V I D Y U T    O M B U D S M A N

Office of Secretary, A.P.E.R.C, 4th & 5th Floors, Singareni Bhavan,

Red Hills, Khairatabad, Hyderabad,

 

Dated: 10-01-2006

Present: Sri S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman

 

O.A No. 3 of 2005.

 

Between 

 

Sri D.V. Laxminarayana,

Vice President,

Viniyogadarula Sahaya Samkshema Kendram

4/14, Brodipet, Guntur – 522 002                                                ……  Appellant

 

                                                                        and

 

1.               Superintending Engineer, Operation, Guntur

APSPDCL, 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur - 002. 

 

2.         The Chairman & Managing Director, APSPDCL,

Renigunta Road, Tirupati                                            ………  Respondents

                       

 

This is an appeal coming up before me pursuant to the decision of the Forum for redressal of Grievances of consumers, SPDCL on the complaint of                Sri D.V. Laxminarayana of Guntur and having stood over the matter till this day, the Ombudsman issued the following:

 

O R D E R

 

1.         Sri D.V. Laxminarayana, Vice President, Consumers Assistance and Welfare Centre, Guntur (herein after called the appellant), made a representation dt 10-11-2005 (received by the Ombudsman on 11-11-2005) against the decision of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers, SPDCL (herein after called the Forum) communicated in its letter                dated 08-11-2005 on his complaint dt 27-10-2005.  In the said complaint the following averments are made.

The Distribution Company is not:

(i)                 complying with the rules on free replacement of meters burnt for first time.

(ii)               supplying copies of the Regulations/Documents on the matters relating to consumer service free of cost inspite of commissions directions.

(iii)             taking action to implement the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, even after issue of Gazette notification by State Government.

 

2.         The Chairperson of the Forum has not registered the complaint on the ground that the references cited are general in nature and they will not come under the purview of the Forum. The chairperson of the Forum advised the complainant (appellant herein) in his letter dt. 08-11-2005 to approach appropriate officer to do the needful.

 

3.            Aggrieved by the said communication, the complainant filed the present Appeal on the following grounds

(i)                 It is not possible to refer all the cases of six Districts of the Licensed area of the Distribution company.

(ii)               Rejection of the complaint on technical grounds is against the spirit of the Act and Regulation.

(iii)             The Forum has not made any efforts to enquire into the deficiency of services reported in the complaint.

 

4.            Pursuant to the notice issued by the Ombudsman, to the parties herein, to appear before the Ombudsman for the meeting fixed on 01-12-2005, the Appellant expressed his inability stating that their society does not have adequate resources to undertake journey to Hyderabad and requested to decide the matter on the basis of available records. On behalf of the respondents, Sri. Bapaiah, DE (Technical), Circle Office, SPDCL, Guntur appeared before the Ombudsman and stated that the CMD, SPDCL submitted his reply to the notice in letter dt. 27-11-2005, and he has no additional submissions to be before to the Ombudsman.

 

            On observing that a copy of the said reply was not served to the Appellant, the CMD/SPDCL was requested in notice dt. 06-12-2005 to serve the same to the Appellant and the CMD/SPDCL complied with the same.  The Appellant submitted his rejoinder to the said reply in his letter dt. 02-01-2006.

 

5.         The issues agitated by the Appellant in this Appeal are discussed hereunder:

           

            The first issue is regarding, free replacement of first time burnt meters:  In demanding free replacement of first time burnt meters, the Appellant is relying on the instructions issued by the erstwhile APSEB in a Memo dt 01-09-1977.  He also cited the instructions of DE/O/Guntur on implementing the instructions contained in the said Memo dt. 01-09-1977.  However, these instructions are not being implemented.

 

            In his reply, dt. 26-11-2005 to the notice of Ombudsman, the CMD/SPDCL has relied upon the APERC Regulation No.7 of 2004 which specifies that the burnt meters for which the cause of burning is attributable to consumer, are to be replaced on payment of cost of meter and contended that the said Regulation of the Commission supersedes all earlier instructions of various authorities.   He also stated that if the meter is burnt due to high voltage, aging of meter and loose contacts (the causes which are attributable to discuss as per Regulation), new meter will be fixed at company’s cost irrespective of whether the meter burns for the first time or subsequent times.

 

            The relevant provisions of the APERC Regulation No.7 of 2004, are quoted hereunder:

 

“III.            Complaints about meters:

 

3.1       The licensee shall inspect and check the correctness of the meter within 7 working days of receiving the complaint in cities and towns and within 15 working days in rural areas.  If the meter is not working (stuck up, running slow, fast or creeping), the licensee shall replace the meter at Licensee’s own cost, within 15 days thereafter.

 

3.2       The Licensee shall replace at Licensee’s own cost the burnt out meters within 7 days of complaint if the burning of meter is due to causes attributable to the Licensee like high voltage, loose contacts, aging of meter, etc. If the meter is burnt due to causes attributable to the consumer such as tampering, defect in consumer’s installation, meter getting wet, connecting unauthorized additional load by the consumer, etc., the Licensee shall serve a notice to the consumer for recovery of cost of the meter within 7 days of detection and shall replace the meter within 7 days of receiving the payment from the consumer and after necessary corrective action is taken to avoid future damage to the meter.”

 

            In view of the above provisions of the Regulation, I agree with the contention of the respondent CMD/SPDCL that the provisions of the Regulation supersede all the earlier instructions of various authorities, and the company is required to implement the provisions of the Regulation instead of the instructions contained in Memo dt. 01-09-1977 of erstwhile APSEB.

 

            However, certain issues concerning this matter raised by the Appellant in his rejoinder dt. 02-01-2006 require to be attended.

 

            The Appellant referred a specific case of S.C.No. 156517 of D - 8 Section of Guntur. The meter of this service is reported to have burnt on the night of 10th December 2005 due to high voltage, but the meter was replaced on 13th December 2005 only after payment of cost of meter by the consumer.  The CMD/SPDCL may arrange to verify whether the provisions of Regulation No.7 of 2004 are complied with in this case and inform the result to the Appellant within 15 days.

 

            The Appellant also made a comment in his rejoinder dt. 02-01-2006 that the instructions of CMD/SPDCL in Memo dt. 05-10-2005 are contradictory to clause 3.1 and 3.2 of Schedule – I of the Regulation No.7 of 2004.  I am unable to agree with this contention.  

 

            The CMD/SPDCL in Memo dt. 06-10-2005 (a copy of this Memo is provided by Appellant along with his rejoinder dt. 02-01-2006) issued some guidelines to adopt uniform procedure for replacement of burnt meters as different officers are following different procedures.  It contains guidelines in respect of cases where cost of meter is to be collected and also specifies that for minor damages like broken glass, TB burnt etc.  I do not consider that these are contradictions of the provisions of the Regulation No.7 of 2004. 

 

            The said Memo does not contain mention of ascertaining the cause of the burning of meter so as to decide whether to collect or not the cost of meter for replacement.  This again is not a contradiction of the provisions of Regulation No.7 of 2004.  But, it is essential that the inspecting officers ascertain the cause of burning of meter for the purpose of collection or not, of the cost of meter in terms of the Regulation No.7 of 2004.

 

7.         The second issue is regarding supply of copies of Regulations / Instructions of Commission:

            The respondent CMD/SPDCL has produced copies of he following documents which were distributed to the SEs/Operation for making available to consumers.

1.                  Copy of Regulation No.7 of 2004 (Gazette notification)

2.                  Copy of printed booklet containing complaint handling procedure approved by the Commission.

3.                  Copy of printed booklet containing Code of Practice of payment bills

4.                  Copy of booklet containing consumer Rights statement

5.                  Copy of printed booklet containing Regulation No.6 of 2000 on Standards of Performance.

Copies of the correspondence produced by CMD/SPDCL reveals that about  twenty five thousand copies each of the printed booklets under items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were supplied to three circles viz., Vijayawada, Guntur and Nellore.

 

            I am convinced that the SPDCL has substantially complied with the directions of the Commission in this regard.  I may mention here that the Commission has since issued Regulation No.5 of 2004 which contains among others, the procedure for payment of electricity bills, as required u/s 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  The provisions of this Regulation take precedence over the provision of the document approved by the Commission in 2000 on the procedure for payment of bills.  Similarly the Regulation No. 7 of 2004 supersedes the Regulation No.6 of 2000 in the matter of Standards of Performance.  Thus supply of booklets of documents of the year 2000 may not be relevant in the wake of new regulations framed under the Electricity Act, 2003.

 

8.         The Third issue agitated by the Appellant is regarding implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005:            The CMD/SPDCL produced a copy of the order dt. 22-09-2005, issued by SPDCL designating the State Public Information Officer, Assistant Public Information Officer, and the Senior Officer to whom appeal lies, in terms of the Act.  The relevant provisions of the Act and actions to be taken by these Officers under the Act are also specified in the said order.

 

            I am convinced that SPDCL has acted very promptly in designating the Officers for the purposes of the Right to Information Act, 2005.  The company may give due publicity for the same through press releases so as to enable the public to utilize the facility provided in the Act.

 

9.            Concluding the above discussion, I decide the following award in this Appeal:

(i)                 SPDCL shall examine the matter pertaining to S.C.No.150517 of      D - 8 Section of Guntur to ascertain the liability of consumer for payment of cost of meter burned on 10-12-2005 and inform the the result to the consumer with a copy to the Appellant association within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

(ii)               Necessary instructions may be issued to ensure that Inspecting Officers ascertain the cause of burning of meter before insisting for payment of cost of meter, in terms of Regulation No.7 of 2004.

 

 

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN