BEFORE THE VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

Present

K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and

Vidyut Ombudsman

 

 

Dated:  28-05-2008

 

Appeal No. 1 of 2008

 

Between

Sri. Pavuluri Sesharao,

S/o.Krishnamma,

Pullalapadu Village, Nallajerla Mandalam

W.G. Dist – 534 112.                                                                                     … Appellant

 

And

 

1)                  The Asst. Engineer / Operation / APEPDCL / Nalllagerla / WG Dist

2)                  The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Operation / APEPDCL / Bhimadole / WG Dist

3)                  The Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation / APEPDCL / Eluru / W.G. Dist

4)         The Superintending Engineer / Operation / Gajjalavari Cheru / Near Satyanarayana Theatre, Eluru, WG Dist.

 

                        …  Respondents

 

The representation dated 10-01-2008 of the appellant (received on 16-1-2008) has come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 13-05-2008 at Eluru. The appellant as well as the representative of the appellant, Sri K.Prabhakar Rao, and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are present and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

 

A W A R D

 

Aggrieved by non-implementation of the order dated 17-09-2007 passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APEPDCL (for short the “Forum”) in C.G. No. 89 / 2007 of West Godavari District, the appellant filed representation dated  10-01-2008 mentioned above, requesting the Vidyut Ombudsman to refund development charges, otherwise he will suffer loss.

 

2.         The Forum in its order dated 17-09-2007 referred to above stated that the appellant is entitled for refund of the amount of development charges if the transformer cost is covered in the estimate and the same has been paid by the appellant.  The Forum further directed the respondent No.4 to implement the instructions of APERC in Lr.No.S-347/DD(CA)/06-6 dated 28-10-2006 and the Memo No.CGM/Comml/D.No.2123 dated 28-12-2006 issued by the Corporate Office / APEPDCL informing the Superintending Engineers to scrupulously follow the above mentioned instructions of APERC. In pursuance of the order of the Forum the appellant herein submitted a representation dated 02-11-2007 to respondent No.4 requesting him to refund Rs.20,000/- collected from him towards development charges.  But so far no action is taken on his representation.  Hence, it is requested to order for refund of development charges.

 

3.         In terms of Clauses 8(1)(c) and 11 (1) of the “APERC Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers Regulation, 2004” (for short “Regulation No.1 of 2004”) the Vidyut Ombudsman is required to promote settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. However, instead of best efforts, made by the Ombudsman the grievance of the appellant herein could not be settled by mutual consent between the parties.

 

4.         In view of the same, the Vidyut Ombudsman by Lr.No.VO/Appeal No.1 of 2008 / dated 24-01-2008 directed respondent No. 4 to inform the Vidyut Ombudsman about the action taken in the matter.  As there was no response, the Vidyut Ombudsman sent another letter dated 19-02-2008 reiterating its earlier direction i.e., to inform the Vidyut Ombudsman about the action taken in the matter.

 

5.         Thereafter by Lr.No.SE/O/ELR/DE.T/ADE.P/AE.T3/F.OMB/D.No.120/08 dated  28-02-2008, respondent No.4 submitted that appellant was intimated that development charges will not be refunded to him as the estimate was sanctioned prior to the clarification issued by APERC and in turn by APEPDCL.

 

6.         Heard the representative of the appellant as well as the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

 

7.         The point that arises for consideration of the Vidyut Ombudsman is whether respondent No.4 is bound to implement the order of the Forum and whether he is justified in intimating the appellant that development charges will not be refunded for the reason mentioned in his letter dated 28-02-2008 referred to above.

 

8.         Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates establishment of a Forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, by every distribution licensee.   In exercise of powers vested in it, APERC notified Regulation No.1 of 2004 and all the distribution licensees in the State constituted Forums for redressal of grievances of the consumers, including APEPDCL.  Thus, the Forum is a statutory authority established under law.  Clause 5(11)(c) of the Regulation No.1 of 2004 mandates that “The Licensee shall duly implement the decisions and orders of the Forum made in favour of the complainant”.

 

9.         While it is so, in the present case, the Forum below after considering all the material placed before it came to a conclusion in C.G.No.89 / 2007 referred to above and stated that the appellant is entitled for refund of the amount of development charges, if the transformer cost is covered in the estimate and the same has been paid by the consumer viz., the appellant herein.  Further, the Forum ordered the respondent No.4 shall implement the instructions of APERC and Corporate Office / APEPDCL as already mentioned supra.  In view of the above, respondent No.4 has no other alternative except to comply with the above mentioned order of the Forum in letter and spirit. The letter dated 28-02-2008 of the respondent No.4 referred to above informing the Vidyut Ombudsman that the appellant was intimated that development charges should not be refunded as the estimate was sent prior to clarifications issued by APERC and in turn APEPDCL amounts to defying the order passed by the Forum which is established under law. 

 

10.       Respondent No. 4 has no power or authority to intimate the appellant that development charges shall not be refunded, as he is duty bound to implement the order of Forum below dated 17-09-2007. Respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to sit in appeal over the order of the Forum.  As mentioned supra, the Forum which is constituted in pursuance of the Electricity Act, 2003 is superior in authority to distribution licensees and all the officers working with such distribution licensees.  Moreover, as mentioned above, the Commission in exercise of subordinative legislative powers vested in it, notified Regulation No. 1 of 2004 wherein it is clearly mandated that the licensee shall duly implement the decisions and orders of the Forum made in favour of the complainant.

 

11.       For all the reasons mentioned above, the intimation sent by respondent No.4 to the appellant that development charges should not be refunded and the letter dated    28-02-2008 of respondent No.4 addressed to Vidyut Ombudsman are bad in law and the same do not stand scrutiny of law.  Respondent No.4 is directed to comply with the directions of the Forum below as mentioned in its order dated 17-09-2007 in letter and spirit and see that the appellant should receive the development charges paid by him within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and send compliance report within a week thereafter.  Accordingly, the representation dated 10-01-2008 of the appellant  is disposed of.

 

This order is corrected and signed on the 28th  day of May 2008.

 
 
VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN