Appeal No. 22 of 2007

Between

Sri. A.Satyanarayana,

S/o. Surayya, Gopalapuram,

Unguturu Mandalam, West Godavari – 534 112 … Appellant

And

1. Assistant Engineer/Operation/ Chebrolu / W.G.District

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Rural/Tadepalligudem

3. Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation/Tadepalligudem

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 30.05.2007 of the appellant has come up for settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 07.01.2008 in the presence of Appellant and his representative Sri. K. Prabakara Rao and the Respondents and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

A W A R D

In the month of September 2006, the appellant herein filed a complaint before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., (for short the “Forum”) for redressal certain grievances relating to refund of amounts collected towards development charges and service line charges stating that the respondent department had not executed the works as mentioned in the sanctioned estimate No. 225 / 506, but collected total amount as per the said estimate.

2. With regard to refund of cost of service connection wire laid from the pole to the premises of the appellant herein, the Forum below after conducting enquiry stated that:

i) As GTCS the prospective consumer has to lay the service connection cable and fix up the meter box, MCB etc as per the standards laid down similarly in case of Agricultural and street light services the meter box and cut outs are to be fixed on the pole by the supplier and from the pole to pump set the consumer has to connect up with standards size of cable. As per this procedure the service wire from pole to the consumer pump set is to be laid by the consumer himself. As such the request of petitioner to reimbursement of cost of service wire is rejected.

ii) However the meter cost in the LT System under 2 (b) i.e., the cost of metering equipment plus labour and transport charges of Rs. 3,825.00 which was provided in the estimate is to be deducted from the service line charges to be paid by the consumer, since the cost of this metering is to be borne by the supplier only.

iii) The proportionate excess service line charges collected towards un-erected poles and cost of metering equipment, labour and Transport charges thereon as provided in the estimate item No. 2 (b) of LT system my be refunded to the petitioner through adjustment in future bills of the petitioner.

Vide item (B) of order in C.G.No. 177 / 2006 of West Godavari District dated 28.12.2006

3. Similarly, with regard to payment of development charges at the rate of Rs.1000 per H.P., the Forum below after conducting enquiry stated that:

i) As per BPMS No.627 Dt. 14-12-94 by the then APSEB it was informed that development charges are meant for development of EHT and 33 KV network including erection of 33 / 11 KV SS to meet growing demands under HT and LT consumers. As per these instructions the development charges are being collected for the same since then. This procedure was being followed in all category of services over and above the service line and erection of DTR charges incurred towards laying of lines for releasing service connection. The action of the respondent in collection of development charges at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per HP is in order. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for refund of development charges of Rs.15,000/- since it is as per the prevailing orders only. However, the same will be reviewed if necessary after receipt of revised order if any from the APERC which was sought for by EPDCL through Lr. No. CGM / C R&P / EPDPCL / VSP / ADE / C / EGC-58 / D.No. 1440 / 06 Dt. 29-8-06.

Vide item (D) of order in C.G.No. 177 / 2006 of West Godavari District dated 28.12.2006.

4. Further the Forum below rejected the claim of the appellant herein for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only).

5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.12.2006 referred to above, the appellant herein filed the present appeal dt.30.05.2007 (received on 04.06.2007) stating that on 30.04.2005, he applied for agricultural service connection of 20 HP, paid in all Rs.1,20,130/- including an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards development charges. In the said appeal it is prayed that the cost of service connection charges and development charges may be ordered to be refunded to him. Further it is also prayed that compensation may be awarded to him for causing mental agony and physical suffering.

6. On 07.01.2008 during the hearing into the matter, the Ombudsman endeavored to promote settlement of mutual consent between the parties concerned as required under Clause 8 (1) (c) and Clause 11 of APERC (Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievance of Consumers) Regulation, 2004 (No. 1 of 2004). However, inspite of best efforts made by the Ombudsman, parties could not settle the matter in appeal by mutual consent. As there was no possibility to settle the matter by mutual consent between the parties as stated above, the Ombudsman proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

7. Heard Sri. K.Prabhakara Rao representative of the appellant and the respondents present.

8. The limited point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for (a) refund of cost of service connection (b) refund of development charges paid by him and (c) payment of compensation for mental agony and physical suffering.

9. By Lr.No. DEE / O / TPG / AAE.Coml / F.Dkt / D.No. 1683 / 2005 dated 16.07.2005, the 3^rd respondent sanctioned 20 HP Agricultural Load to the appellant under “Metered Tariff Category” on out of Turn Priority and the appellant was required to pay certain charges, including Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards development charges. By letter dated 30.01.2008 the 3^rd respondent informed the Ombudsman that the appellant herein paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- through a Demand Draft bearing No. 003711 dated 19.07.2005 towards development charges and Rs.500/- towards service connection charges through Demand Draft bearing No.003712 dated 19.07.2005.

10. The contention of the appellant is that he is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him towards development charges in view of letter No. S-347 / DD (CA) / 06-6 Dt. 28.10.2006 written by the Secretary / APERC to the Chief General Manager (Comml., RAC), APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam which states that :

“I am directed to clarify that, since the aim of development charges is to meet part of cost of Transmission from higher voltage to lower voltage, the Licensee is not entitled to collect development charges in cases where the consumer has paid the cost of Distribution Transformer as a part of cost of estimate or when the consumer has purchased the Distribution Transformer, irrespective of the category”.

11. In view of the above, licensees including the respondents herein are not entitled to collect development charges in case where a consumer paid the cost of distribution transformer as part of cost of estimate. In the case on hand also, the respondents are not entitled to collect the development charges from the complainant / appellant at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per HP. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund the amount collected from him by the respondents towards development charges. Likewise the appellant is entitled for refund of cost of service connection charges. However, in the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman is not inclined to grant any compensation to the appellant towards mental agony and physical suffering.

12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the respondent(s) concerned is directed to refund an amount of Rs.500/- which was collected from the appellant towards cost of service connection charges and an amount of Rs.20,000/- also collected from the appellant towards development charges. The said amounts shall be refunded to the appellant in cash within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the respondent(s) concerned.

This order is corrected and signed on 30^th day of January, 2008.