VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

Office of ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

5^th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,

Hyderabad – 500 004

Appeal No. 28 of 2006

Between

Sri. K. Sudarshan,

S/o K. Narayana Rao,

Head Post Office,

Bodhan (Town) – 503 185

Nizamabad District. … Appellant

and

1. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation / Bodhan

2. Additional Assistant Engineer / Operation / Town / Bodhan

3. Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/ Bodhan … Respondents

This appeal dated 08-11-2006, filed by Sri. K. Sudarshan (hereinafter called the appellant or consumer) against the order dated 07-09-2006, in C.G. No. 76 of 2006 (Nizamabad circle) of the Forum of redressal of grievances of consumers (herein after called the Forum or CGRF), Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, (APNPDCL), Warangal, coming up for consideration 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 mentioned herein. The consumer has availed two separate connections one (SC No. 94) under LT category II (shop) in the premises bearing H.No. 3-7-137 and the other (S.C. No. 2105) under LT category I (Domestic) in the premises bearing H.No. 3-7-147 in Bodhan town, Nizamabad District. The two premises are approachable through an internal passage (door). The S.C. No. 94 was inspected by the Assistant Engineer. DPE-2, Nizamabad on 14-03-2001 and found that the service was being billed on average of 40 units (for 2 months) as the meter status was being shown as RNF (Reading Not Furnished). The reading of the meter at the time of his inspection was 22344. The previous available meter reading as per Electricity Revenue Office records was 16,610. Hence he assessed the short billed energy as the difference between these two readings (22344 - 16610) i.e. 5734 units and proposed to charge @ Rs. 7.45 per unit plus Electricity Duty of 6 paise per unit, and arrived at the amount of short billing as Rs. 43,062. The Assistant Accounts Officer/ ERO included this short-billed amount in April 2001 bill. Subsequently the short-billed amount was also included in August 2001 bill and later withdrawn. The interest on this short-billed amount was being charged in the bills from May 2001 onwards. The consumer made part payments of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 11,000, Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000 at different points of time, but there was still a balance of Rs. 55,754 as on November 2004, as per the accounts of the respondent No. 3. The bills are stopped with effect from 10/2004. The consumer filed a compliant before the Forum of NPDCL, Warangal on 16-05-2006 requesting for justice as he was paying monthly minimum bills regularly. The learned Forum examined this matter and arrived at the outstanding dues as Rs. 45,954 (instead of 55,754). Subsequently the respondents disconnected the S.C. No. 2105 (Domestic service) which belongs to the same consumer as he did not clear the dues against S.C. No. 94 (category II). Aggrieved by the order of the Forum and by the action of the respondents in disconnecting his domestic service the consumer filed this appeal.

3. Interim orders

In this appeal, the consumer requested for interim order to restore supply to the domestic connection No. 2105, as the children are suffering for want of electricity for their studies and as there are no dues against that service (S.C. No. 2105). Having regard to the circumstances of this case, an interim order was issued in proceedings dated 13-11-2006, directing the respondents to restore supply to the domestic Service No. 2105 of this consumer subject to payment of Rs. 1500 towards first of the 3 instalments to be paid, out of Rs. 4,500 being about 10% of the disputed amount under S.C. No. 94 pending final orders in this appeal.

4. In this appeal the appellant raised the following prime contentions:

(i) The shop was closed during 1993, and he paid the minimum bills during disconnection period.

(ii) The children used the shop for study purpose by entering from the internal passage and the shutter was always closed.

(iii) No readings were taken from 1993 to 2001.

(iv) Back billing was made @ Rs. 7.51 per unit instead of normal tariff.

(v) No reply was received for the legal notice, but service was disconnected.

(vi) He made payments in parts, i.e. Rs. 15,000, Rs. 11,000, Rs. 5000 and Rs.10,000 at different points of time.

(vii) Inspite of these payments the dues are shown as Rs. 55,754, but details were not furnished to him.

(viii) The Forum did not consider the fact that the shop was closed in 1993 and it was not denied by the respondents. The Forum also did not consider the tariff prevalent and hence the order of Forum is bad in law.

On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant prayed to set aside the order of the Forum and to pass appropriate order showing correct account of units, with correct tariff applicable from time to time.

5. As required under clause 8 (1) (c) of Regulation No. 1 of 2004 of Hon’ble APERC the Ombudsman by notice dated 26-12-2006 made a request to the parties herein to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement by 12-01-2007. In case no settlement is reached, the respondents were required to file their counters by 20-01-2007 with copy to the appellant, and the appellant was required to file his rejoinder if any by 31-01-2007. The hearing was fixed on 05-02-2007 in the office of APERC, Hyderabad.

6. The appellants have neither filed any counter nor did they attend the hearing on 05-02-2007. On behalf of the appellant, a person attended and made a request either to postpone the hearing or decide the matter on the basis of the material on record.

7. Having noted the complacence and casual attitude of the respondents towards the matter in the appeal, the Ombudsman considered it necessary to revise the interim order requiring the Licensee to restore supply to Domestic S.C. No. 2105 even if no instalment is paid against the disputed dues of SC No. 94 (category II) and accordingly issued revised interim orders in proceedings dated 06-02-2007. Simultaneously notice was issued on the same day postponing the hearing to 05-03-2007 in the office of the Ombudsman at Hyderabad.

8. The hearing was held at Hyderabad on 05-03-2007. The appellant was represented by his advocate Sri. Balraj Bhodhankar. The respondents were represented by Sri. G. Sanjeeva Reddi, Additional Assistant Engineer/ Operation /Town, Bodhan, and Sri. K. Kanaka Raju, UDC, Electricity Revenue Office, Bodhan. During the hearing, the learned advocate of the appellant re-iterated the points in the appeal and requested for details of the calculation for the amounts claimed at different points of time. He said that the appellant is prepared to pay balance amount due if any on receipt of details from the respondent.

9. The respondents who attended the hearing have answered the questions from the Ombudsman and their replies can be summarized as follows:

(i) The consumer was paying minimum bills / average bills and there were no dues as on February 2001 i.e. by the time of inspection on 14-03-2001.

(ii) The service was inspected by Assistant Engineer/DPE–2/Nizamabad on 14-03-2001, as it was under RNF status for a long time. The reading on 14-03-2001 was 22344. The Assistant Engineer/ DPE/ Nizamabad took the previous available reading of 16,610 to arrive at the short billed units. This reading pertains to the date of disconnection on 25-07-1993. This service was shown under different status i.e. Under Disconnection (UD), Reading Not Furnished (RNF), Normal (status 1) etc during different periods of time from July 1993 to February 2004. The last reading taken with the OK status (status 1) was 23,329 in April 2002 and there was no consumption since then.

(iii) They are not aware how the rate of Rs. 7.45 was adopted by Assistant Engineer/DPE for arriving the short billed amount. The 6 paise is towards Electricity Duty.

(iv) The consumer made a request to dismantle the S.C. No. 94 some time in 2004.

(v) The reasons for showing different status like Under Disconnection, Reading Not Furnished etc was due to confusion among the private meter reading / billing agencies.

10. In the light of the facts on record and the grounds of appeal, the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is required to pay a further amount of Rs. 45,954 as decided by the learned Forum of APNPDCL.

11. This appears to be another case of ignorance and tendency of consumers getting into troubles due to possible mis-guidance by persons not really concerned or responsible for the consequences of such guidance. This hypothesis can be explained as follows:

(a) Having closed the shop (stopped business) from 1993, the consumer should have either asked for dismantling of S.C. No. 94 or could have asked for conversion to Domestic category. This was not done.

(b) The consumer was using supply from S.C. No. 94 for domestic purpose, but paying at category II (commercial) rates, though he is paying only minimum bills.

(c) The consumer did not foresee consequences of not taking meter reading for about 8 years and did not inform the concerned responsible officer (section officer) having been content with paying minimum or average bills equivalent to minimum charges.

It is a matter of providence that the consumer did not get into more serious trouble or risk of getting booked under malpractice, as the bills are issued with status of “Under Disconnection” for many months, but the meter was recording, as can be seen from the final reading of the meter aggregating to a consumption of 5734 units.

12. On the other hand, the staff / officials of Licensee have been complacent and committed error after error as can be summarized here under:

(a) The S.C. No. 94 was billed with status of “Under Disconnection” from July 1993, onwards upto June 1999, (i.e. for about 5 years), but suddenly changed to “Reading Not Furnished” status from July 1999 to October 1999. Again it was billed under “UD” status in 12/99 and “RNF” status in February 2000 without any tangible reason. Again it was billed with “UD” status upto October 2000 and changed over to “RNF” status from January 2001 onwards. (thus the service was under “RNF” status when inspection was done on 14-03-2001 by Assistant Engineer/DPE/Nizamabad).

(b) The Assistant Engineer/DPE/Nizamabad having noted that the consumer is using electricity under S.C. No. 94 and having noted the reading on 14-03-2001, recommended for billing the short fall of energy between present reading of 22,344 and previous available reading of 16,610, (5734 units) stating that this consumption is for 1^1/2 years. This statement of 1^1/2 year period is not supported by any record of the Licensee. The period of 1^1/2 year is obviously wrong.

(c) The Inspecting Officer chose to re-commend back billing for short billed energy perhaps on the basis of the status of service shown as “RNF” during the period preceeding the inspection. Having decided this course of back billing, he should have applied normal tariff only for arriving at the short billed amount, but he choose to apply a penal rate of Rs. 7.45 for which there is no basis on record. Having decided to treat this as a short billed case, it is not open to the Licensee to apply penal rate.

(d) The amount of Rs. 43,062 as recommended by Assistant Engineer /DPE was simply included in April 2001 bill by the respondent No. 3, which was also incidentally issued with “RNF” status for 40 units (for 2 months) plus short billed amount of Rs.43,062. The calculation for arriving at this amount was not furnished along with the bill and no notice was issued to the consumer.

13. As can be seen from the above analysis, this appears to be a case of tragedy of errors for both the appellant and the respondents. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I decide the following award.

(a) The bills for the period from August / September 1993, upto March / April 2001 shall be revised on the basis of a consumption of 5734 units spread over the period from August / 93 to April 2001 i.e. 93 months i.e. 62 units / month (124 units for 2 months)

(b) Normal tariff of LT category II (Non-domestic / commercial) shall be adopted for the bills. The tariff rates applicable for the relevant years are indicated in the Annexure.

(c) The bills for the period from May 2001 onwards shall be revised by with drawing the interest charges levied on the short billing amount of Rs. 43,062 billed in April 2001, as the levy of short billing at penal tariff is not correct and hence the April 2001 bill is not valid.

(d) The amounts of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 11,000, Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000 paid by the consumer at different points of time and also the amounts paid against minimum / average bills from August / September 1993, shall be adjusted against the revised demand to be raised as per the paras (a) to (c) above. Similarly the amount paid if any by the consumer pursuant to interim order of Ombudsman shall also be adjusted.

(e) The consumer shall be required to pay the balance amount if any with in 15 days from the date of service of the revised demand. If the amount already paid is found to be excess, such excess amount shall be refunded by adjustment against the future CC bills of S.C. No. 2105 (category I) of the same consumer.

The appeal is accordingly allowed with the above directions and the order dated 07-09-2006 of the learned Forum of APNPDCL in C.G. No. 76 of 2006, is set-aside. No costs.

14. The appellant is required to communicate his acceptance for this award to the respondent No. 3 within one month from the date of receipt of this order as required under clause 12 of the Regulation No. 1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble APERC. The respondents are required to implement this award within 15 days after receipt of the acceptance of the appellant for this award.

15. Reasons for delay:

There is a delay of about one month over the period of 3 months specified by the Hon’ble APERC in Regulation No. 1 of 2004 for issue of award by the Ombudsman. The delay is mainly due to the work schedule as Secretary of APERC in conducting Public hearings in January 2007 on the ARR / Tariff filings of DISCOMs for the FY 2007-08. No one is responsible for the delay.

This order is signed on this 6^th day of March, 2007.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

1. Sri. K. Sudarshan,

S/o K. Narayana Rao,

Head Post Office,

Bodhan (Town) – 503 185

Nizamabad District.

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation / Bodhan

3. Additional Assistant Engineer / Operation / Town / Bodhan

4. Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/ Bodhan

Tariff : LT Category II – Non Domestic & Commercial

S.No	B.P.Ms No.	Effective Date	Energy Charges (Paise per unit)			Minimum charges
			Upto 100 units / month	Above 100 units / month		Single Phase	Three Phase
1	147 Dt 18.12.91	01.12.92	175	200		Rs.35/month	Rs.90/month
2	167 Dt 01.08.95	02.08.95	225	250		Rs.45/month	Rs.120/month
3	32 Dt 29.07.96	01.08.96	275	375		Rs. 65/month	Rs. 200/month
			Upto 100 units / month	Above 101-200 units / month	Above 200 units / month
4	62 Dt 28.12.98	01.01.99	275	425	495
			Upto 100 units / month	101-200 units / month	Balance units
5	TOO 50 Dt 03.06.00	04.06.00	340	665	745
6	TO 01-02 Dt 24.03.01	01.04.01	340	665	745
			Upto 100 units / month	Above 100 units / month
7	TO 02-03 Dt 24.03.02	01.04.02	395	700
			Upto 50 units / month	Above 50 units / month
8	TO 03-04 Dt 24.03.03	01.04.03	395	660
9	TO 04-05 Dt 23.03.04	01.04.04	395	625
10	TO 05-06 Dt 24.03.04	01.04.05	395	625
11	TO 06-07 Dt 23.03.06	01.04.06	395	625