V
I D Y U T O M B U D S M A N
Office of ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
5th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 004
Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman
Appeal No 29 of 2006
Smt.
P.Khustarunnisa Begum
C/o
P.Siyakhat Alikhan
D.No.34/140,
Mahaboob Basha Street
S.N.Colony,
Rayachoti
Kadapa
District ……. Appellant
and
1.
Assistant Accounts
Officer / ERO / Rayachoti
2.
Assistant Divisional
Engineer / Operation / Rayachoti
3.
Divisional Engineer /
Operation / Rayachoti
4.
Accounts Officer /
Revenue / CO / Kadapa ……. Respondents
This representation dated 11-11-2006
(received on 13-11-2006) of Smt. P.Khustarunnisa
Begum (herein after called as consumer or appellant) against the order dated
20-10-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (herein after
called the Forum or CGRF) in CG No. 69
/ 206-07 (Kadapa circle), coming up before the Ombudsman for consideration
and having stood over till this day, the Ombudsman issues the following
ORDER
2. The facts on record in this case are
briefly narrated herein. The consumer
was having domestic service connection No. 2742 at Rayachoti since 1977. The Rayachoti area is under the licenced
area of the Rural Electric Supply Co-operative Society (RESCO) till
31-12-2004. (The RESCO was merged with
SPDCL with effect from 01-01-2005). The service was inspected by the ADE / DPE
– I / Cuddapah of SPDCL on 20-07-2004, and made an observation that the
consumer meddled the meter for suppressing consumption and hence pilferage of
energy occurred. The consumer contested
this finding in the appropriate forums without success. The consumer also filed a compliant before
the CGRF, SPDCL, Tirupathi on 25-09-2006.
As the CGRF is not expected to deal with the cases pertaining to theft
of electricity (for which separate mechanism was available) the learned Forum
considered the complaint to the extent whether this matter was earlier settled
by the Mega Lok-Adalat held on 08-11-2004 and whether the notices of the
appropriate officers were served to the consumer, etc., and held that the case
is not settled in the Mega Lok-Adalat held on 08-11-2004. Hence the appeal.
3. At the out set it is necessary to
clarify at this stage itself that the Ombudsman is not empowered to take up
appeals on matters including theft of electricity covered under parts X, XI,
XII, XIV and XV of the Electricity Act 2003, as per clause 8 (1) (a) of
Regulation No 1 of 2004 of Hon’ble APERC.
The matter in this appeal falls under part XIV of the Act. Thus, the examination of this appeal will be
limited only to the aspects other than whether a theft of electricity has
occurred or not, and not on the substantive issues of theft case.
4. As per clause 8 (1) (c) of the
Regulation No. 1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble APERC, in the first instance, the
Ombudsman is required to endeavour to promote settlement by mutual agreement
between the parties and accordingly a notice was issued on 21-11-2006to arrive
at a settlement by 18-12-2006, and if no settlement has been possible, the
respondents were required to file their counters by 30-12-2006 with a copy to
the appellant and the appellant was required to file the rejoinder if any by 10-01-2007
with copy to the respondents. As no
settlement was reached, the respondent No. 2 filed the counter in his letter
dated 19-12-2006. The appellant filed
the rejoinder on 04-01-2007. By notice
dated 26-12-2006 the hearing was fixed on 05-02-2007 in the office of APERC at
Hyderabad, and later re-scheduled to 03-02-2007 in the office of SE / O /
Kadapa by notice dated 01-02-2007.
5. In the counter dated 19-12-2006, the
respondent No. 3 has stated that during the course of Adalath, on 08-11-2004,
the issues of theft of electricity cases have taken on to the count, but not
settled on account of inability expressed by the officials of electricity
department to initiate further proceedings without proper approval of higher
authorities. Hence the cases related to
pilferage / theft are kept aside and with drawn from the scope of the
Adalath. He furnished a copy of the
letter signed by the Chairman, Mandal legal services Committee–cum-service
Civil Judge, Rayachoti confirming that no such case of theft in respect of SC
No. 2742 of Rayachoti was settled before the Mega Lok-Adalath on 08-11-2004 as
per records maintained in the Committee.
6. In the rejoinder dated 04-01-2007, the
appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction of the officials of the DISCOM
(SPDCL) in the area of the Rural Electric Supply Co-operative Society (RESCO)
of Rayachoti, and stated that the inspection conducted on 20-07-2004 appears to
be purely obligatory (and not mandatory).
The appellant strongly contested the various aspects in respect of the
proceedings of the various authorities concerned with the theft case, which are
outside the purview of Ombudsman as explained in para 3 above. Hence these have not been dealt in this
order.
7. During the hearing held on 03-02-2007
at Kadapa, the Ombudsman explained to the parties the constraints on
consideration of theft cases by Ombudsman.
The appellant, represented by Sri. Reddy Khan, husband of the appellant,
raised the issues of jurisdiction of SPDCL and also the settlement by the Mega
Lok-Adalat on 08-11-2004. He said that
though the Adalat did not issue the award, the acceptance of payment of Rs.
5000/- by the Accounts Officer of the RESCO is a clear proof of settlement. He has drawn my attention to the receipt No.
942 dated 08-11-2004 issued by the Accounts Officer of the RESCO wherein it was
written that the said amount was received on account of final settlement by
Lok-Adalat. He also questioned
jurisdiction of the officials of the SPDCL (DISCOM) to inspect the services in
the area of the RESCO, and wanted know whether the RESCO requested them to
conduct inspection in their area.
8. Sri. Suresh, DE / Operation /
Rayachoti, (respondent No. 3) has stated during the hearing that there are
instructions of APTRANSCO authorising the officials of DISCOMs to conduct
inspections in the areas of RESCOs located with in licenced areas of the
DISCOM. He promised to furnish copies
of the same.
9. In the background of the above facts on
record, the limited issue for consideration by Ombudsman in this case, is,
(a)
whether the SPDCL officials have jurisdiction to inspect the services
for detection of pilferage of energy in the area of RESCO of Rayachoti?
and
(b)
Whether the acceptance of the payment proposed settlement amount by one
party pending award by the adalat binds the party for settlement even if the
award is not passed by the adalat?
10. The respondent No. 3 has stated in his letter dated
21-02-2007, that the DPE wing of SPDCL used to inspect the services under RESCO
area and book cases of theft or malpractice based on requisition made by RESCO
authorities from time to time. He also
furnished copy of the letter dated 21-02-2007 written by Sri. K. Sadasiva Raju,
Ex-Managing Director of erstwhile RESCO Rayachoti, confirming the above
practice. The respondent No. 3 did not
produce any written requisition made by the erstwhile RESCO, Rayachoti for the
inspection conducted on 20-07-2004, or in any earlier period.
11. However, it is clear from the above that the RESCO
authorities have been using the services of the DPE wings of DISCOMs, which is
a specialized organization in detection of theft of electricity. Thus if the DPE officials conduct the
inspections at the request of RESCO officials, it cannot be treated as
un-authorised or without jurisdiction.
In this case, the provisional assessment notice was issued by the
official of the RESCO (Additional Divisional Engineer / Operation / Rayachoti)
on 31-07-2004. Further the RESCO
officials have also participated in the proceedings before the Mega Lok-Adalath
on 08-11-2004. From this it can be
reasonably inferred that the inspection was done by the DPE officials of SPDCL
at the instance of the RESCO officials.
As
explained above this is a specialised activity requiring certain expertise and
hence the action of the RESCO in requisitioning the services of the special
organisation (DPE unit) of the DISCOM cannot be questioned, more so when these
officers are authorized by the State Government under section 135 (2) of the
Electricity Act 2003, vide G.O.Ms No. 145 dated 31-12-2003 as amended in G.O.
RT No. 70 dated 10-03-2004. I am
therefore of the view that the inspection done by the officials of SPDCL in the
area of RESCO for the purpose of detecting theft of electricity cannot be
invalidated on the ground of jurisdiction when it was done at the instance of
officials of RESCO.
12. The next issue is about the
acceptance of payment of the amount of Rs. 5000 by the RESCO in the course of
proceedings before the Mega Lok-Adalat on 08-11-2004. The appellant contends that the receipt dated 08-11-2004, issued
by Accounts Officer / RESCO contains the matter that the amount received is
towards final settlement by Lok-Adalat and this is a proof of settlement. He also contends that backing out by the
respondents is illegal. However, it is
to be noted here that the Chairman Mandal legal services Committee-cum-Senior
Civil Judge, Rayachoti confirmed in letter dated 06-10-2006, addressed to the
Assistant Accounts Officer / ERO, Rayachoti, (respondent No. 1) that no such
case was settled before the Mega Lok-Adalat on 08-11-2004. In the face
of such written confirmation, I am unable to accept the contention of the
Appellant about the binding liability for settlement on account of acceptance
of payment by the officials of RESCO during the course of deliberation in the
Mega Lok-Adalat on 08-11-2004.
Award:
13. Concluding
the above discussion I decide the following award in this appeal. The inspection of SC No. 2742, Rayachoti by
the DPE officials of SPDCL on 20-07-2004 cannot be considered as un-authorised
or without jurisdiction. Acceptance of
payment of Rs. 5000/- by the officials of RESCO, Rayachoti during the
proceedings at Mega Lok-Adalat on 08-11-2004, does not find the RESCO for the
settlement in the absence of record of settlement by the Adalat.
Accordingly the
appeal is dismissed. No costs.
14. Reasons for delay in Award.
There is a delay of about 3 weeks
over the specified period of 3 months as per in Regulation No. 1 of 2004 of
Hon’ble APERC for issue of award by the Ombudsman. The delay has occurred mainly due to the schedule of the work as
the Secretary, APERC in conducting public hearings on the ARR / Tariff
proposals of DISCOMs in January 2004.
No one is responsible for the delay.