VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

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

 

Dated:  28-12-2006

 

Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman

 

 

Appeal No 22 of 2006

          

                                                                                           

 

Between

 

Sri P.Srinivasa Reddy

Plot No.402

Sri Laxmi Ganapati Towers

1/14 Brody Pet

Guntur – 522 022

                                                                                …….        Appellant

 

And

 

1. Assistant Engineer / Operation / D 1 / Guntur

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer / Operation / Town II / Guntur

3. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Town / Guntur

4. Superintending Engineer / Operation / Guntur               …….  Respondents

 

 

 

This representation dated 11-09-2006 (received on 12-09-2006) from Sri P.Sreenivasa Reddy (herein after called the appellant or consumer) against the order dated. 19-08-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievance of consumers (herein after called as the Forum of CGRF) of SPDCL, Tirupathi in CG No. 41/2006-07/Guntur Circle, coming up for consideration before the Ombudsman and having stood over till this day, the Ombudsman issues the following:

 

ORDER

2.         The facts on record in this appeal are briefly mentioned herein.  The power supply to the premises bearing Flat No. 402, Lakshmi Ganapathi Towers was released in the name Sri P. Rami Reddy (father of the appellant) with effect from 10-05-2006.  The Consumer having observed some disturbance in the meter, made a compliant to the respondents on  18-06-2006, but no one attended.  The meter got burnt on 19-06-2006.  The officials of the Licensee inspected the premises and insisted that the consumer has to pay the cost of meter for replacement of burnt meter by new meter.  The consumer paid Rs. 1500/- under protest and got the new meter installed.  He then filed a complaint before the Forum of SPDCL, Tirupathi on 06-07-2006 requesting for orders to refund the cost of meter.  The learned Forum in its order dated     19-08-2006 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cause of burning of meter is attributable to defective wiring in consumer premises.  Hence this appeal

 

3.         In his appeal the appellant made the following prime contentions:

(i)                 They are using only less than 1 KW load against the sanctioned load of 5 KW and the meter got burnt with in 40 days of release of supply.

(ii)               The observation of the learned chairperson of the Forum about shifting of fan and T.V. from the Hall are not true

(iii)             If there was fault in wiring, the T.V and fan also would have burnt.

(iv)             The respondents cannot establish the defect in wiring without megger test.

(v)               The respondents have deceived the consumer by showing his installation as defective and by demanding payment of cost of meter.

For the reasons stated above, the appellant wanted justice to be done by Ombudsman.

 

4.         As per clause 8(1) (c) of the Regulation No.1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble APERC, the Ombudsman is required in the first instance, to endeavor to arrive at a settlement by mutual agreement. Accordingly by notice dated     16-09-2006 the parties herein were advised to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement by 09-10-2006. If no settlement was possible, the respondents were required to file counter by 13-10-2006 with copy to the appellant and the appellant was required to file rejoinder if any by 23-10-2006. It was specifically mentioned in the said notice that the counter of respondents shall inter-alia, be accompanied by the copy of the inspection report on the complaint made by consumer prior to burning of meter and copy of Test Report at the time of release of supply on 10-05-2006

 

5.         As no settlement was reached, the SE/Operation/Guntur (respondent No.4) filed the counter in his letter dated 16-10-2006 on behalf of the respondents. In this counter the respondents have stated the following points in support of their action.

(i)                 The DE/DPE/Guntur inspected the service on 19-06-2006 on receipt of information from AE/Operation/D1/Guntur and recommended for replacement of meter.

(ii)               As per clause 7.5.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS) the consumer has to pay cost of meter if the cause of burning of meter is attributable to consumer

(iii)             The causes attributable to the licensee are; high voltage, loose contacts, and aging of meter which do not apply in this case.

(iv)             The causes attributable to the consumer are: Meter getting wet, defects in installation, un-authorized additional load etc.

(v)               The cause for burning in this case is defect in internal wiring of consumer’s installation.

(vi)             Hence the cost of meter is collected as per the GTCS.

 

The SE/Operation/Guntur has also enclosed copies of the following documents:

(a)               Test Report dated 11-05-2006; at the time of release of supply.

(b)               Extracts of the pages of FOC register in which the complaint of the consumer on 18-06-2006 and                  19-06-2006 were registered.

(c)               Copy of the Inspection report of DE/DPE/Guntur on the inspection of this service on 19-06-2006

(d)               Meter charge slip dated 19-06-2006.

(e)               Report dated 17-07-2006 AE/LT Meters/Guntur.

(f)                 Copy of order dated 19-08-2006 of the Forum.

 

6.         In the notice issued on 16-09-2006 it was proposed to hear the parties on 31-10-2006 in the office of APERC at Hyderabad. Subsequently with a view to hear this appeal along with another appeal pertaining to Guntur circle (Appeal No. 23 of 2006) the date of hearing was shifted to 06-11-2006 at Guntur, which had to be postponed to 13-11-2006 at the request of SE/Operation/Guntur due to the meetings of CMD/SPDCL scheduled at Tirupathi. This date also had to be changed due to the cyclone occurred at that time in southern coastal Districts. The hearing was finally held on     05-12-2006 in the office of SE/Operation/Guntur.

 

7.         During the hearing on 05-12-2006, the representative of the appellant Sri. P. Rami Reddy, father of the appellant and also the owner of the premises of this service connection, re-iterated the contentions raised in the appeal and took objection on the observations of the Forum about shifting of T.V. and fan. He repeatedly pleaded that the said observation is not correct. He pointed out that the respondents are required to test the consumer installation before release of supply, which they did not do. If the meter got burnt due to any defect in wiring, the other equipment also would have burnt, but no equipment was burnt. He also pointed out that the meter should have been covered by manufacturer’s guarantee as it failed with in 40 days and hence the consumer need not pay the cost of this burnt meter. He also complained on excess collection i.e. Rs.1500/- against the meter cost of Rs.1119/-. He also filed written submission mostly covering the above contentions raised during the hearing.

 

8.         On behalf of the respondents Sri. V. Rajasekhar SE/Operation/Guntur re-iterated the points made in the written submission (counter) and asserted that consumer has to bear the cost of meter, as there is no deficiency attributable to the licensee. Regarding the consumer’s contention that the installation is to be tested before release of supply, the respondent No.1 stated that they are not bound to test it. He further stated that in this case the installation was inspected by the Electrical Inspector as the height of the apartment is above 15 Mts.

 

9.         In the background of the above rival contentions, the issues for consideration in this appeal are:           

(i)                 Whether the licensees have established the cause for the burning of meter

(ii)               If so whether they are attributable to the consumer or licensee

(iii)             Whether the licensee is entitled to demand payment of cost of the burnt meter in this case?

 

10.       The material on record in this appeal does not reveal any document, which establishes the cause of burning of meter. Neither the Inspection report dated 19-06-2006 of DE/DPE/Guntur nor the report of AE/LT meters, Guntur contains any observation on cause of burning of meter. Thus it is evident that the respondents have demanded the payment of cost of meter without complying with this basic pre-requisite. The respondents have substantiated their action in the counter dated 16-10-2006 by stating that the meter got burnt due to defects in consumer installation. But there is no such record in any inspection report or meter test report or change slip. On the other hand the records prove that the megger test for knowing the insulation values of the wiring was neither conducted at the time of release of supply nor at least at the time of inspection on receipt of complaint of burning of meter. Thus the inference of the respondents appears to be not based facts on record and arrived at by the process of elimination of different probabilities, like high voltage, loose contacts, aging etc.

 

            I am not inclined to accept this reasoning of the respondents.

 

11.       I made the following enquiries during the hearing.

(a)       What is status (condition) of the cutout, which is expected to isolate the consumer’s installation from the licensee’s system if the fault is on account of defect in consumer’s installation?

(b)       Why they have not tested consumer installation before release of supply as required under clause 5.7 of the GTCS approved by the Hon’ble Commission?

 

12.             (a) Condition of Cut-out:

In reply to (a) the respondents have stated that the cutout was O.K, but the fuse has blown. On an observation from me about providing the conventional cutout and fuse instead of MCB, the respondents have stated that MCB are not being used as they are frequently malfunctioning. Assuming that the consumer’s installation is defective, the fuse in the cutout should have blown before any equipment is burnt on the downstream side or before damage is caused to the meter and the Licensees system on upstream side. If the electronic meters are so sensitive and get burnt due to faults on the load side before the fuse in the cut-out blows off, it is imperative that licensee has to provide better protection devices like MCBs.

 

(b) Testing of installation:

Regarding the requirement of testing the installation, the respondents have stated that in respect of the apartments which are above 15 meters height, the installations have to be inspected by the Electrical Inspector as per IE Rules and hence they need not test the installations before release of supply for such installations.  I asked the respondents to provide a copy of the approval accorded by the Electrical Inspector for the installations of this apartment. It is still awaited. Be that as it may, I am of the view that the requirement of inspection by the Electrical Inspector and his approval does not absolve the licensee from discharging its duties as per the Licence conditions or as per the General Terms and Conditions of Supply approved by the Commission. The inspection and approval of a statutory authority like Electrical Inspector is from the viewpoint of public safety, where as the provisions in the GTCS are a duty as well as obligation of the licensee towards individual consumer.

 

The clause 5.7 of GTCS, which is relevant for this discussion, is extracted hereunder:

“5.7     Inspection and Testing of consumer Installation

5.7.1   Inspection and testing of the LT consumer installation

5.7.1.1            Upon receipt of the Wiring Completion Report under clause 5.6, the Company will, notify the consumer as and when the Company's representative proposes to inspect and test the installation.  It shall then be the duty of the consumer to arrange for a representative of the licensed electrical contractor technically qualified and employed by him, to be present at the inspection to give the Company's representative any information required by him concerning the inspection.

 

5.7.1.2            No connection shall be given until the consumer's Installation has been inspected and tested by the Company and found satisfactory.  No charge shall be made for the first test by the Company but subsequent tests due to faults found at the initial test or failure of the contractor's representative to keep the appointment shall be charged for in accordance with the miscellaneous and general charges in force from time to time. The Company does not accept responsibility with regard to the maintenance or testing of wiring on the consumer's premises.

 

5.7.1.3            Before taking the insulation test of the installation wiring must be completed in every aspect.  All fittings such as lamps, fans, cookers, motors etc., must be connected up, fuses inserted and all switches closed before the tests are carried out.  Temporary wires or fittings or dead ends should not be included in the installation and no part of the work should be left incomplete.  The insulation resistance of the entire installation to earth shall be tested from the installation side of the Company's terminals.

 

5.7.1.4            The Company shall not connect the conductors and fittings on the consumer's premises with its works unless it is reasonably satisfied that the connection will not at the time of making connection cause a leakage from those conductors and fittings exceeding one-five thousandth part of the maximum supply demand on the consumer's premises.”

 

I therefore do not agree with the contention of the respondents that they are not required to for test the installation before release of supply. How ever it is to be noted that mere testing at the time of release of supply does not absolve the consumer from the liability on account of the defects that may set in later in his installation.

 

13.       A new evidence was sought to be the putforth by the respondents during the hearing by stating that the incoming wires to cutout are having different colour as the old wires were burnt due to fault in consumer installation. Assuming that it is true, it only confirms the in-effectiveness of the protection expected from the fuse provided in the cutout. Either the fuse was not correct size and quality or the fault would have generated upstream side of the cutout if the fuse provided is of correct specification.  The consumer cannot be held responsible un-less there is evidence of his interference with licensee’s equipment, which was not established in this case.

 

14.       Regarding the observation of the learned Forum that the meter got burnt due to defect in installation of consumer, I am of the view that the evidence relied upon by it is not sufficient to establish the defect.  Not even a trace of evidence of damage in the entire installation of consumer was established in various inspection of the respondents. Even the evidence brought in by respondents during hearing about the wires between meter and cutout, they belong to the licensee only. In my view, in the cases where the defect cannot be conclusively established, the benefit of doubt should always be given in favor of the consumer. I am therefore not able to endorse the decision of the learned Forum in this appeal

 

15.       Concluding the above discussion I decided the following award in this appeal

                    i.            The licensee is not entitled to collect the cost of burnt meter in this case, since the cause of burning of meter has not been established as required in the Regulation of the Hon’ble Commission and as per the award earlier given by this Ombudsman in Appeal No.3 of 2005.

                  ii.            Hence the amount of Rs.1500/- paid by the consumer shall be refunded by adjustment in future C.C. bills till it is fully exhausted.

 

16.       The appellant is required to communicate his acceptance for this award in full and final settlement of his claim, to the respondent No.2 with in 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order. The licensee is required to implement this award only after the appellant gives his acceptance for this award in full settlement of his claim in the appeal as per clause 12 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004.

 

17.       Reasons for delay:

This appeal was received on 12-09-2006. As per the Regulation No.1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble Commission, the appeal should be decided with in 3 months. However in view the re-scheduling of the dates of hearing as explained in para 6 above, there was a delay of about two weeks, for which no one is responsible.

 

This Order is signed by me on the 28^th day of December 2006

 

 

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN