Appeal No. 21 of 2007

Between

Sri. Desu Kedari,

S/o. Desi Poshetti,

M/s. Modern Rice Paddy Boiling & Oil Mill

SC No. JK 994 JK 12 79, Kothapally Village,

Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District … Appellant

And

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/APNPDCL/ Jammikunta

2. The Divisional Engineer/Operation/ APNPDCL / Huzurabad

3. The Asst. Accounts Officer/ ERO/Jammikunta V & Mdl / Karimnagar Dist

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 01.06.2007 filed by the appellant (received on 02.06.2007) came up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 16.04.2008 in the presence of Sri Desikedari, appellant and Sri K.Buchi Babu, Advocate on behalf of the appellant; Respondent Nos. 1 & 3; and Sri Shakeel Ahmed on behalf of Respondent No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

A W A R D

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APNPDCL (for short the “Forum”) in C.G. No. 147 / 2007 of Karimnagar Circle dated 10.04.2007, the appellant herein filed appeal / representation dated 01.06.2007 mentioned supra.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not paid an amount of Rs.2,27,481-65ps which was ordered to be adjusted due to re-categorisation of S.C.Nos.JK-994 & JK-1279 pertaining to two different units but located in the same premises, from Cat-III(B) to Cat-III(A) as directed by the Forum. It is also contention of the appellant that he is entitled for interest at 24% p.a. on the above-mentioned amount from the month of June 2004 till the date of payment which the Forum failed to grant. That apart which is the contention of the appellant that service connection to the premises was disconnected for a period of 42 days due to which he sustained loss of Rs.84,000/- @ Rs.2000/- per day and requested direction may be given to respondents to pay the said amount together with the interest at 24% p.a.

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 the Vidyut Ombudsman is required to promote settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. In pursuance of the same, respondents were intimated of the filing of the appeal / representation. Inspite of the best efforts made by the Vidyut Ombudsman on 15.02.2008, there is no possibility of settlement between the parties by mutual consent. Therefore, the respondents were directed to file their submissions.

4. However, during the hearing on 15.02.2008 at Karimnagar, the appellant submitted a representation wherein intre-alia it is stated that an amount of Rs.2,27,481-65 ps was adjusted in CC bills of the appellant after filing the appeal / representation dated 01.06.2007. However, he reiterated his contention for payment of interest on the said amount at 24% p.a. as mentioned above and also for payment of Rs.84,000/- for the loss sustained due to disconnection of power supply together with interest thereon at 24% p.a.

5. Respondent No. 2 vide letter No. DEE.OP.HZB.ADM.D.No. 1741 / 2008 dated 11.03.2008 filed a detailed note on the appeal / representation of the appellant wherein it is stated :

a) In terms of Clause 27 of the Terms & Conditions of Supply the premises of the appellant comprising two different units were inspected by him on 23.04.2001 and it was noticed that both the inspected services belong to same management and the total connected load of two services located in the same premises exceed 75 HP. Based on the inspection notice dated 07.05.2001 was issued to the appellant requesting the consumer to switch over to HT supply. It was also informed that pending switchover to HT supply the LT services will be billed at HT tariff by considering 80% of the contracted load / connected load whichever is higher will be taken as CMD for the purpose of billing. It was also mentioned therein that if the consumer does not switchover to HT supply within three months APNPDCL will be at liberty to disconnect power supply and terminate the agreement for LT supply duly giving one week notice as per Clause 26.7 of Terms & Conditions of Supply. The said notice was acknowledged by the appellant on 15.05.2001.

b) The appellant did not raise any objection regarding clubbing of services for the purpose of billing and paid the consumption charges to the extent of utilisation of energy. But after elapse of 3 years the appellant submitted a representation to the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL stating that the two industrial services i.e., one for the oil mill and other for rice mill are different and the same were allotted to his sons through a partition deed and requested to issue bills under Cat-III(A). Based on such representation the Superintending Engineer, DPE, Warangal inspected the premises on 24-06-2004. Based on such inspection the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL directed that billing of two services is to be separated under Cat-III(A) with effect from 21-06-2004 i.e, date of representation of the appellant. However, as the arrears totaling to Rs.2,25,038/- with regard to said services prior to 21-06-2004 was not paid as per the demand raised vide bill dated 01-07-2004 by the appellant, both the services were disconnected. Subsequently, power supply restored to the services as per the orders of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

c) Subsequently, the appellant filed petition before the Forum for billing two industrial services under Cat-III(A) and for refund of excess amount collected due to billing under Cat-III(B). In its order the Forum directed that the two industries have to be treated separately and bills have to be revised under LT Cat-III(A) and also directed to adjust excess amount collected in the future bills. But the Forum directed that its order have to be implemented only after withdrawing the case pending in the Civil Court by the appellant. Subsequently, the excess amount collected was refunded to the appellant.

d) Payment of interest at 24% p.a on Rs.2,27,481-65ps and Rs.84,000/- towards loss sustained by the appellant due to disconnection of both the services for 42 days together with interest thereon will not arise as both the services were disconnected due to non-payment of arrears and as per bill dated 01-07-2004 the said services were clubbed and billed under LT Cat-III(B) as per the Terms & Conditions of Supply and as per the tariff applicable to the said category of services up to the date of inspection by the Superintending Engineer, DPE, Warangal. But based on the representation of the consumer dated 21-06-2004, the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL ordered for separation of multiple services and directed billing under LT Cat-III(A) as per the physical verification conducted by the said Superintending Engineer. The Forum below also held that the appellant is not entitled for payment of interest on outstanding balance as there is no said provision either in the Terms & Conditions of Supply or in the Tariff Order. Therefore, either payment of interest or damages due to disconnection of services due to non-payment of consumer charges will not arise.

e) As already mentioned above, the appellant confirmed adjustment Rs.2,27,481-65ps in future bills after filing of this appeal.

6. Heard both the parties on 16.04.2008.

7. Therefore, the issue that arises for consideration before the Vidyut Ombudsman are whether the appellant is entitled for (a) interest at 24% p.a. on Rs.2,27,481-65ps and (b) loss of Rs.84,000/- @ Rs.2000/- per day for 42 days due to disconnection of services.

8. Perusal of record reveals that respondent No.2 conducted inspection of the premises of the appellant as per instructions of his company i.e., APNPDCL. Accordingly he conducted inspection on 23-04-2001 and bonafidely concluded that both the industrial services belong to the same management and are existing in the same premises. It also came to his notice that connected load of both the services exceeds 75HP. Based on such prima-facie evidence a notice dated 07-05-2001 was issued requesting the consumer i.e., the appellant to switch over to HT supply. The same was acknowledged by the appellant on 15-05-2001. Eventhough the appellant could have made representation to the higher officials raising objections for the proposed switch over to HT supply which would have been examined by superior authorities, the appellant did not choose to raise any objection whatsoever. Therefore, the respondent concerned clubbed the two industrial services of the appellant and billed as per the Tariff Order issued by the APERC. It was only on 21-06-2004, the appellant made representation to the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL stating that the two industrial services are different and the same were allotted to his sons through a partition deed and requested for issue of bills under LT Cat-III(A). Based on the inspection conducted by the Superintending Engineer, DPE, Warangal on 26-06-2004, the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL ordered for billing of two services under LT Cat-III(A) separately with effect from 21-06-2004 i.e., the date of representation of the appellant. But because the appellant did not pay arrears as on that date both the services were disconnected as mentioned above.

9. I have perused the order dt: 23-06-2006 of the Forum in C.G.No.43/2006 of Karminagar Circle wherein it is recorded that the Superintending Engineer, DPE, Warangal stated that the appellant has not represented previously for segregation of industrial services and soon after receiving the representation from the appellant and as per field conditions the two service connections were separated under LT Cat-III(A).

10. As seen from the above, had the appellant objected for clubbing of services as proposed in the notice dated 07-05-2001 and brought to the notice of superior authority concerned, the two industries were different and were allotted to two sons of the appellant through a partition deed, such authority would have considered the contention of the appellant on merits as was done by the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL on the subsequent representation dated 21-06-2004 of the appellant. As seen from the record, the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL after being satisfied about the separation of said service connections, soon after receiving report from the Superintending Engineer, DPE, Warangal directed to bill the said two services separately under LT Cat-III(A) from the date of representation to him i.e., 21-06-2004. Thus the conduct of officials concerned is bonafide and as per due exercise of powers vested in them. It is also just and necessary to state here that there is no provision either in Terms & Conditions of Supply or in the Tariff Order about payment of interest on outstanding balance amount due to the consumer. Moreover, in view of the orders of the Forum, the respondent concerned also adjusted excess amount collected relating to recategorisation ordered and as directed by the Forum in the future bills of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any interest on the said amount of Rs.2,27,481-65ps at 24% p.a.

11. As the disconnection of two services was for non-payment of arrears prior to 21-06-2004 from which date, the Chairman & Managing Director, APNPDCL ordered for billing of said two service connections under LT Cat-III(A) separately, but not for any extraneous consideration, payment of compensation for loss supposed to have been sustained for 42 days will not arise. Moreover, the appellant did not place any evidence to show that he sustained loss at Rs.2000/- per day. Admittedly, there are two different units and the appellant is not specific about the unit which sustained loss. The Vidyut Ombudsman cannot presume that two units suffered loss equally. For all these reasons, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled for any relief with regard to loss of an amount of Rs.84,000/- said to have been sustained by him. Consequently, the further question of granting interest on the said amount will not arise.

12. For all these reasons, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that there are no merits in the appeal / representation dated 01-06-2007 of the appellant and accordingly, the said appeal / representation is dismissed.

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

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN