Appeal No. 38 of 2007

Between

B.Venkanna

M/s. Sai Annapurna Agro Industries

H.No.11-51, Hyderabad Main Road

Station Ghanpur, Warangal Dist … Appellant

And

1. The Superintending Engineer/Operation/APNPDCL/ Warangal

2. The Senior Accounts Officer/ Central Office / APNPDCL / Warangal

3. The Junior Accounts Officer / ERO / APNPDCL / Warangal

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 23.10.2007 (received on 23.10.2007) of the appellant has come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 02.04.2008 in the presence of Sri. B.Venkanna, representative for the appellant and respondent No.3 and 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. 169 / 2007 of Warangal District dated 21.07.2007, the appellant herein filed appeal / representation dated 23.10.2007 mentioned supra.

2. The case of the appellant is that ;

(a) during the power consumption in the month of April 2007, the power factor had dropped. The actual bill amount is Rs.62,156.59 ps, but the Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited (for short ‘APNPDCL’) charged 127.5% excess on the said amount for the reason of Low Power Factor (for short ‘LPF’),

(b) The HT service of the appellant was charged on 01.04.2007 and the bill was prepared on 21.04.2007. The appellant feels that had the bill was prepared for 30 days, then the power factor would have increased,

(c) the bill was prepared on the minimum bill amount which the appellant has not consumed. The actual usage of units for 21 days is 2160 only. If APNPDCL charges LPF penalty on this, such penalty will not be high, and the appellant is prepared to pay the same and

(d) when contacted the Chairman and Managing Director of the APNPDCL did not grant any relief. Therefore, the appellant filed a complaint before the Forum. The Forum came to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay LPF surcharge as demanded by APNPDCL. Hence, the appeal / representation.

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 11.03.2008, there is no possibility of settlement between the parties by mutual consent. Therefore, the respondents were directed to file their submissions after serving a copy of the same on the appellant.

4. By Letter No.SE/OP/WGL/SAO/JAOHT/F.No.175/D.No.884 dt.28.03.2008, the respondent No. 1 submitted that ;

(a) the service connection of the appellant was released on 01.04.2007. Based on the consumption readings furnished by the Asst. Divisional Engineer / C&O / Ghanpur, the bill for the month of April 2007 was issued for Rs.1,41,406/- including LPF surcharge for Rs.79,249.41 with 127.5 % as per the Tariff Order dated 20.03.2007 of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short ‘APERC’),

(b) the M.D. was recorded on 21.04.2007 as 166.4 kVA and the consumption was recorded as 2160. The bill for April 2007 was issued as per the schedule of Retail Tariff for the year 2007-08 dated 20.03.2007 for 8320 units for 21 days as the service was released on 01.04.2007,

(c) the LPF surcharge was imposed as per the said Tariff Order on the total bill for that month and also as per the Memo. No. CGM / RAC / NPDCL / WGL / RAC / F.TARIFF / D.No.414 / 06, Dt.22.06.2006 and

(d) CMD of APNPDCL in Memo. No. CMD / GM/R / HT / F.No.72 / D.No.R-3315/06, Dt.10.07.2006 instructed to take readings of HT service from 21^st to 23^rd of every month and hand over to Senior Accounts Officer on 23^rd evening. Hence, the bill for April 2007 was issued for 21 days to the service of the appellant.

5. Heard both the parties.

6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Forum below is correct or not.

7. After perusing the record, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that the Forum below after taking into consideration the Tariff Order and Terms & Conditions of Supply has correctly concluded that the demand of Rs.1,41,406/- including LPF surcharge of Rs.79,249.41 for the month of 4/07 is as per procedure.

8. However, it is admitted fact in the instant case, that the appellant obtained release of service connection on 01.04.2007 and readings were taken by the concerned officer of APNPDCL on 21.04.2007. It is the case of the appellant that it obtained service connection on 01.04.2007, but the mill could not put the load on to the system immediately because of certain teething problems. This is also evident from the fact that M.D during the billing period from 01.04.2007 to 21.04.2007 was only 166.4 kVA against sanctioned load of 250 kVA and the actual energy consumed for that month is 2160 units which is far less than the minimum energy units that the appellant is expected to consume.

9. The bill for the month of 5/07 reveals that electricity consumption of the appellant, as well as the power factor, have increased substantially. With the result, APNPDCL did not levy any penalty for LPF for that month. The respondents also did not state that during the subsequent months, the appellant had not achieved minimum demand consumption or not achieved the required power factor. It would disclose that it is not the intention of the appellant to cause loss to the APNPDCL by consuming less number of units during the month of 4/07, but for the reasons stated by it.

10. In view of the above, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that in the intant case, the ends of justice would be met if LPF surcharge for the billing month of 4/07 is calculated based on actual energy and demand consumed during that month. Therefore, the Vidyut Ombudsman directs the respondents to calculate LPF surcharge on the basis of actual recorded kVA and recorded energy consumed and issue revised bill for the month of 4/07. As far as minimum charges are concerned, the respondents shall follow the general Terms & Conditions of Supply in vogue.

11. Accordingly, the appeal / representation is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to compute the bill for the month of 4/07 as directed above and adjust the amount due to the appellant, if any, in the ensuing CC bill. The respondents are further directed to submit compliance report at the earliest thereafter.

This order is corrected and signed on 11^th day of April, 2008.