Appeal No.12 of 2007

Between

Sri Thatipalli shankar Babu,

Managing Partner,

M/s. Hotel Thatipalli Residency, # 5-2-50 & 51,

Coolie Line, Andhra Bank Road,

Kothagudem-507 101 ... Appellant

and

1) Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation, Kothagudem,

2) Divisional Engineer/Operation, Bhadrachalam,

3) Senior Accounts Officer/Central Office/Khammam ... Respondents

The representation dated 26.03.2007 of the Appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 22.08.2007 in the absence of the appellant and in the presence of respondents and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed/issued the following:

AWARD

The appellant herein Sri Thatipalli Shanker Banu, Managing Partner of M/s Hotel Thatipalli Residency preferred a complaint (appeal) before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (for short, ‘Forum’) requesting for the waival of power factor surcharge on S.C.No.KMM 384 for the month of September, 2006. As per the case of the appellant herein, the appellant has taken HT S.C.No.384 with CMD 80 KVA during August, 2006. They are not having knowledge of regarding power factor surcharge, as all of their old services are of LT category. They are having LT High value services and paying Rs.1,00,000/- approximately to the NPDCL promptly. Their Electrical Site Engineer provided Capacitor with capacity of 15 KVAR Sl.No.6042112 make: CAPCO with switch control. Unfortunately, the switch of capacitor is kept in off position by the Electrician and the appellant is not vigilant about capacitor working because he is new consumer of HT service. The demand for Lower Power Factor (for short, ‘LPF’) surcharge @ 37.5% amounting to Rs.32,273-91 ps. is not proper and hence the said surcharge of Rs.32,274/- may be waived.

The Forum after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration of the material available passed impugned order dated 20.01.2007 in C.G.No.120/2006 of Khammam Circle holding that in the instant case LPF is recorded as 0.70 during September, 2006, as such the levy of LPF surcharge @ 37.5% amounting to Rs.32,274/- is in order and the complainant is liable to pay the LPF surcharge of Rs.32,274/- levied in C.C.bill of September, 2006.

Aggrieved by the said order of the Forum, the appellant preferred this appeal before the Ombudsman reiterating the averments made in the complaint before the Forum and further stated that the appellant received letter from Forum stating that they have to pay sum of Rs.32,274/- towards LPF surcharge levied in CC Bill of September, 2006. The appellant requested the Ombudsman to examine the case sympathetically and arrange to issue the waival order in the bill, as it is new service and keeping their long association with NPDCL in view.

After receiving the representation (appeal) from the appellant, notice was issued to the appellant and the respondents herein on 01.06.2007directing them to appear before the Ombudsman on 19.06.2007 at 3.00 p.m. in the Office of Ombudsman at Hyderabad to have conciliation meeting. On 19.06.2007 there is no representation on behalf of the appellant whereas R-2 and R-3 are represented by Sri V.Mohan Rao and Sri K.Sudhakar respectively. As the appellant is not present, conciliation could not be effected. Hence fresh notice was issued to the appellant directing the appellant to be present before the Ombudsman on 20.07.2007. On 20.07.2007 neither appellant nor its representative was present. Sri V.Mohan Rao, R-2 and Sri K.Sudhakar, R-3 were present on 20.07.2007. Again notice was ordered to the complainant and the matter was posted to 22.08.2007. On 22.08.2007 also, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, eventhough the notice to the appellant was served. Hence heard the submissions of the respondents and the record was perused. At this juncture it is also relevant to state that the R-3 filed xerox copy of the letter dated 20.02.2007 addressed by the appellant herein to the Superintending Engineer/Operation circle, Khammam. The said letter would disclose that the appellant enclosed SBH DD No.088655 for Rs.32,374/- drawn in favour of SAO/APNPDCL payable at Khammam. In the said letter it is also stated that the said amount may be credited in their account. Hence the appellant paid the amount as demanded by the respondent which was confirmed by the Forum.

The demand of Rs.32,274/- from the appellant is towards LPF surcharge @ 37.5% pertaining to the month of September, 2006. Even the appellant is not disputing about LPF in his appeal preferred before the Ombudsman, it is stated that they are not having knowledge regarding power factor surcharge as their old services are in LT category. It is also stated that the Electrical Site Engineer provided capacitor with capacity of 15KVAR Sl.No.6042112 make: CAPCO with switch control. Unfortunately, the switch of capacitor is kept in off position by the Electrician and the appellant is not vigilant about capacitor working because he is new consumer of HT service. As the capacitor was kept in off position, the respondent officials after noticing the power consumption of the appellant service whose power factor is recorded as 0.70 for the month of September, 2006, levied LPF surcharge @ 37.5%. At this juncture it is also relevant to state that Clause No.23 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply, which is as follows:

“The power factor of the consumer’s installation shall not be less than 0.90. If the power factor falls below 0.90 during any month, the consumer shall pay a surcharge as fixed in the Tariff Order by the Commission from time to time.”

In the present case, the power factor as recorded during September, 2006 is 0.70. As such the levy of LPF @ 37.5% cannot be said to be illegal and not in order. Taking the above factors into consideration the Forum has rightly concluded that the surcharge levied towards LPF of the appellant service connection at Rs.32,274/- is correct and does not call for interference by the Ombudsman.

For the above mentioned reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Forum.

This award is corrected and signed on 23^rd day of August, 2007.

Vidyut Ombudsman