VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
5th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad –500 004.

 

Dated   02-07-2007

 

Present

K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and

Vidyut Ombudsman

 

Appeal No.15 of 2007

Between

 

Smt.Sandhya Saboo,

Flat No.506, 5th Floor,

Innovation Apartments, L.B.Colony,

P.G.Road, Secunderabad         .                                                                                                                                               ...                    Appellant

 

and

 

1)      Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Paradise/APCPDCL, Secunderabad        

2)      Additional Divisional Engineer/Operation, Paradise/APCPDCL, Secunderabad.

3)      Divisional Engineer/Operation, Paradise/APCPDCL, Secunderabad

4)      The Superintending Engineer/Operation/Hyderabad(North)/APCPDCL, Hyderabad.

5)      The General Manager/Customer Services/APCPDCL/Corporate Office, Hyderabad                                                           ...             Respondents

 

 

This is an appeal coming up before me pursuant to the decision of the Forum for redressal of Grievances of consumers, APCPDCL on the complaint of                Smt.Sandhya Saboo of Secunderabad and having stood over the matter till this day, the Ombudsman issued the following:

 

AWARD

 

                Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.04.2007 of the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short, ‘Forum’),  Hyderabad in C.G.No.94/ 2006-07/Hyderabad (North) Circle, the appellant herein submitted a representation (appeal) under clause 9(1) of APERC (Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for redressal of grievances of the consumers) Regulation (for short Regulation No.1 / 2004), requesting the Vidyut Ombudsman to set aside the said order dt. 30.04.2007 of the Forum and to direct the respondents to rectify the excess billing.

 

2.                  The grounds of appeal raised in the appeal by the appellant are as follows:

(a)        The order passed by the Forum is not maintainable under the facts of the case and the same is against the probabilities of evidence and material on record.

 

(b)        The Forum passed the order in mechanical manner without application of mind and simply relying on the version of the respondents. 

 

(c)        The Forum erred in holding that the representative of the appellant is  satisfied with the test results of the meter and that the test result is not disputed by the said representative.

 

(d)        The Forum erred in holding that there are no shortcomings on the part of respondents as the bills are issued as per the consumption registered against the meter which is commensurate with the load in usage.

 

(e)        The reasons cited by the Forum for arriving at the decision in the case before it are untenable as simply purchasing two split air conditions and running the same will not by itself result in such excess billing as recorded by the meter.

 

(f)         The signature of the representative of the appellant on MRT report merely acknowledges conducting tests, but does not amount to acceptance of the results of the said tests. 

 

3.         On 18.06.2007 Respondent No.1 submitted a photo copy of relevant extract of Register of Testing of LT Energy Meters (MRT Report) along with letter No.AAO/ERO.VI/PRD/JAO/BLG/D/No.2064 / 07 dated 18.06.2007.

 

4.         On 23.06.2007, Respondent No.2 filed counter on behalf of all the respondents including on its behalf stating that --

(a)        The appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable as the complaint of the Appellant with regard to excess billing was carefully examined by the Forum in detail and the Forum in its order dated 30.04.2007 came to the conclusion that the bills issued by the respondents during the period from April to June, 2006 are in order.

 

(b)        The procedure of testing of meter is simple and any layman can easily understand the testing procedure.  While testing, the consumption recorded by the meter of a consumer will be compared with standard meter at the same time with same load and any defect in the meter of the consumer, will be compared with the standard meter.  In this case, the meter of the appellant has recorded the same consumption as recorded by the standard meter and therefore it is found that no defect exists in the meter of the appellant.  The said testing was carried out in the presence of husband of appellant and the procedure of testing has been explained to him before conducting the meter testing.  After testing, the same meter is re-installed to the service, which is functioning normally and no complaint is received from the appellant with regard to its functioning.

 

(c)        The appellant is responsible for using the equipment, which resulted in excess billing.  As the Forum has categorically stated that there exists no defect with regard to the meter of the appellant, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the Forum.

 

(d)        For all the reasons stated above, it is requested that the representation (appeal) filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 

 

5.                  On 27.06.2007, on behalf of the appellant filed a rejoinder, as follows: -

(a)        In response to the contention of the respondents, that testing is carried out in the presence of husband of appellant, it is submitted that signature of the representative of the appellant is an acknowledgment of the tests conducted and it does not amount to acceptance of the test. The test carried out by the respondents and its results cannot be accepted as genuine and accurate.

 

(b)        Even though it is admitted that installation of additional equipment leads to additional load and consequently excess billing, such billing should be proportionate to the usage of additional load.  In the present case, the excess billing is abnormally high. 

6.         The Vidyut Ombudsman endeavoured to promote a settlement by mutual agreement between the appellant and the respondents as required under Regulation No.1 of 2004.  However, as the representation (appeal) filed by the appellant could not be settled through mediation or conciliation, the Vidyut Ombudsman had no other alternative except to pass an award. 

 

7.         The facts relating to using Service Connection No.D-4553 – 010817 for domestic supply of electricity by the appellant and adding two split air conditioners of 1.5 tonne capacity each on to the said service connection in the month of April, 2006 are not in dispute.  The grievance of the appellant consumer is that the meter readings for the months of May and June, 2006 are not commensurate with the load in usage even after addition of two split air conditioners apart from the regular load.

 

8.         The crux of the issue revolves around MRT Report.  While the appellant is disputing the test of meter conducted, the respondents are relying on the said test to state that there is no defect of the meter in question and therefore, bills issued by the respondent concerned during the period from April to June, 2006 for the consumption registered against the said meter are in order.

 

9.         Thus the MRT test conducted by the authorities concerned of the meter of the appellant and the test report dated 26.07.2006 assumes importance.  A cursory examination of the said report reveals that the respondents tested meter of the appellant only for short time and found that the said meter is free from error. Conducting short time test i.e., by counting meter revolutions with reference to substandard meter (reference standard meter) is not correct.  The respondents should have conducted ‘Dial Test’ to rule out defect in the meter of the appellant. Dial Test conducted for a short period is also not a reliable test for determining the error. As per IS 9792 and IS 722 of Bureau of Indian Standards, meter accuracy test (Dial Test) should be conducted such that atleast one revolution of the fastest moving drum shall be completed.  Thus the meter test conducted by the respondents on 26.07.2006 with regard to the meter of the appellant cannot be relied to rule out reading error in it.

 

10.       At this point of time referring the meter of the appellant for conducting ‘Dial Test’ as per the recommendations made by Bureau of Indian Standards would defeat the object of providing speedy and effective remedy contemplated under Regulation No.1.  Therefore, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it is desirable to dispose of the representation (appeal) of the appellant herein, fairly and equitably based on the material available on record. 

11.       It is not in dispute that apart from regular load, additional load of air conditioning equipment was added on to the service in the month of April, 2006. Consumption of electricity in the months of April, May and June is in general heavy in respect of domestic consumers, as observed by the Forum in its order dated 30.04.2007. However, such additional consumption should be commensurate with the load, including the additional equipment (in this case air conditioning equipment). Consumption of electricity by the appellant for the billing month of June, 2006 is abnormally high and is not commensurate with the load, notwithstanding the additional equipment as mentioned supra. Demand of Rs. 14,308/- raised by the respondent concerned for the said month in respect of the appellant is not commensurate to the usage of additional equipment, i.e., two units of air conditioners and the same is exorbitant as such equipment could not have been used continuously through out a month.

 

12.       In order to arrive at a decision, Ombudsman directed the respondents to furnish details of consumption of electricity by the appellant from January, 2006 till June, 2007. In compliance of such direction, Respondent No.1 submitted ‘Consumption Statement’ of the consumer (appellant) meter bearing No. D0004553 for the said period along with photo copy of the extract of page 42 of ‘Meter reading register’. As seen from the ‘Consumption Statement’, a demand of Rs. 5649/- was raised by the respondent concerned for the month of June, 2007 in respect of
S.C. D0004553, whereas for the corresponding month in the year 2006, the appellant was demanded an amount of Rs. 14308/- as stated above, which is exorbitant as contended by the appellant.

 

13.       A cursory look at the ‘Consumption Statement’ submitted by the Respondent No.1 as stated above reveals that the appellant consumes on an average, electricity equivalent to an amount of Rs. 1800/- per month, as contended by her. The statement also reveals that the consumption of electricity during summer months is high, which is not surprising because of admitted usage of additional equipment as already mentioned above.

 

14.       In view of the above, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5649/- for the month of June, 2006 as paid by her in the month of June, 2007. As noticed from ‘Consumption Statement’, demand raised by the respondent concerned for the billing month of July, 2006, i.e., the month subsequent to the disputed month, is Rs. 5288/-. Thus the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the decision arrived at in this case with a direction to the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 5649/- for the month of June, 2006 is fair and equitable on the material available on record. Accordingly, respondents are directed to collect an amount of Rs. 5649/- for the month of June, 2006 instead of
Rs. 14308/-.

 

15.       This award directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 5649/- is limited to the billing month of June, 2006. The appellant is directed to pay the said amount or short paid amount within 30 days from the date of this award. On the other hand, if the appellant had paid amount in excess of Rs. 5649/- for the month of June, 2006 respondents are directed to adjust such excess amount in future bill of the appellant i.e., immediately following billing month.

 

16.       The grievance of the appellant, for the other month is rejected.

 

17.       If the appellant accepts the above award of the Ombudsman, she may send a letter of acceptance stating the award is in full and final settlement of her claim, thereafter the licensee shall comply the award either recovering or adjusting the amount fallen short or paid in excess as stated above, upon receipt of the acceptance letter from the appellant and report compliance to the Vidyut Ombudsman.  However, if the Appellant does not intimate acceptance of the award passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman, the respondents are not required to implement the award passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman. 

 

This award is corrected, signed and issued on 2nd day of July, 2007.

                                                                                                             

         

                                    VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN