Appeal No. 33 of 2007

Between

Sri K.Sitaramaiah

Advocate

1-6-174/5/18, Bapujinagar, Morambonda,

Hyderabad – 500 020 … Appellant

And

1. The Asst. Accounts Officer / ERO / APCPDCL / Azamabad / Hyderabad

2. The Asst. Engineer/Operation/ APCPDCL / Ramnagar / Hyderabad

3. The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Operation /APCPDCL / Azamabad / Hyderabad

4. The General Manager / Customer Services / APCPDCL / Corp. office / Hyderabad

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 10.09.2007 filed by the appellant (received on 13.09.2007) came up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 09.04.2008 in the presence of appellant, there being no representation on behalf of respondents 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 passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short the “Forum”) in C.G. No. 76 / 2006-07 of Hyderabad (North) Circle dated 14.02.2007, the appellant herein filed appeal / representation dated 10.09.2007 mentioned supra.

2. The only grievance of the appellant is that he is entitled for payment of compensation of Rs.3725/- by respondent No.1 being the designated officer as per the order of the Forum below and that the said amount was not paid to him eventhough about 7 months have elapsed since the date of passing of the order by the Forum. In fact the Forum directed that its order should be implemented within 15 days from the date of receipt and further directed that a compliance report is to be submitted to it within a week thereafter.

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. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 was directed to clarify implementation of the order of the Forum dated 14.02.2007. If for any reason, the said order is not implemented, respondent No.1 was directed to inform the reasons for the same.

4. In pursuance of efforts made by the Vidyut Ombudsman, the respondent No.1 informed the Ombudsman that the penalty of Rs.3725/- imposed by the Forum for shortcomings in service at Rs.25/- per day for 149 days from 24.08.2006 to 19.01.2007 was credited to the account of appellant in two installments, viz., in the months of October 2007 and February 2008.

5. On the date of hearing, the appellant stated that the order of the forum was complied. But he further contended that he is entitled for interest on delayed payment of compensation. It is the contention of the appellant that APCPDCL collects interest for delayed payment of electricity bills by the consumers. On the same analogy he is entitled for interest at 24% per annum for 9 months for delayed payment of compensation and according to him it works out to Rs.670.50ps. The appellant also filed ‘Written submissions’ on that day.

6. The only issue that falls for consideration before the Vidyut Ombudsman is whether the appellant is entitled for interest on delayed payment of compensation and, if so, what is the amount of interest respondent No.1 is liable to pay to the appellant.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that inspite of orders of the Forum Respondent No.1 did not comply with the order dated 14.02.2007 within the stipulated time, due to which the appellant was compelled to approach the Vidyut Ombudsman for implementation of the order passed by the Forum. It was only after filing the appeal / representation by the appellant in the month of September 2007, Respondent No.1 complied with the orders of the Forum and that too in two installments in the months of October 2007 and February 2008 as mentioned in para-4, i.e., long after the date of order of the Forum. Respondent No.1 has not given any satisfactory explanation for the delayed payment of compensation to the appellant.

8. In this connection it is necessary to refer to Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 empowers distribution licensees to require any person (including a consumer) who requires supply of electricity to give it reasonable security for payment to it of all the monies which may become due to it in respect of electricity supplied; making provision for land or plant or meter. Sub-section (4) of Section 47 mandates that distribution licensees shall pay interest equivalent to bank rate or more on such security deposit paid by the consumers. Similarly, Sub-section (6) of Section 62 of the said Act also provides for payment of interest equivalent to the bank rate for the excess amount collected from the consumer by any licensee or a generating company.

9. In the circumstance of the present case the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, Respondent No.1 is liable to pay bank rate of interest for inordinate delay in payment of compensation and forcing the appellant to approach appellate authority for implementation of orders of the Forum.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed partly and Respondent No.1 is directed to pay interest at 6% p.a. on the delayed payment of compensation to the appellant, which works out to Rs.167=00 (i.e., ¼ of Rs.670-50p). Respondent No.1 shall pay the said amount of Rs.167=00 to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of this order or adjust the same in the ensuing CC bill of the appellant and respondent No.1 is further directed to submit compliance report within 15 days thereof.

This order is corrected and signed on the 23^rd day of April 2008.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN