Appeal No.2 of 2005

Between

The Cloth Merchants Association, .. Appellant

196, Vastralatha, VIJAYAWADA.

Rep by it’s General Secretary

and

1) CGM/Project/APSPDCL/Tirupathi

2) The SE/Opn/Vijayawada

3) The AAO/ERO/Town-1/Vijayawada .. Respondents

This appeal coming on before me finally for enquiry on 27.10.2005 at Tirupati in the presence of representative of the appellant and respondents and stood over for consideration till this day the Vidyut Ombudsman issued the following:

O R D E R

2. This is a representation (appeal) made by the Cloth Merchants Association, Vijayawada against the orders of the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (hereinafter ‘Lower Authority’) dated 14.07.2005.

2. The parties will be referred to as they stand before the Lower Authority.

3. Following are the facts leading to file this appeal.

(a) The complainant in the petition stated that originally he has taken single point L.T.Bulk supply under L.t.Category-II to 320 nos. individual shops in Vastralata Complex, Vijayawada during 1978 and they were paying highest tariff to all these shops loosing the benefit of telescopic tariff for each shop and hence requested the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Company Limited (APTRANSCO) for adoption of telescopic billing to all these 320 services. In response, the APTRANSCO in its letter No.CE/Comml/AE/Vastralatha/142/2001 dated 19.02.2001 has ordered to provide individual meters to all shops at the cost of complainant, retaining bulk supply meter as check meter. However it also stated that the total consumption of all meters is less than the consumption recorded in the check meter, the short fall in the energy shall be distributed among all the shops on prorata basis. APTRANSCO also stipulated in that order that the complainant has to pay the arrears of customer charges due to APTRANSCO on account of 3% energy billed as per the provisions of BP.Ms.No.70 dated 08.05.1995 and switch over to the bulk supply tariff as and when it is introduced by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) in future. Accordingly the complainant has been paying the short fall in consumption between check meter and the individual meters on prorata basis and was not in arrears. Arrears of 3% energy billed upto 19.09.2001 were also paid. The petitioner further contended that while so the 3^rd respondent in its letter No.AAO/ ERO/T2/VJY/JAO/IV/BS/VI/568/03 dated 07.04.2003 informed the petitioner that APERC has introduced the bills procedure in respect of complexes having connected load more than 56 kW/75 HP with effect from 01.04.2001 and according to which 3% energy charges were added in 3/2003 customer charges bill and that the short fall upto 2/2003 will be intimated separately. There upon, the complainant made a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company Limited of A.P. (SPDCL), Tirupathi who in turn ordered that status-quo should be maintained as per the APTRANSCO’s order and also directed to collect customer charges for all the 320 shops. There upon the 3^rd respondent demanded payment of an amount of Rs.7,08,315/- towards arrears of customer charges from 3/2001 to 3/2005 being the difference amount between bulk supply tariff and prorata basis tariff. The petitioner stated that the said demand was illegal and therefore filed the complaint requesting to set aside the said demand notice.

(b) The respondent contended before the Lower Authority that they have issued the bill under the highest tariff of Rs.6-60 per unit from 01.04.2003 and also to add 3% transmission charges and is applicable even by tariff order issued by APERC since 2001-2002 onwards. A sum of Rs.25,64,483/- will be the short fall on account of revision of bills. But subsequent to the decision by the Board of Directors the demand was revised and the complainant was directed to pay Rs.7,08,315/- towards 3% energy charges from 3/2001 to 3/2005 only. The demand is in accordance with the Commission’s order.

(c) The Lower Authority upon considering the contentions of both parties has held that 3% energy charges was not justified and therefore set aside the said demand notice for payment of Rs.7,08,315/- issued by the 3^rd respondent. But however it (Lower Authority) made an observation that the petitioner was liable to pay customer charges for all the 320 individual meters at Rs.10/- from 3/2001 till 31.03.2002 and there after Rs.20/- per month per meter as fixed by the APERC.

4. Aggrieved by the order of Lower Authority directing the petitioner to pay customer charges, the complainant filed this appeal.

5. After registering the appeal, notices were issued to both the parties to appear before the Vidyut Ombudsman for enquiry on 24.10.2005. Lower Authority produced all the record as directed by the Ombudsman.

6. On the said date of enquiry (24.10.2005) the appellant and respondents were present and endeavour was made to promote a settlement of the dispute covered this appeal by mutual agreement or conciliation, or by arbitration and posted the matter to 27.10.2005 at Tirupathi as requested by parties.

7. On 27.10.2005, both the appellant and the respondents were present and appeared before the Vidyut Ombudsman at Tirupathi. Pursuant to conciliation efforts, the authorized representatives of petitioner and respondents have arrived at a mutually agreed terms and conditions and represented that they will send their terms of agreement by 31.10.2005. Accordingly, on 31.10.2005 the complainant sent a written confirmation that it agrees to pay customer charges from April, 2002 @ Rs.17-50 ps. per meter till the date of taking individual connection. In response, the Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL sent letter No.CGM/Proj/SPDCL/TPT/Coml/ADE/F.61/D.No.803/05 dated 03.11.2005 addressed to the Vidyut Ombudsman referring to the written confirmation of the complainant dated 31.10.2005 and informed that the following decisions are taken by APSPDCL against the appeal made by the complainant before the Vidyut Ombudsman.

1) Customer charges will be waived during the period from 03/2001 to 03/2002

2) Customer charges should be collected @ Rs.17-50 ps from 04/2002 till to date of taking individual services to the shops.

3) The arrears of the customer charges payable from the month of April, 2002 will be adjusted from the security deposit available with SC.No.0032786/04341, since M/s Cloth Merchants Association have accepted to take individual services.

8. Upon perusal of the record and submissions of both the parties, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that the agreement arrived at between the parties, is just and reasonable. Therefore, the following recommendations are made:

1) Customer charges will be waived during the period from 03/2001 to 03/2002

2) Customer charges should be collected @Rs.17-50 ps from 04/2002 t till to date of taking individual services to the shops.

9. The copies of this order/recommendation based on mutual agreement between the parties, be sent to the parties concerned as per Clause No.11(3) of Regulation No.1 of 2004. The complainant and the respondents are directed to send their acceptance clearly stating that the settlement communicated is acceptable to them in totality and is in full and final settlement of the complainant as required under Clause No.11(4) of the Regulation No.1 of 2004.

This order is corrected, signed and issued on 15^th day of November, 2005.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN