Appeal No. 28 of 2007

Between

M/s. Shivanath Industries,

Industrial Estate,

Warangal. … Appellant

And

1. The Chief Engineer/Operation/APNPDCL/ Warangal

2. The Chief General Manager/P&O / APNPDCL / Warangal

3. The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Distribution /APNPDCL / Warangal

4. Asst. Accounts Officer, GRC, Warangal

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 23.07.2007 filed by the appellant (received on 03.08.2007) came up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 26.04.2008 in the presence Sri Prakasa Rao, and G.Sujatha, Advocate on behalf of the appellant; and Sri. M. Hussain Nayak, ADE, Distribution on behalf of Respondent No. 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

A W A R D

Aggrieved by non-disposal of compliant filed by the appellant viz., C.G. No.17 / 2005 by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APNPDCL (for short the “Forum”), the appellant herein filed appeal / representation dated 23.07.2007 mentioned supra.

2. In the appeal / representation dt. 23.07.2007, it is stated by the appellant that

a) The industrial service of the appellant was booked under malpractice for alleged additional load and a provisional assessment notice dated 25.03.1996 was issued by Respondent No. 3 for Rs.1,22,930/-.

b) The main allegation was that the appellant exceeded the sanctioned / connected load by 30 HP, which is not correct and baseless as additional load of 30 HP was sanctioned vide No. DCW / 86-87. Additional load was released during June, 1987 for which a certificate was also issued.

c) Aggrieved by issuance of provisional assessment notice, the appellant filed WP No. 7704 / 1996 and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to order restraining APNPDCL from disconnecting power supply. As per the instructions of the Court, the appellant deposited Rs. 30,000/- vide D.D. No. 144575 dt. 27.05.1996. The High Court also instructed APNPDCL to dispose the case of the appellant based on the merits. Accordingly, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer against the final assessment order of the Superintending Engineer / assessment, but nothing is heard from the Department till date.

d) Therefore, the appellant filed a compliant before the Forum. But after perusing all the documents and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, the Forum sent the file to Chairman & Managing Director of APNPDCL stating that it is not competent to dispose the same.

e) The Chairman & Managing Director of APNPDCL after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and perusing documents relating to sanction of additional load as early as in 1996 was pleased to withdraw the malpractice case and ordered to collect only monthly minimum of additional load for the left over period. Orders to that effect are noted in the file. But the Planning Wing of APNPDCL did not take any action and kept the same pending till date.

f) Lastly, the appellant prays the Ombudsman to give directions to the Chief General Manager (P&MM), APNPDCL to drop malpractice case as ordered by the Chairman & Managing Director of APNPDCL.

3. In response to a letter from the Ombudsman, the Forum informed that it has not passed any orders on the compliant filed by the complainant (appellant herein) as the matter pertains to malpractice. It is further informed that the said compliant was communicated to Chief General Manager (P&O), APNPDCL.

4. In response to another letter from the Ombudsman, the Chief General Manager (P&O), APNPDCL sent reply dated 15.02.2008 stating that :

(a) the appellant exceeded sanctioned / contracted load and provisional assessment notice was issued on the grounds of malpractice of power supply. As the appellant did not submit any representation within the stipulated time, the final assessment notice dated 23.07.1997 was issued, wherein an opportunity to prefer appeal to the Chief Engineer, Warangal Zone within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said final assessment notice was given to the appellant. But the appellant did not submit any representation.

(b) While the matter stood as such, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking directions to declare the provisional assessment notice dated 25.03.1996 is illegal and not to disconnect power supply. The High Court permitted the appellant to file a comprehensive explanation within a period of eight weeks and directed the respondents to pass orders in accordance with law. The High Court further ordered that till the final order is passed, the provisional assessment order dated 25.03.1996 need not be given effect to.

(c ) As seen from the above, the final order dated 23.07.1997 was issued to the appellant much before the receipt of the High Court directive. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant has not come forward to submit explanation either to the provisional assessment notice dated 25.03.1996 or to the final notice dated 23.07.1997. Thus the appellant failed to avail the opportunity of filing appeals.

5. In its representation received on 10.03.2008, the appellant denied the above mentioned contentions made by the Chief General Manager (P&O), APNPDCL and reiterated that it filed representation to then Chief Engineer, APNPDCL as per order of the High Court. The appellant also reiterated that the then Chairman & Managing Director of APNPDCL, Sri.Ranganadha Rao endorsed on the file withdrawing the malpractice case and instructed to collect difference of minimum additional load charges, if any, payable by the appellant. But the office Chief General Manager (P&O) has not issued any order basing on the endorsement of the CMD. In the meantime, the then CMD relinquished the officer and on representation to the present CMD, the CGM (P&O) office has intentionally and with ulterior motive has suppressed the fact and concealed the file and the contents of previous CMD endorsement. It is prayed that the Ombudsman may call for the original file and do justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.

6. Heard both the parties on 26.04.2008.

7. The issue that arises for consideration before the Vidyut Ombudsman is whether the appellant is entitled for any relief in this appeal ?

8. It is an admitted fact that order is not passed by the Forum below on the complaint filed by the appellant herein. As mentioned in para-3 above, even the Forum below informed the Ombudsman that it has not passed any orders on the complaint filed by the complainant (appellant herein) as the matter pertains to malpractice. The Forum below further informed that the said complaint was communicated to the Chief General Manager (P&O), APNPDCL. The CGM sent a reply to the Ombudsman stating that the appellant failed to prefer appeals to the authorities concerned with regard to issuance of provisional assessment notice dated 25.03.1996 or the final assessment notice dated 23.07.1997. On the other hand the appellant denied the above mentioned contentions made by the CGM and further stated that it also filed a representation to the then Chief Engineer, APNPDCL as per order of the High Court. It is the contention of the appellant that the then CMD of APNPDCL Sri.Ranganadha Rao endorsed on the file withdrawing the malpractice case and instructed to collect difference of minimum additional charges, but the office of CGM has not issued any order basing on the endorsement of the then CMD.

9. As the matter pertains to malpractice due to release of additional load, the Forum below rightly did not pass any order on the compliant filed by the complainant (appellant herein). It is for APNPDCL to decide whether the appellant indulged in malpractice or not as contended by the appellant in view of sanction of additional load of 30 HP. The Ombudsman cannot issue directions to APNPDCL to drop the case if the appellant involved in such malpractice case. But the contention of the appellant is that the CMD of APNPDCL dropped the malpractice case and ordered to collect the difference of minimum additional charges from the appellant and such endorsement was made by him on the said file. But the office of CGM has not issued any order basing on the endorsement of the then the CMD, APNPDCL. In the reply dt. 16.02.2008, the CGM (P&O) APNPDCL has not mentioned any thing with regard to the same. There is no specific denial of the same by CGM (P&O), APNPDCL.

10. Under the above circumstances the Ombudsman is of the view that the burden lies on CGM, APNPDCL to take appropriate action in the matter if any such endorsement is made by CMD, APNPDCL on the file of the appellant pertaining to this case. If no such endorsement is made by the then CMD, APNPDCL on the file, the CGM need not take any action in the present matter. Hence the CGM (P&O) APNPDCL, Warangal (Respondent-2) is directed to verify the file of the appellant pertaining to this case if it is available in its office and if the said file is not available in its office, it may call for the said file from the office of the CMD APNODCL and to dispose of the file after giving an opportunity to the appellant. The CMD, APNPDCL is directed to send the file to the appellant pertaining to this case if available in its office to the office of CGM (P&O), APNPDCL immediately. The copy of the order of this appeal may be sent to CMD, APNPDCL for information and to do needful in this matter. The appeal / representation is dismissed with the above observations.

This order is corrected and signed on the day 3^rd of May 2008.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN