Between

T.Anjaneyulu,

S/o. Subba Rao,

Gopalapuram,

Marellamudi Post,

Vunguturu Mandalam

PIN – 534 112 (W.G.Dist.) ……. Appellant

and

1. Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, Chebrolu

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Rural, T.P.Gudem

3. Divisional Engineer, Operation, T.P.Gudem

4. Superintending Engineer, Operation, Eluru ……. Respondents

This appeal dated 22-03-2006 (received on 27-03-2006) filed by Sri.Tondepu Anjaneyulu, of Gopalapuram, West Godavari District against the order dated 23-02-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (here in after called CGRF or Forum), EPDCL, Visakhapatnam in C.G.No.81 of 2005 (Eluru Circle), coming up before the Ombudsman, and having stood over till this day the Ombudsman issues the following

O R D E R

2. The facts on record in this case are briefly narrated here in. The appellant applied for electricity supply for his agricultural bore well for a load of 20 HP under LT category V(B) – Tatkal (out of turn) – metered category on 09-05-2005. The DE/Opn/Tadepalligudem sanctioned awaking estimate (WE No.229 of 2005-06) for extending supply to the said agricultural load on 16-07-2005 under the SPA scheme of Tadepalligudem (code No.013181). As per the said estimate the appellant paid the following amounts.

(a) Development charges @ Rs.20,000/ HP - Rs. 20,000

(b) To wards part of the estimate cost - Rs. 63,210

after allowing an exemption of Rs.30,000

Total amount paid Rs. 83,210

The consumer observed certain defects in the works executed by the respondents and filed a complaint on 10-10-2005 before the CGRF Visakhapatnam listing out 6 defects and sought redressal. The Forum in its order dated 09-11-2005 in C.G.No. 29/2005, disposed off the complaint with an observation that the Licensee has expedited the works and is ready for release of supply by 24-10-2005 while consumer him self was not ready even by 08-11-2005 and also advised the consumer to get ready with his installation and take supply early. The supply was released on 11-11-2005 after the consumer installed his pumpset. Not being satisfied with the order of the Forum, the consumer filed an appeal on 23-11-2005 before Ombudsman listing out seven(7) defects in works executed by the respondents. He also stated that he paid an amount of Rs.4000 towards Security Deposit and Rs.500 towards service connection charges in addition to Rs.83,210 mentioned above. This appeal was disposed by ombudsman on 08-12-2005 remitting the matter to CGRF Visakhapatnam to register the same as a fresh complaint and dispose off the same in terms of Regulation No.1 of 2004. The Forum registered this complaint as C.G.No.81 of 2005, and disposed off the same in its order dated 23-02-2006, accepting the report given by the respondents on rectification of certain defects and treating the grievance of the consumer as resolved. Aggrieved by the said order of the Forum, the consumer filed this appeal.

3. In this appeal the appellant stated that out of seven specific defects pointed out in his earlier appeal dated 23-11-2005, the respondents have rectified only two defects and the balance 5 defects have not been rectified as follows:

(i) 11KV AB switch was not provided for DTR. It is not possible to avoid dangers if AB switch is not provided. Further it results in delay in taking Line clear to attend to faults if any.

(ii) 8 mtrs pole is erected instead of 9.1 mtrs ploe provided in the estimate.

(iii) Concrete is provided for only one pole and one stay as against 2 poles and 4 stays provided in the estimate.

(iv) Rectified.

(v) The service wire from pole to the pumpshed was purchased by the consumer as the respondent have not supplied the same. Hence the cost of the same should be refunded.

(vi) Rectified.

(vii) Bare conductor is provided at DTR between HT and LT lines and hence it is dangerous. It should be replaced with cable.

The appellant also made a request to make correspondence in Telugu language as he is facing much problem for translation.

4. In terms of clause 8(1)(c) of the Regulation No.1 of 2004, a notice was issued on 06-04-2006 advising the parties here in to endeavour to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement by 22-04-2006. If no settlement is reached the respondents are required to file counter by 09-05-2006 and the appellant to file rejoinder by 15-05-2006.

As no settlement was reached, the notice was issued on 15-05-2006, for hearing of the parties on 05-06-2006 at Hyderabad.

The appellant in his letter 29-05-2006 expressed his inability to attend the hearing in view of financial castraints and requested to consider the written submissions made in the said letter dated 29-05-2006 which contains the same 5 un-rectified matters mentioned in his appeal dated 22-03-2006. The respondent No.2 attended the hearing on 05-06-2006 and filed a common counter 03-06-2006 signed by the respondents 1 to 3 before the Ombudsman at the time of hearing.

5. In the said common counter, the respondents have reported the action taken on the defects pointed by the appellant as follows:

(i) The AB switch was not provided as the estimate does not provide for the same. The cost of AB switch was not collected from the consumer.

(ii) As the 9.1 mtrs poles are not available, and in view of the urgency expressed by consumer, the work is done with 8 mtrs pole. To reduce load on the pole the DTR was erected on a plinth instead of on the pole as originally contemplated. There is no hindrance / damage to the equipment of consumer.

(iii) Concreting was done to structure pole and staysets.

(iv) Rectified.

(v) Consumer has to bear the cost of service wire. This does not come under the preview of Licensee.

(vi) Rectified.

(vii) Supply of Meter Box is not in the preview of Licensee and it is to be borne by the consumer only.

The respondents contended that there is no deficiency of service to the consumer and requested for dismissal of the appeal.

6. During the hearing held on 05-06-2006, in Sri.S.Janardhana Rao, ADE/Opn/Rural/T.P.Gudem (respondent No.2) while reiterating the replies given in the counter, provided the following information in reply to the questions from me on certain un-resolved defects pointed in the appeal.

Defect (i): As per the uniform procedure followed in the company, 11 KV AB switch is not provided to each DTR, and is provided for a group of DTRs (as in the case of HVDS schemes for small capacity DTRs).

Defect (iii): Concreting was done for one pole and two staysets, which are provided in the estimate. There is no provision in the estimate for concreting of other poles and staysets.

Defect (v): Cost of service wire was not collected from the consumer.

I asked the respondent No.2 about collection of the Development charges and also the cost of DTR as a part of the total cost of estimate. He replied that Rs.30,000 is deducted towards loan component from the finding agencies (REC). The deduction of Rs.30,000 was also shown in the sanctioned estimate.

7. In the background of the above facts on record, the point for consideration is whether the relief sought by the appellant by way of rectification of defects pointed out by him and other reliefs are to be allowed?

8. Point

This is an unique case where the consumer having paid the cost of the works as per estimate is insisting to execute the works as per standards provided in the estimate (except in one case of AB switch for which he came out the specific reasoning). I am considering it as unique since normally it is the other way round, i.e., the Licensee points out defects in consumer’s installation and insists for rectification as per rules to enable release of supply.

Each un-solved issue raised by the appellant is discussed here under.

(a) Providing of AB switch: The reply given in the counter is signed, among others, by the DE/Opn/Tadepalligudem, the authority who actually sanctioned the estimate. The appellant raised a specific question as to why AB switch is not provided when it is required for (i) to avoid accidents and (ii) to reduce L/C time for attending to faults. As a sanctioning authority the DE should have stated reason for not providing the AB switch in the estimate. On my question Sri.S.Janardhana Rao, ADE/Opn,Rural, T.P.Gudem, (respondent No.2) stated that as a matter of uniform proceedure, the AB switch is not provided to each DTR, and is being provided for a cluster of DTRs and that the DTR of this service is connected to the 11 KV Gopalapuram feeder of the 33/11 KV Gollagudem sub-station. He could not correctly state where exactly the AB switch was provided for the cluster of DTRs covering the DTR of this service of this appellant or the line isolator, if any, on the 11 KV line feeding this DTR. Total elimination of 11 KV AB switches in the execution of extension schemes is un-acceptable and should not be allowed to go un-questioned. The respondents have to confirm the location where the AB switch is provided.

(b) Erection of structure pole instead of 9.1 mtr pole:

It is true that the estimate provides for erection of single pole DTR structure with 9.1 mtr pole at a cost of Rs.8,000 including terminal arrangements. However the actual erection of DTR was done on the plinth instead of on the pole. Thus in my opinion it is not necessary to erect 9.1 mtr pole either from the point of view of transverse loading on poles or with reference to ground clearances. The DISCOMs engineers, being the electrical inspectors for their works under the authorisation given by State Government earlier in this regard, are responsible to maintain the standards as per IE rules. I therefore consider that no relief is required on this ground.

(c) Laying of concrete for poles / staysets:

The estimate contains two parts viz HT system and LT system. The LS provision of Rs.3200 in LT system is supported by the Data-I which provides for concreting of one pole and one stay. This is excluding the DTR structure pole which is covered in HT system. But the respondents have stated that one (DTR structure) pole and two staysets are concreted and there is no provision in the estimate for concreting of other poles and staysets. This could not be verified as the estimate does not contain the detailed data for the 160 mtrs of 11 KV line provided in the HT system. However as already stated in item (b) above, being the electrical inspectors for this purpose, the respondents have statutory duty cast on them to ensure standards of construction of lines as per IE rules. No specific relief is required on this ground.

(d) Service wire from pole to consumer pumpshed.

The contention of the respondents in their counter does not appear to be correct. The estimate provides Rs.1010 towards service line including labour and the transport, in the item 2(a) of LT system, which is collected as a part of total estimate cost. In addition an amount Rs.500/- was collected towards as service connection charges as stated by the consumer in his earlier appeal dated 23-11-2005. Thus an amount of Rs.1510 was collected form the consumer on this account. As per my understanding of the estimate provisions, the consumer is not required to bear the cost of service wire again, if it is already collected as per the estimate. The clause 6.2(a) of the old Terms & Conditions of Supply (presently clause 5.4.1.1) stipulates that the prospective consumer has to lay the service connection cable and meter box / cut-out / MCB in the premises of LT consumer. It is also clearly stated therein that in the case consumers of Agricultural and streetlight categories, the proceedure separately specified by the Board (APSEB) will apply. Thus the condition of providing of service wire by consumer himself is not applicable for Agriculture category. Hence the consumer is entitled for refund of the cost of the material provided by him in respect of the provisions in the estimate under item 2(a) of LT system as the cost was already paid by him as a part of the total estimate cost.

At this stage it is also necessary to examine the propriety of collection of both the cost of DTR as a part of estimate cost, and also the development charges (which are meant for meeting expenses towards Transformation costs). The estimate sanctioned by the respondent No.3 shows an exemption of Rs.30,000 from the gross estimate cost of Rs.93,210. The balance Rs.63,210 is shown as collection towards service line charge and Rs.20,000 is collected towards development charges @ Rs.1000/HP for the load of 20 HP. It is to be noted that in the guide lines on release of new Agricultural connection it was mentioned that the average cost per pumpset of 5 HP involving HT & LT extension is Rs.30,000/- and the beneficiary or the sponsoring agency has to bear the cost in excess of Rs.30,000. Here the total cost including HT & LT extension and DTR is Rs.93,100 for the load of 20 HP. Thus deduction of only Rs.30,000 applicable for 5 HP is not supported by any rationale. Assuming that the a single consumer is entitled for exemption upto only Rs.30,000 irrespective the load in excess of 5 HP, at least the amount paid by the consumer towards development charges in excess of 5 HP should also be considered for reduction form the estimate cost as the estimate covers the total cost including the cost of DTR. Thus the amount paid by the consumer for the balance 15 HP i.e. Rs.15,000 is to be deducted from the estimate cost while computing the service line charges (SLC) payable by the consumer. Thus the amount payable by the consumer towards SLC works out to Rs.48,210 (Rs.93,210–Rs.30,000–Rs.15,000). The excess amount of Rs.15,000 (Rs.63,210– Rs.48,210) is refundable to the consumer.

(e) Cable wiring to be provided at DTR instead of bare conductor

The reply in the counter is not relevant for the objection of the appellant, and perhaps, is based on original complaint made to the Forum. It is possible that the respondents have not received a copy this appeal. As the detailed data is not provided for the HT system along with the sanctioned estimate, it is difficult to verify the correctness of the objection and the relief to be granted. Nevertheless the Licensee should ensure that the works are executed as per statutory standards especially where safety aspects are involved and where consumers or public are likely to be endangered. The respondents being the statutory electrical inspectors for this purpose, shall comply with their statutory duty and ensure that public / consumers are not exposed to dangers an account of providing bare conductor at the DTR between HT and LT lines.

9. Concluding the above discussion, I decide the following award.

(a) The respondent No.3 shall file the following, with in one month, along with an affidavit:

(i) The details of the location at which the 11 KV AB switch was provided for the cluster of DTRs in which the DTR of this appellant is covered, and / or the locations of the line isolators on the 11 KV Gopalapuram feeder.

(ii) Report on the statutory inspection conducted by the competent authority on the works executed under the working estimate sanctioned by the DE/Opn/T.P.Gudem in WE No.229/2005-06 on 16-07-2005.

(b) The respondents shall refund

(i) the amount of Rs.15,000 excess collected under service line charges, and

(ii) the amount towards the cost of service wire provided by the consumer from the structure pole to the pumpshed.

(c) The refund of the amounts mentioned in item (b) above shall be done by adjustment in future CC bills. Such adjustment shall commence from the month in which the appellant gives acceptance letter for this award in terms of clause 12 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004.

10. A Telugu version of this order will be communicated to the appellant separately as desired by him, as early as possible.

This order is signed by me on the 26^th day of June, 2006.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

1.T.Anjaneyulu,

S/o. Subba Rao,

Gopalapuram,

Marellamudi Post,

Vunguturu Mandalam

PIN – 534 112 (W.G.Dist.)

2. Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, Chebrolu

3. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Rural, T.P.Gudem

4. Divisional Engineer, Operation, T.P.Gudem

5. Superintending Engineer, Operation, Eluru

Copy to

The Secretary,

APERC, Hyderabad.

The Chairperson,

Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers,

EPDCL, Visakhapatnam.