remained out for most of the time to pursue the case of suspension of his
wife. The SDO was directed to review the charging already done by them, in
view of submissions made by the consumer.
6. The SDO vide letter dated 01.08.2014 submitted that the account was overhauled
again and necessary adjusted was made in the consumer account after getting
the same audited from the Internal Auditor.
7. During hearing on 21.08.2014, both parties were present. The consumer showed
his satisfaction to the revised charging done by the SDO.
8. As the consumer has no grievances now, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if still aggrieved, may make a representation/appeal against
this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and
UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-
V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333,
E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt
of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
9.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
97
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 500
Date of Institution - 06.12.2013 Date of Order - 02.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Harinder Jain on behalf of Sh. Mela Ram , H. No.1557, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Harinder Jain on behalf of Sh. Mela Ram , H. No.1557, Sector 7-C,
Chandigarh vide his letter dated 8.10.2013 addressed to SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-
Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh with a copy to CGRF stated that excess billing was
being done by the Electricity Department. The meter installed at his residence
was not connected and defective. The house was under construction and no-one
was living in the house thus no electricity was being consumed. He was being
issued the electricity bills on average basis which was also being deposited by
him inadvertantly. He requested for refund of the amount already raised and paid
by him for the period 18.6.12 to 18.6.13.
2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer i.e.
Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh was
called upon to submit the para-wise comments/facts of the case on the
representation of the complainant and also the consumption data for the last
three years was called for vide Forum’s letter dated 09.10.2013.
3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 09.10.2013, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’
Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 31.10.2013 submitted the
facts of the case to the Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1
with a copy to the Forum. It was stated that the complainant was being issued a
98
bill for the period 18.6.12 to 18.6.13 on the basis of average @ 210 U.P.M. as the
meter was dead stop. The premises of the consumer was checked on 27.5.13
and it was found that the complainant was using electricity for construction
purpose through another connection (Account No. 0745/155702U), the meter of
this connection was also found to be defective whereas the meter of the
connection bearing Account No. 0745/155701T (main Account) was lying idle in
bad condition without cover and M&P seals. A sum of Rs.26913/- was charged to
2nd Account No. 0745/155702U on account of Unauthorized Use of Electricity and
same was deposited by the consumer. It was also stated that keeping in view the
ECR and representation of the consumer, the average charged on D-Code
against main Account No. 0745/155701T was revised and entry for refund of
Rs.6460/- was passed in sundry charges and allowance register but the same
was held back by the I.A. stating that the case is pending with CGRF. It was also
stated that the consumer requested for change of name of both the connections
as the same were in the name of original owner of the house from whom they had
purchased the house. Further the meters were replaced with healthy meter. The
consumption data of the consumer was also supplied while submitting the facts.
4. The representation of Sh. Harinder Jain was treated as formal complaint No. 500
on 09.12.13.
5. The hearings of the case were held on 23.12.2013, 22.01.2014, 25.03.2014,
12.05.2014, 25.06.2014, 16.07.2014 and 2.09.2014. Last three hearings on
25.06.14, 16.07.14 and 02.09.14 were not attended by any of the party. As
sufficient opportunity was given to both the parties to make submissions, the
Forum decided to dispose the case on the basis of facts.
6. From the facts of the case, submitted by SDO, Electy. OP Sub Divn. No. 2, it is
seen that the complainant was using electricity from his second connection
(Account No. 0745/155702U) whereas the meter against his main connection was
found defective and disconnected as per ECR dated 27.5.13. The complainant
was charged a sum of Rs.26,913/- on account of Unauthorized Use of Electricity
from his second connection and the same was paid by him. On going through the
calculation of this amount, it is noted that the same has been charged for the
period 27.9.12 to 27.5.13.
99
7. The facts of the case clearly brings out following:-
(a) The meter of the complainant was found idle and disconnected.
(b) In response to ECR checking dated 27.05.2013, penalty was
imposed for misuse of second connection from 27.09.2012 to
27.05.2013.
8. About facts clearly indicates that as the main meter was found disconnected
whatever the consumption could have been consumed, the same should be from
second connection and as such the consumer cannot be charged twice as the
charging for 2nd connection had already been done by the department.
9. Moreover, it has also been noted that the Hon’ble JERC through Tariff Order for
the FY-2013-14 had exempted the DS consumers from treating under section 126
on detection of excess load. The ECR report in the present case is dated
27.05.2013. Thus, the penal amount already recovered is to be revised as per
latest instructions of the Hon’ble JERC.
10. In view of above, the Forum is of the view that the account of the consumer
bearing Account No. 0745/155701T be overhauled from the period 18.6.12 upto
18.6.13. For the period upto 27.9.12, the charging may be done on the basis of
average to be calculated on the basis of past consumption of the consumer and
for the period 27.9.12 to 27.5.13 charges be levied only in case the same has not
already been charged against his second connection bearing Account No.
0745/155702U on A/c of ECR report. The penalty already charged also needs to
be revised in view of Para-9 above.
11. In view of above, the Forum directs the Nodal officer to get the account of the
complainant overhauled as per para-10 above.
12. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of this
order. With above, the complaint is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
100
13. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
\
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
101
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 513
Date of Institution - 10.01.2014 Date of Order - 02.09.2014
In the matter of Smt. Satya Kaur, House.No.1124, Sector-28/B, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Satya Kaur, resident of House.No.1124, Sector-28/B, Chandigarh made a
complaint about excess bill for the period 13.08.2013 to 13.10.2013 against a
domestic connection vide letter dated 18.10.2013.
2. Before the complaint was formally registered the Nodal Officer, XEN, Electy (OP)
Divn. No.3, Chandigarh was called upon to submit comments/action taken report
on the representation of the consumer also to apply the consumption data for last
three years was called for vide letter dated 19.11.2013.
3. In response to Forum letter, the concern SDO, Electy. (OP) S/Divn. No.3, Chd
vide his letter dated 29.11.2013 stated that the bill of the consumer was prepared
as per reading recorded by the meter. He also supplied the consumption data for
last three years.
4. The Complaint was registered vide Comp.No.513 and was fixed for hearing on
29.01.2014 when both the parties were present. Further, hearing of the Forum
was conducted on 11.03.2014 and 30.04.2014. The subsequent hearing fixed for
29.05.14, 17.07.2014 and 02.09.2014 were neither attended by the complainant
nor the respondent. As sufficient opportunity has been given to both the parties,
the Forum decided to dispose off the case on the basis of facts/merit.
102
5. From the consumption data, it has been seen that the consumption in the past
has been in the range of 100 to 180 unit per billing cycle. The meter was
changed in the month of 8/2013 whereafter the meter recorded consumption of
1893 units for the period 8/2013 to 10/2013. Looking at the past consumption of
the consumer commensurate with the connected load of 0.640 KW the recorded
consumption during the dispute period appears to be very much on higher side. It
is also been noted that the meter in question as already been replaced with a new
meter on 07.12.2013, as per copy of MCO
dated 29.11.2013, supplied by SDO.
6. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account of the consumer
overhauled for the period 13.08.2013 to 13.10.2013 on the basis of consumption
recorded by the new meter.
7. The compliance of the order be submitted to the Forum by 31.10.2014 with above
directions, the complaint is disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
10.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
103
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 516
Date of Institution - 10.02.2014 Date of Order - 03.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Narinder Paul Mehta, SCO. No.323-324, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Narinder Paul Mehta, SCO. No. 323-324, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh
vide his e-mail dated 18.11.2013 stated that he alongwith Vishavdeep Singh
Sandhu are the joint owners of second floor of Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. The new
connection applied by them was in the month of February, 2013 is not being
released by the office of SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh.
2. Before treating the representation as formal complaint, the para-wise
comments/action taken report on the representation of the consumer was called
from the Nodal Officer/Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT,
Chandigarh by the Forum vide letter dated 19.11.2013.
3. In response to Forum’s letter, the Nodal Officer submitted the reply through SDO,
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh wherein it was stated that already 3
connections with total connected load of 97.890 KW are existing for SCO. No.323-
324, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. The complainant has applied for new
connection with connected load of 41.440KW for second floor. He stated that as
per instructions issued by the Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Circle, U.T.
Chandigarh and Tariff Order for FY 2012-13 for load above 30 KW, the connection
shall be given on 11KV in case of multi-consumers complexes.
104
4. The complaint was registered vide No. 516 on 10.12.2014 and was fixed for
hearing on 18.2.2014. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 12.03.2014,
15.04.2014, 27.5.2014, 11.6.2014, 9.7.2014 and on 03.09.2014.
5. During these hearings, the issue of release of new connection was deliberated and
SDO after getting convinced released the new connection on 18.03.2014. The
Nodal Officer also supplied copy of the written submissions made by SDO to the
Forum.
6. With the release of the connection, the grievance of consumer has been redressed
and thus complaint stands disposed off.
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
8.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
105
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 523
Date of Institution - 13.05.2014 Date of Order - 03.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Nirmal Singh, House.No.596, Sector-8/B, Chandigarh .
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Additional Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Nirmal Singh resident of House.No. 596, Sector-8/B, Chandigarh vide his
letter dated 10.03.2014 submitted that he purchased 5 marla House.No.596,
Sector-8/B, Chandigarh on 9/10 July 2012. The house was lying vacant there
after upto 01.06.2013. In between some of the Electricity bills were not paid and
the electricity connection was disconnected for 3/4 months. In March 2013 he
decided to shift and approach the Electricity department for re-connection after
paying all the dues. Minor repairs were undertaking before they shifted on
02.06.2013. In October, 2013 he received a bill for Rs.3,67 Lac for more than
80,000 units. He requested for getting the bill corrected stating that this much
electricity cannot be consumed in 2 months.
2. The Complainant was forwarded to the Nodal Officer, Additional Superintending
Engineer, Electy,(OP) Division No.1, UT, Chandigarh for comments and also
three year consumption data was called for vide letter dated 10.03.2014.
3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 10.03.2014, the concerned SDO submitted
the facts of the case to the nodal officer vide his letter dated 15.04.2014 with a
copy to the Forum. As per comments given by SDO, the complainant applied for
change of name vide A & A dated 05.09.2013. While effecting the PDCO and
106
SCO the reading was recorded as 90603 on 09.09.2013 with meter working
status OK. The bill of the consumer was being prepared on L-Code in the past on
average basis as the reading could not be recorded due to premises remained
locked. The bill for the period 27.05.2012 to 09.09.2013 was prepared on the
basis of recorded readings on the respective dates for Rs.3,67,940/-. The
working of the meter was got checked on 05.03.2014 and again on 01.04.2014
and the same was found in order. The consumption data for last three years was
also supplied alongwith the checking report. It was noted that there were three
connections for the three floors of the 5 marla house and the issue of receipt of
excess consumption bill was relating to First floor.
4. The representative of Sh. Nirmal Singh was registered as formal Complaint
No.523 and was listed for hearing before the Forum on 02.06.2014. Subsequent,
the hearing was conducted on 28.07.2014 and 03.09.2014. The complainant
submitted that house was purchased in July, 2012 and it was lying vacant and
locked upto 1st June, 2013. In between some repair work were carried out during
end March, 2013 to May 2013, before they shifted on 02.06.2013. He submitted
that the factual position regarding premises/house lying vacant from July, 2012,
May, 2013 can be verified from the neighbours. The SDO was directed to verify
the factual position regarding vacancy of the house from neighbours/Meter
Reader during hearing on 28.07.2014. During the next hearing on 03.09.2014,
the SDO submitted that the position was got verified through official of the Sub
Division and he confirmed that the house was not occupied during the period upto
May,2013. Further, It was seen from the consumption data that from 27.05.2012
onwards, the bill was being issued on premises locked basis with Average
consumption of 791 units per billing cycle. The bill issued in November, 2013
was for 80,061 units for the period 27.05.2012 to 27.11.2013.
5. The complainant also enclosed the bank statement showing the amount paid by
cheque to Col. Sanmukh Singh from 02.04.2011 to 01.05.2013, in support of his
submissions that he was not residing at the purchased house, but was living in
rented accommodation for which he was paying rent on regular basis.
107
6. The SDO during hearing on 03.09.2014 confirmed that the house was not
occupied upto May 2013, which is also clear from the fact that from 27.05.2012
onwards, the bill was being issued on Average basis with premises shown locked.
The Consumer has also enclosed Bank statement that he was paying rent to Col.
Sanmukh Singh upto 01.05.2013 for the rented accommodation taken by him.
Moreover, the Consumption of 80,061 units for 16 months period for one floor of a
5 marla house is not possible, with Sanctioned load of 0.640 KW. Considering
the load factor for DS consumer as 35% for estimating the consumption, this
consumption of 80,061 units for 16 months period is possible with sanctioned
load of around 20 KW. The Forum, therefore is of the view that use of Electricity
to the extent of 80,000 plus units in the locked premises is not possible.
7. In view of the above, the Forum directs, the Nodal Officer to get the account
of the consumer overhauled by the charging minimum consumption for the period
27.05.2012 to 01.06.2013, where after the charging should be done on the basis
of the consumption recorded by the meter from 27.09.2013 onwards.
8. The compliance be reported within one month. With above directions, the
complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if still aggrieved, may make a representation/appeal against
this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and
UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-
V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333,
E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt
of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
108
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 509
Date of Institution - 18.12.2013 Date of Order - 04.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Ramesh Kumar on behalf of Sh. Viney Kumar, H. No.3317, Sector-32D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of H. No.3317, Sector-32D, Chandigarh submitted a
representation on 11.10.2013 that he received an electricity bill for Rs.25,508/- in
September, 2012 on the basis of consumption for the month of May, 2012 and
July, 2012. He stated that the reading recorded by the meter is very much on
higher side and may be due to meter developing some defects and recording high
consumption. On his request, a check meter was installed on 25th September,
2012 and it was observed that the meter was fast by 148%. He was allowed to
make part payment. Subsequently, the meter was changed on 07.11.2012 and
was got tested in Laboratory on 09.10.2013 in his presence and he was told that
the working of meter is OK and to pay the balance amount of the bill and he
submitted the complaint.
2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the comments on the
representation and past consumption data of the consumer for the last three years
was called from the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3,
UT, Chandigarh vide Forum letter dated 14.10.13.
3. The Nodal Officer vide letter dated 06.11.2013 forwarded the reports submitted by
concerned SDO alongwith consumption data for the last three years. The SDO,
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh stated that on receipt of complaint
from the consumer, for high bill of Rs.25,508/- for the period May, 2012 to July,
109
2012, the meter was got checked on 17.09.2012. Thereafter, on depositing the
challenge fee, a check meter was installed and the meter was found fast by 148%.
The meter was replaced vide MCO dated 07.11.12. Thereafter, the removed meter
was got tested in the lab. on 19.10.2012 and the error was found within permissible
limits.
4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.509 on 18.12.2013. The
hearings were conducted on 06.01.14, 03.02.14, 19.03.14, 16.04.14, 22.04.14,
19.05.14, 18.07.14 and 04.09.2014.
5. From the reply submitted by SDO, it has been noted that the meter was found fast
by 148% in October, 2012 whereas when tested in the Laboratory on 09.10.13
(after one year), the error was found to be within permissible limits. The results of
2 reports i.e. the check meter report and testing of M&P Lab. report, make the
issue complicated. In order to draw some influence, the consumption data
supplied by the SDO was analysed. The consumption data as supplied by SDO for
the three years is reproduced below :-
Period Consumption recorded by meter
During 2010 During 2011 During 2012 During
2013
January-
March
-- 842 571 461
March-May -- P.L
} 3960
1964 1170
May-July -- 5828 2208
July-September
1808 1748 3174
September-November
163 1517
} 1680
1008 853
} 1961
1045
November-January
371 +
(MCO) (New Meter consumption)
consumption (MCO) for old meter
6. From the above data, it is noted that the consumption for the 4 month period
March-July during 2011 almost matches with the consumption recorded for the
same period during 2013. For other billing cycles, the consumption during 2010,
110
2011 and 2012 was also found to be comparable. The consumption during the 2
month period July-September, 2012 is also quite on higher side as compared to
consumption recorded for the same period during 2010 and during 2011. Thus
from above, it is noted that consumption recorded by the meter during the period
March- September, 2012 is on higher side when compared with the consumption
recorded during the corresponding period in other two years for which the data has
been supplied.
7. The above analysis of the consumption data and the check meter report, in
October-2012 and subsequently Lab. Report in October-2013 indicate that the
working of the meter was eratic. The consumption data clearly indicates that the
recording during the period under consideration was on higher side as compared to
consumption during other two years by around 50% which was matching with the
check meter report whereas subsequently on testing after one year, the working
of the meter was found to be O.K. The consumption during 4 month period from
September to January for the three years also appears to be comparable suggests
that it may not be a case of accumulation of the reading.
8. From above record, it is established that the meter recorded abnormally high
consumption during the disputed period as raised by the complainants. The check
meter report established the same but on the other hand, the subsequent testing in
the M&P Lab. declared that the errors at different settings were within permissible
limits and further no creeping was observed. The Forum considered these two
contradictory reports and do not find any reason to conclude any one of the report
is false/wrong. After giving deep thought and consideration to the matter, to our
mind, the only reason which can be attributed to the abnormal high recording of the
consumption is that the reading of the meter jumps. This fact can be checked only
when the meter is kept under observation continuously for a sufficiently long period
of 10-15 days as in the case of checking the working with installation of a check
meter. This case of reading jumping may not be detected during the Lab. testing
as the meter is tested for a short duration with main focus on the detection of errors
at various loads/voltage and creeping.
In number of other complaints (complaint No. 509, 513, 514, 521, 536 & 539 etc.)
analysis of the consumption data indicated the erratic behaviour of the meter
111
though subsequently meter working was found to be in order when tested in lab. In
all such cases, the decisions were taken on the basis of merit after analysis of
past/present consumption.
9. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account of the
consumer for the period March, 2012 to September, 2012 on the basis of the
consumption for the corresponding period during the year 2011. Further it has also
been noted that during the period November-January, 2012, the bill was issued on
the basis of reading recorded by new meter only but for the period old meter
remained in operation, no charging was done. The charging for this period may
also be done by the Sub Division simultaneously alongwith surcharge adjustment.
10. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days with regard to amount to be charged
on this account towards cost of burnt meter. In the event, the amount charged is
found to be in excess, the same may be refunded alongwith amount of surcharge.
11. With above, the complaint is treated as disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman
for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-
2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one
month from the date of receipt of this order.”
12. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
112
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.),NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 504
Date of Institution - 11.12.2013 Date of Order - 09.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu on behalf of Smt. Gobind Kaur, House.No.3335, Sector-21/D, Chandigarh .
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu resident of House.No.3335, Sector-21/D, Chandigarh
vide his representation dated 21.10.2013 stated that he has been receiving wrong
bills prepared by the electricity department from time to time during last 4 to 5
years. The bills were corrected but the surcharge amount continue to be levied.
He requested for waiver of the late payment surcharge. He cited some of the
instances such as levy of his tenant bills to his account in the year June, 2009.
Another instance relates to raising of bill of Rs. 36,394/- along with late payment
of surcharge of Rs. 2,238/- on 05.08.2011. He stated that his bill should have
been for Rs.25, 309/- only. He also alleged that in the bill issued on 05.02.2012,
an amount of Rs.30,535/- towards arrears of 2009 and Rs. 21,051/- towards
arrear of 2011 were added, while raising a total amount of Rs. 75,528/-. Sundry
charges of Rs.47,144/- for which no details were provided were also added. He
requested for correction of his bills on account of above three instances along
with waiver of late payment surcharge levied.
2. Before complaint was treated as formal complaint the Nodal Officer, (Executive
Engineer, Electy, (OP) Division No.3, UT, Chd) was called upon to examine and
submit para wise comments of the representation of the consumer vide Forum
letter dated 23.10.2013. The consumption data for the last three years was also
called for.
113
3. In response to Forum letter dated 23.03.2013 concerned SDO, Electy (OP) Sub
Division No.3, submitted the comments stating that the bill was wrongly prepared
by the Computer Center from May,2012 to August, 2013. The complete detail
report of the bill/ledger from March 2009 to September, 2013 was also enclosed
alongwith consumption data.
4. The representation of Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu was taken as formal complaint
No.504 and listed for hearing before the Forum 30.12.2013. Neither party
attended the hearing on 30.12.2013 and on their request the case was adjourned
for 27.01.2014. During the hearing on 27.01.2014, both the parties were present.
The complainant raised the objection regarding the payment made in billing cycle
2008 to 2013. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 17.02.2014, 01.05.2014,
23.05.2014, 19.06.2014, 10.07.2014, 20.08.2014 and 09.09.14. Last five
hearings have been attended by SDO only and the complainant did not attend,
despite issuance of proper notice by the Forum.
5. During hearings the concerned SDO stated that due to wrong bills prepared by
the Computer Centre (RCC), the consumer was not required to pay any amount
as the bills were issued for minus. Subsequently, Computer Centre detected the
mistake and corrected the bills of the consumer there by raising the accumulated
heavy amount in one single bill. The consumer represented that due to mistake
by the Computer Centre, he could not arrange the amount and made part
payment but the surcharge continue to be levied in the next cycle bills on the full
amount of the bill. SDO also confirmed that now the consumer has cleared the
pending amount of the bills, but the amount of surcharge has not paid by the
consumer, which has been increasing with issuance of every bill.
6. From the facts of the case, it has been noted that the consumer was issued
wrong bills by the Computer Centre with the remarks that no amount is to be paid,
in some of the bills for number of cycles. Correct bill with huge amount for the
previous cycles as arrears was prepared by the Computer Centre in April, 2013.
The complainant argued that it is easy to pay regular payments monthly, but
difficult to arrange huge amounts relating to past cycle bills. He, therefore, made
part payments but the surcharge continued to be levied on the full amount of the
bill and added to the amount of bill of the next cycle as arrears. The Forum finds
114
merit in the submissions made by the complainant and therefore, consider that
levy of full surcharge to the consumer for the wrong prepared bills by Computer
Centre is not justified. On the other hand, licensee/Computer Centre continued to
levy surcharge as per the instructions after rectification of the mistake.
7. With regard to complainants request for waiver of the surcharge, the Forum
observed from the date supplied by the SDO from May,2009 onwards that the
complainant was not regular in making the payments of bills. He is in habit of
making payments after defaulting for one/two cycles. Up till wrong preparation of
bills by RCC in May 2012, only once the bill was prepared without any arrear
amount for the paid 9/2010 to 11/-2010, considering that the complainant is
habitual defaulter in making regular payments, the Forum is not including to his
request to waive off fall surcharge.
8. In the above circumstances, the Forum considers appropriate to give relief in
respect of surcharge:-
a) Not to levy surcharge for the part payments mode.
b) Waiver off 50% total surcharge as worked out after taking (a) into
account.
9. The Forum directs the Nodal officer to get the account overhauled by calculating
the surcharge on the arrears of the bills rather than on the full amount of the bill.
In other words, surcharge should not be levied on the part payments made by
the complainant. Further, the surcharge is to be calculated upto the date, the
consumer cleared all his pending bills for the principle amount. The amount of
surcharge worked out at this juncture be waived off to the extent of 50%.
Hereafter the normal instructions with regard to calculation of surcharge would be
applicable.
10. The compliance be reported within one month of issue of orders. The complaint
stands disposed off.
“The Complainant, if still aggrieved, may make a representation/appeal against
this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and
UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-
V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333,
E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt
of this order.”
115
11. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having
it properly numbered and indexed.
12.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
116
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 514
Date of Institution - 15.06.2014 Date of Order - 09.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Suba Singh, H. No. 2140, Sector-27C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Suba Singh resident of H. No. 2140, Sector-27C, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 15.01.14, represented that he received electricity bills during the period
8/12 to 10/12 which were very much on higher side as compared to his average
consumption. The complainant also submitted that his family resides at Patiala
(Punjab) and he lives alone in the house and that too only for 2-3 days in a week.
He observed the behaviour of the meter for no. of days to note that it was
consuming 60-70 units daily. He then approached the Sub Division for getting the
meter checked and deposited the requisite meter challenge fee. The check meter
installed during the period 25.01.13 to 07.02.13 clearly established that the meter
installed at his residence was almost 16 times faster than the consumption
recorded by the check meter. Thereafter, the meter was replaced with a new
meter. Despite his pursuance and the check meter report, his account was not
overhauled. He was told that the case has been referred to the Division, before
the overhauling is done. In the meantime, he made part payment and continued
to deposit the current bill charges but his supply was disconnected on 23.12.12.
He has, therefore, approached the Forum for issuance of suitable instructions for
overhauling his account.
2. Before the complaint was registered, the comments of the Nodal Officer -
Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh were called. The
117
SDO concerned vide his letter dated 28.01.14 submitted that the meter installed
at the consumer premises was found fast by 1472.63% after installation of the
check meter. Subsequently the disputed meter was replaced vide MCO dated
11.02.13. With regard to overhauling, the SDO submitted that the case was
referred to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3 who advised him to
get the meter tested from M&P Lab. He further stated that the meter was not
packed at the time of replacement of the meter, as there was no practice to check
the meter from M&P Lab. The meter could not be sent as the M&P Lab. does not
accept unpacked/unsealed meters. The consumer was asked vide letter dated
21.06.13 to deposit the pending bills to avoid disconnection. The consumption
data for the last three years was also supplied by the SDO.
3. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No. 514 on 15.01.14 and was
fixed for hearing on 28.01.14. Both the parties attended the hearing on 28.01.14.
Subsequent hearings were held on 18.02.14, 23.05.14, 19.06.14, 10.07.14,
20.08.14 and 09.09.14.
4. On the basis of details submitted by the complainant as well as by the SDO, it has
been noted that there was abrupt increase in the consumption during the period
August, 2012 to October- 2012 and in the subsequent cycle from October, 2012 to
December, 2012. The meter was got checked by installation of check meter from
25.01.13 to 07.02.2013. On comparison of the reading, the meter was declared
fast by 1472.63 times. However, despite this report, the account of the consumer
was not overhauled and the case was referred to the Division who advised for
getting the meter checked at the M&P Lab.
5. The Supply Code Regulations issued by the Hon’ble JERC under Sub-Regulation
2 of Regulation 7.5 provides as under –
“ 7.5 Defective Meters
(2) A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter, if he doubts its
accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his consumption,
stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the licensee along
with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the meter within 30
days of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards of Performance of
Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary testing of meters can be
carried out at the premises of the consumers through electronic testing
equipments.
(i) In case the meter is found OK, no further action shall be taken.
118
(ii) In case the meter is found fast/slow by the licensee, and the consumer
agrees to the report, the meter shall be replaced by a new meter within
15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to the month in which
the dispute has arisen shall be revised in the subsequent bill as per the
test results. In case meter is found to be slow, the additional charges may
be recovered in instalments not exceeding three, if the consumer shows his
inability to pay at a time.
(iii) If the consumer disputes the results of testing, or testing at consumer’s
premises is difficult, the defective meter shall be replaced by a new
tested meter by the Licensee, and the defective meter after sealing in
presence of consumer, shall be tested at licensee’s lab. / Independent
lab./ Electrical Inspector, as agreed by consumer in presence of the
representative of both Licensee and the consumer. The option once
exercised by consumer shall not be changed. The decision on the basis of
reports of the test lab. shall be final on the Licensee as well as the consumer.”
6. Above regulations clearly provides under para (ii) that Licensee to revise the bills
as per test results. Moreover, the consumer has been given the right to dispute the
results of testing and not the licensee as per para (iii) above.
7. The consumption data also established that the recorded consumption increased
during the disputed period than the consumption recorded during the same period
in past or recorded by the replaced meter.
8. So far as directions by the Nodal Officer to get the meter tested at M&P Lab. are
concerned, the Forum has observed in some other cases (complaint No. 509, 513,
521, 536, 539 & 544) that the analysis of the consumption established that the
meter recorded abnormally high consumption during the disputed period as raised
by the complainant. The check meter report also established the same but on the
other hand, the subsequent testing in the M&P Lab. declared that the errors at
different settings were within permissible limits and further no creeping was
observed. The Forum do not find any reason to doubt the findings of any of the
contradictory repors is false/wrong. After giving deep consideration to the matter,
the only reason which could be attributed to the abnormal high recording of the
consumption may be that the reading of the meter jumps. This fact can only be
checked when the meter is kept under observation for number of days continuously
as in the case of checking the working with installation of a check meter. This case
of reading jumping may not be detected during the Lab. testing as the meter is
tested for a short duration with main focus on the detection of the error at various
loads/voltage and creeping. In the present case, the complainant in his complaint
119
has categorically mentioned that he watched the behaviour of the meter daily after
receipt of abnormally high bill and found that the meter was showing quite high
reading as compared to his load or normal consumption. As already mentioned
above, in other complaints namely 509, 513, 521, 536, 539 and 544, the Forum on
the basis of analysis of the consumption concluded the erratic behaviour of the
meter although the lab. Report was O.K.
9. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is requested to get the bill revised for the period
25.04.2012 to the date of MCO with consumption recorded by the meter of the
previous corresponding period and report compliance within one month of receipt
of this order.
10. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
11. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
12.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
120
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 544
Date of Institution - 27.06.2014 Date of Order - 10.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Raj Krishan on behalf of Sh. M.L. Sehgal, H.No.21, Sector-28A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Raj Krishan on behalf of Sh. M.L. Sehgal, resident of H.No.21, Sector-28A,
Chandigarh vide his letter dated 27.12.2013 stated that for the period 23.01.13 to
23.03.13, he received a bill amounting to Rs.13,658/- which was on excessive
side as per his average bills. The meter was challenged and a check meter was
installed for 15 days after he deposited the requisite fee. It was observed that the
meter installed at his residence was recording higher consumption by 997% than
the check meter. In between another bill for the period 23.03.13 to 23.05.13
amounting to Rs.53,303/- was received by him. The meter was replaced with
another meter for getting the same tested at M&P Lab. The meter was checked
in the Lab. On 26.11.13 and working was declared OK by the Lab. after testing.
The complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the Lab. Report.
2. The Nodal Officer was called upon to submit para-wise comments and also to
supply the consumption data of the consumer for last three years.
3. In response to Forum’s letter to the Nodal Officer, the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-
Divn. No. 3 vide his letter dated 17.01.14 submitted the facts of the case. He
stated that the meter was checked with check meter on 06.05.13 and was found
121
fast. As per directions given by the Divisional office, the consumer was charged
on the basis of reading shown by the meter, which was to be tested at M&P Lab.
for ascertaining the accuracy. The M&P Lab. tested the meter in the presence of
consumer on 26.11.13 and found that the results of energy meter were within
permissible limits and declared the working of the meter OK. The consumer was
billed on the basis of reading. The consumption data in the past 3 years was also
supplied.
4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.544 on 27.06.14 and
hearings were conducted on 01.07.14, 17.07.14 and 10.09.14. In the meanwhile,
the Nodal Officer - Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3 vide his letter
dated 09.06.14, supplied copies of the MCO dated 13.06.13 affected on 17.06.13,
the ECR No. 01/1061 dated 27.05.14 and M&P Lab. Report dated 26.11.13.
5. On the basis of the documents submitted by the Nodal Officer and the past
consumption data, it has been inferred as under :-
a) The analysis of the consumption is as under :-
Period Year consumption
March to February
2010-11 5154 units
2011-12 5451 units
2012-13 8257 units
March, 2013 to May, 2013 – 2 Month 8107 units
6. From above, it has been seen that the consumption during the year 2010-11 and
2011-12 has been consistent and comparable. However, during the period 2012-
13, for the same 12 months, the recorded consumption by the meter is about 1.5
times the average consumption during past 2 years for the same 12 month
duration. Further, the recorded consumption for the 2 month period from March
2013 to May, 2013 is 8107 units which is equal to the recorded consumption for the
full one year period from March, 2012 to February, 2013 (which also includes the
inflated consumption for 2 month as alleged by the complainant).
122
7. (a) Meter Reading and consumption -
Consumption
17.05.13 Installation of Check Meter- 65276 From 17.05.13 to 30.05.13 2475
30.05.13 Removal of check meter - 67751 From 30.05.13 to 17.06.13 3020
17.06.13 Date of MCO - 70771 From 17.05.13 to 30.05.13 5495
Above table shows that the consumption for the one month period from 17.05.13
(start of check meter) upto 17.06.13 (date of MCO) is 5495 units. This much
consumption of one month, has not been observed for any of 2 months cycles
during past 36 months. Thus it cannot fall in the category of accumulation of
reading.
8. This analysis clearly points out the eratic behaviour of the meter which at the time
of check meter recorded higher consumption by 980% and subsequently found
working within limits when tested at M&P Lab. after 5 months. The subsequent
testing of the meter at the M&P Lab. also reflects that the licensee is not believing
the accuracy of its own check meters while ordering to get the meter tested at the
lab. The contradictory results also create confusion, the licensee must avoid the
duplicacy of testing. In this content, the Supply Code Regulations, 2010 under
Sub-Regulation 2 of Regulation 7.5 provides as under –
9. “ 7.5 Defective Meters
(2) A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter, if he doubts its
accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his consumption,
stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the licensee along
with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the meter within 30 days
of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards of Performance of
Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary testing of meters can be
carried out at the premises of the consumers through electronic testing
equipments.
(i) In case the meter is found OK, no further action shall be taken.
(ii) In case the meter is found fast/slow by the licensee, and the consumer
agrees to the report, the meter shall be replaced by a new meter within
15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to the month in which
the dispute has arisen shall be revised in the subsequent bill as per the
test results. In case meter is found to be slow, the additional charges may be
recovered in instalments not exceeding three, if the consumer shows his
inability to pay at a time.
(iii) If the consumer disputes the results of testing, or testing at consumer’s
premises is difficult, the defective meter shall be replaced by a new
123
tested meter by the Licensee, and the defective meter after sealing in
presence of consumer, shall be tested at licensee’s lab. / Independent lab./
Electrical Inspector, as agreed by consumer in presence of the representative
of both Licensee and the consumer. The option once exercised by consumer
shall not be changed. The decision on the basis of reports of the test lab.
shall be final on the Licensee as well as the consumer.”
10. Above regulations clearly provides under (ii) that the Licensee to revise the bills as
per test results. Moreover, the consumer has been given the right to dispute the
results of testing and not the licensee as per (iii) above.
11. The analysis of consumption data also established that the recorded consumption
increased during the disputed period than the consumption recorded during the
same period in past or recorded by the replaced period.
12. From above analysis, it is established that the meter recorded abnormally high
consumption during the disputed period as raised by the complainants. The check
meter report established the same but on the other hand, the subsequent testing in
the M&P Lab. declared that the errors at different settings were within permissible
limits and further no creeping was observed. The Forum considered these two
contradictory reports and do not find any reason to conclude any one of the report
is false/wrong. After giving deep thought and consideration to the matter, to our
mind, the only reason which can be attributed to the abnormal high recording of the
consumption is that the reading of the meter jumps. This fact can be checked only
when the meter is kept under observation continuously for a sufficiently long period
of 10-15 days as in the case of checking the working with installation of a check
meter. This case of reading jumping may not be detected during the Lab. testing
as the meter is tested for a short duration with main focus on the detection of errors
at various loads/voltage and creeping.
In number of other complaints (complaint No. 509, 513, 514, 521, 536 & 539 etc.)
analysis of the consumption data indicated the erratic behaviour of the meter
though subsequently meter working was found to be in order when tested in lab. In
all such cases, the decisions were taken on the basis of merit after
analysis/comparison of past/present consumption.
13. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the bill revised for the period
23.11.2012 to the date of MCO on the basis of consumption recorded during the
124
corresponding period in 2011/12. The compliance be reported within one month of
receipt of this order.
14. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
15. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
125
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 528
Date of Institution - 04.06.2014 Date of Order - 17.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Bikramjeet Singh, H.No.702, Sector-33B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Bikramjeet Singh, resident of H.No.702, Sector-33B, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 20.12.13 represented that ACD as per JERC Regulations may not be
charged from him being Govt. Employees residing in Govt. Accommodation. The
arguments submitted by him are enforceable inbuilt checks at the time of vacation
of the accommodation which would safeguard the dues of the Electricity
Department from the Govt. Employees.
2. Before registering the complaint as formal complaint, the comments of the Nodal
Officer - Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh were called
for vide letter dated 27.12.13. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 15.01.14
submitted the comments given by the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT,
Chandigarh. The SDO stated that the ACD has been charged as per JERC
directions under Regulations 6.10(3) of Supply Code Regulations 2010 in which no
relaxation regarding exemption from the occupants of Govt. accommodation has
been allowed. The ACD is being calculated on the basis of consumption charges
for 12 months of FY 2012-13. The complaint of Sh. Bikramjeet Singh was
registered as formal complaint No. 528 on 04.06.14 and was fixed for hearing on
16.06.14. The Nodal Officer through submissions dated 20.06.14 supplemented
his earlier comments that the ACD shall be adjusted/refunded at the time of issue
of final bill on vacation of the Govt. House by the occupants.
126
3. The first hearing on 16.06.14 was attended by the concerned SDO. The
complainant could not attend the hearing, so another opportunity was afforded for
making oral submissions on 20.06.14. Subsequent hearings were conducted on
21.07.14, 07.08.14, 27.08.14 and on 17.09.14. The complainant attended the
hearing on 17.09.14 but SDO was not present. The complainant requested for
exemption of charging of ACD from the Govt. Officers living in Govt.
Accommodation considering the inbuilt checks and other provisions applicable to
Govt. Officers.
4. The Forum though appreciated the concerns raised by the complainant, yet found
that there is no provision in the Supply Code Regulations to exempt a particular
category from deposit of ACD. The complainant was further informed that the ACD
is equal to the amount of 2 months of his average consumption during the year and
will carry interest at the bank rate notified by RBI from time to time as per Sub-
Regulation 8 of Regulation 6.10 –‘Security Deposit’ of Supply Code Regulations,
2010 notified by Hon’ble JERC. The Sub-Regulation 2 read with Sub-Regulation 9
of this main Regulation 6.10 also provides that the security deposit alongwith
interest will be refunded to the consumer after adjustment of dues, if any,
remaining payable by him. Further in case of delay beyond 60 days, additional
interest shall be payable to the consumer as approved by the Hon’ble Commission.
5. The complainant though still requested for taking up the matter with the licensee/
Commission showed his satisfaction to the provisions in Supply Code Regulations.
It was also confirmed that the complainant had already deposited the ACD.
6. With above, the complaint is considered disposed off.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA)
NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
127
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 532
Date of Institution - 13.06.2014 Date of Order - 18.09.2014
In the matter of Smt. Raj Rani, SCO. No. 2421-22, Sector-22, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Raj Rani, resident of H. No. 694, Sector-6, Panchkula made a representation
vide letter dated 04.04.2014 that she is owner of SCO. No. 2421-22, Sector-22C,
Chandigarh. She stated that the tenant of 2nd floor namely Mr. Ajay Patel entered
into a Rent Deed for a period of 5 years but after giving rent for 2-3 months, he
disappeared without vacating the property. He also did not cleared the electricity
dues before leaving. She got possession of the 2nd floor through an ex-parte order
dated 14.10.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh. She further stated that
she received a notice from the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh
for payment of Rs.1,22,290/- in respect of the un-paid amount of Electricity bills for
the second floor. She requested for raising of actual amount of bill without any
interest or any other charges.
2. Before the representation was registered as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer,
Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh was
called upon to comment upon the representation and also to supply the
consumption data for the last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 09.04.2014.
3. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No. 532 on 13.06.14 and was
fixed for consideration by the Forum on 30.06.2014 when both the complainant and
respondent SDO were present. The SDO concerned was directed to overhaul the
disputed period of the consumer and to supply the consumption data and status of
128
payment of the disputed connection. Further hearings were conducted on
10.07.14, 27.08.14 and 18.09.14.
4. From the submissions made by the complainant and the concerned SDO, the facts
of the case emerged as under :-
i) Smt. Raj Rani entered into a lease deed for leasing out second floor of SCO.
No. 2421-22, Sector-22C, Chandigarh for 5 years.
ii) As per decision dated 14.10.2011 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the
lessee did not pay the agreed amount of rent from 01.06.2009 onwards as per
lease deed. As per ex-parte decision announced on 14.10.2011, the
possession of the premises was handed over to the owner i.e. Smt. Raj Rani.
iii) An electricity connection bearing account No.2255/740209 existed on the
second floor with connected load of 39.2 KW in the name of Smt. Raj Rani,
the owner.
iv) From the consumption data supplied by the concerned SDO, it is noted that
the tenant was not regular in payment of the electricity bills, though as per
lease deed, the licensee was to pay the electricity, water and sewerage
charges during the period of tenancy.
v) The lessee though was in habit of defaulting the electricity dues, yet he
cleared his dues upto the period 22.10.2009. Thereafter the subsequent 2
bills for the period 22.12.2009 to 22.02.2010 and 22.02.2010 to 22.04.2010
were not paid and the defaulting amount as it stood on 22.04.2010 was
Rs.31,530/- including the arrear for the previous 2 cycle bills. After
22.04.2010, there was no consumption of electricity in the said premises but
the electricity bills continued to be issued for NIL consumption for more than 2
years upto 22.06.2012 which also included the arrear amount of the last bill
with late payment surcharge. With levy of late payment surcharge, the unpaid
amount upto period 22.06.2012 grew upto 1,10,679/-. The Sub Divn. due to
non-payment of the bill issued PDCO, which was affected by the Sub Divn. on
30.04.2012.
vi) The Sub Division transferred the defaulting amount (against 2nd floor –
Rs.1,11,179/-) to electricity connection for the Ist Floor, as both the
129
connections were in the same name i.e. name of land lady, after giving a
notice dated 04.03.2013.
vii) When the defaulting amount was transferred to First Floor, electricity
connection bearing A/c No. 2255/740904, the occupant of the First Floor
approached CGRF with a representation that the defaulting amount of the
Second Floor should not be added to his bill and may be recovered from the
landlady namely Mrs. Raj Rani as the connection was in her name.
viii) The Forum considered the facts of the case in the matter of Sh. Rajat Sarin,
SCO No.2421, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh Vs. Addl. Superintending
Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh in complaint No.439 dated
02.09.2013 and decided –
“ the sundry charges amount to Rs.1,11,179/- imposed on the complainant Sh. Rajat Sarin, the use of electricity account of the first floor of the premises in set aside. The officials responsible for serious lapse in performance of duty be identified and suitable departmental action be taken against them. The compliance of this order be made within one month from receipt of the order.”
ix) The Forum also observed that the unpaid electricity bill kept piling up and rose
to Rs.1,11,179/- upto October, 2012 due to levy of late payment surcharge as
the consumption was ‘NIL’ after 22.4.2010.
x) After the Forum’s order dated 02.09.2013 as referred to above, the concerned
Sub Division sent notice dated 03.06.2013 to Smt. Raj Rani to clear the
defaulting amount of Rs.1,11,179/-.
xi) The Forum noted that as per Supply Code Regulation 9.1, when a person
neglect to pay any charge of electricity by due date mentioned in the bill, the
licensee may, after giving 15 clear days notice, cut off supply of electricity.
Considering practical approach, the PDCO should have been issued and
affected when it was noted that there was NIL consumption during the period
22.04.2010 to 22.06.2010 and the last bills issued for the period 22.10.2009 to
22.12.2009, 22.12.2009 to 22.02.2010 and 22.02.2010 to 22.04.2010 were
un-paid. The amount shown in the bill for the period 22.04.2010 to
22.06.2010 was Rs.31,530/-. Thereafter the amount continued to grow upto
Rs.1,11,179/- till issuance of PDCO/notice to the complainant. The Forum is
of the view that the amount should have been frozen on that date by issuance
130
of the PDCO which was only done after more than 2 years. The Forum in its
earlier order dated 02.09.2013 also made similar observations.
xii) In view of above facts, the Forum concludes that levying of surcharge after
NIL consumption was observed, is not in order, as already stated above in line
with Supply Code Regulations. The licensee was supposed to issue for notice
of PDCO on account of default in payment of bills in June, 2010. The
recoverable amount from the complainant is Rs.31,530/- and not
Rs.1,11,179/- for which the notice has been served to the complainant.
5. In view of above, the Forum directs Nodal Officer to issue a revised notice for
recovering amount of Rs.31,530/- from Smt. Raj Rani in whose name connection
exists.
6. The complaint stands disposed off, with these observations.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
131
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 530
Date of Institution - 13.06.2014 Date of Order - 25.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Davinder Gupta, S/o. Sh. Kulbhushan Gupta, SCF No. 10, Sector-21, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Davinder Gupta, S/o. Sh. Kulbhushan Gupta, SCF No. 10, Sector-21,
Chandigarh vide his letter dated 12.03.2014 stated that against the NRS electric
connection in SCF No. 10, Sector-21, Chandigarh, a bill on account of load
surcharge amounting to Rs.85,126/- was raised in the month of May, 2013 as a
result of ECR report dated 24.05.2013. As per ECR report, the connected load
was found to be 20.965 KW against sanctioned load of 7.840 KW. The
complainant requested that the charges for the Unauthorized load be levied @
Rs.250/- per KW as notified by the Hon’ble JERC.
2. Before the complaint was formally registered, the Nodal Officer - Executive
Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh was asked to examine and
submit para wise comments on the representation of the Forum and also to supply
the consumption data of the consumer for the last 3 years vide Forum letter dated
14.03.2014.
3. In response to Forum’s letter, the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT,
Chandigarh vide his letter dated 07.04.2014 forwarded the comments of SDO,
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh alongwith consumption data of the
132
consumer. As per submissions made by the concerned SDO, the NRS connection
was checked on 24.05.2013, when connected load of 29.569 KW against
sanctioned load of 7.840 KW was found. The amount of Rs.85,126/- was charged
on account of Unauthorized load as per Tariff Order issued by Hon’ble JERC for
the year 2011-12. With regard to complainant’s plea for charging @ Rs.250/- per
KW, the SDO submitted that the notification in this respect was issued by Hon’ble
JERC on 07.08.2013 and same is not applicable as the checking was conducted
on 24.05.13.
4. The complaint was formally registered as complaint No. 530 on 13.06.2014. The
first hearing was conducted on 26.06.14, followed by 08.07.2014, 06.08.14 and on
25.09.14.
5. On the basis of documents, the Forum observed that
a) As a result of ECR checking, the notice of assessment issued by the SDO
concerned vide Memo. No. 1945 dated 30.05.13, only included the amount on
account of compensation charges as per Provisional Assessment report. The
notice was not issued under Section 126 and thus the case can be taken up by
the Forum.
b) The Forum observed that the checking was conducted on 24.05.13 whereas the
notification specifying the amount to be charged @ Rs.250/- per KW were notified
on a subsequent date i.e. 07.08.13. The Forum agrees with the submission made
by SDO that the assessment is to be done as per the instructions applicable at the
time of checking.
c) The Forum while going through the assessment report observed that the amount
has been assessed correctly as per instructions applicable at the time of checking.
6. With above observations, the complaint stands dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
133
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
8.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
134
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 537
Date of Institution - 17.06.2014 Date of Order - 25.09.2014
In the matter of Sh. Hari Charan Thapa, LIG Flat No. 494/1, Sector-41A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Hari Charan Thapa, resident of LIG Flat No. 494/1, Sector-41A, Chandigarh
vide his letter dated 06.05.14 represented that his electricity bill for the month of
March, 2014 was very much on higher side amounting to Rs. 46,576/-. He
requested the SDO for checking of the meter reading which was found to be in
order. Through his representation he requested the Forum for review of the bill on
the basis of his past consumption.
2. The representation of the consumer was forwarded to the Executive Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 06.05.14 for para-wise
comments and for supply of consumption data for the past 3 years.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 20.05.14 submitted that the meter reading and the working of the meter was
got checked by J.E. of his Sub Division on the request of the complainant. The
reading on 07.03.14 was found to be 17653 units. Subsequently on 19.05.14, the
reading was again checked and found to be 18460 units. The working of meter
was found to be OK. He also supplied the consumption data of the consumer for
the last 3 years.
4. The representation of the consumer was treated as formal complaint No.537 on
17.06.14. The first hearing was conducted on 03.07.14 which was attended by
135
both the parties. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 06.08.14 and on
25.09.14.
5. During the hearings the complainant argued that his average consumption for the
last 3 years was in the range of 500 units whereas for the period 25.11.13 to
25.01.14, the meter recorded consumption of 10418 units. He stated that this
much consumption particularly in the winter period for his LIG flat of 2 room set
with connected load of 6.29 KW is not possible and the meter recorded erroneous
reading. The SDO stated that the working of the meter was got checked and found
in order. Even a check meter was installed during the period 03.07.14 to 04.08.14
and the results of both the meters were found within permissible limits. Vide his
letter dated 24.09.14, he also supplied the details of meter readings taken on
subsequent dates as per directions of the Forum on 08.09.14, 17.09.14 and
23.09.14 as 20180, 20320 and 20419 units respectively.
6. The Forum observed that the working of the meter after March, 2014 was kept
under observation for a sufficiently long time and found no abnormality with the
meter either with regard to reading jumping or accuracy. While analysing the
consumption record of the consumer, the Forum observed that the consumption
during the period March, 2011 to November, 2011 was in the range of 400-500
units per cycle which dropped significantly during the period November, 2011 to
July, 2012. The consumption during the period May, 2012 to July, 2012 was only
02 units. However, for the subsequent period of July, 2012 to September, 2012,
the recorded consumption was 2542 units indicating that the reading might have
been accumulated during first half of 2012. The meter was changed during the
period September, 2012 November, 2012 and the recorded consumption of the
new meter was again in the range of 500 units per cycle except for the summer
cycle when the consumption was in the range of 800-900 units per cycle upto
November, 2013. Thereafter, during the 2 month disputed period from November,
2013 to January, 2014, the meter recorded 10418 units. After January, 2014, the
consumption uptil September, 2014 (9 months period) has been found to be 3232
units i.e. around 720 units per cycle of 2 months. The Forum also estimated the
consumption as per formula prescribed in the Supply Code Regulations for
sanctioned connected load of 6.29 KW. Even after taking a higher load factor of
136
50%, the estimated consumption for 2 month period is 4536 units which is less
than half of the recorded consumption of 10418 units during the disputed period.
7. From the above analysis, it is seen that the electricity consumption recorded by the
meter is comparable except for the consumption recorded during the 2 months
disputed period of 25.11.13 to 25.01.14. The working of meter was got checked
by JE and subsequently with check meter and was found to be in order. With the
comparable recorded consumption prior and after the disputed period also rules
out the case of accumulation of the reading. The Forum could not attribute any
reason to the recording of high consumption during the disputed period. The
working of meter has been watched for sufficiently long time (6 months) but no
reading jump was observed.
8. On the basis of documents placed before the Forum, the Forum concludes that the
working of the meter is OK and the bill has been prepared on the basis of reading
of the meter.
9. With above observation, the complaint stands dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
14.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
137
MISCELLANEOUS COMPLAINT - MEMO. NO. CGRF/COMP-MISC/2013/644-645 DATED 15.07.2014
IN THE MATTER OF SH. LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF H. NO. 2282-A, SECTOR 19-C,
CHANDIGARH.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTY. ‘OP’ DIVN. NO.3, UT CHANDIGARH. 2. SDO, ELECTY. ‘OP’ SUB-DIVN. NO. 3, UT, CHANDIGARH.
……………….Respondents
Subject : Rectification in Electricity bills in respect of Govt. Accommodation Sh. Lal Singh, S/o. Sh. Sant Ram, H. No. 2282-A, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.
1. Sh. Lal Singh, S/o. Sh. Sant Ram, H. No. 2282-A, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh made
a complaint about receipt of heavy bills against his domestic connection.
2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to
the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh asking him to
supply issue-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last three years by
29.07.2013 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/644-645 dated
15.07.2013 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was also directed to
supply list of fittings and appliances provided in his house.
3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh through his written
submissions dated 26.07.2014 provided the details of new/old reading alongwith
units for the period 22.11.2012 to 22. 01.13, 22.01.13 to 22.3.13 and 22.3.13 to
22.5.13. It was observed that the consumption for the period 22.1.13 to 22.3.13
was shown as 3906 units against the consumption of 359 units and 327 units for
the other two cycles. It was further submitted by the SDO that the electricity meter
was checked by Sh. Kesar Singh, JE-II and it was reported that meter is digit
defective. Through subsequent submissions dated 28.10.2013, the SDO conveyed
that the connection was released in the month of November, 2012 and as such, the
consumption data for the period (three years) as desired by the Forum, was not
supplied in the first instance. From the consumption data for the period beyond
22.5.13, it was noted that the meter was replaced vide MCO No. 09/686 dated
01.08.2013.
138
4. It has been noted that the consumption of the consumer during one year was in the
range of 300-400 units from the date of release of connection whereas the
consumption during March, 2013 was recorded as 3906 units for which the meter
was reported to be digit defective.
5. Now the consumption of the new meter installed on 16.08.2013 is available for 3
billing cycles, the SDO is directed to charge the amount on the basis of average for
the period 22.1.13 to 22.3.13. The SDO is also directed to allow surcharge for the
wrong billing issued in the month of March, 2013 as the applicant was being
allowed to make part payment for the current bill.
6. The SDO to report compliance within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.
7. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
9.
(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF