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,
Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman
Appeal No 30 of 2006
Sridevi
Hatchery,
SC
No. 2107000318,
Bharthipudy,
Bapatla
Mandal,
Guntur
District …….
Appellant
and
1. Additional Assistant Engineer / Operation / Rural /
Bapatla
2. Assistant Divisional Engineer / Operation / Bapatla
3. Assistant Accounts Officer / Electricity Revenue
Office / Bapatla
4.
Divisional Electrical
Engineer / Operation / Tenali ……. Respondents
This representation dated 18-10-2006
(received on 14-11-2006), referring to the appeal dated 04-03-2006 (which was
not received in the office of the Ombudsman) made by the Managing Partner,
Sridevi Hatchery, Bapatla (hereinafter
called as consumer or appellant) against the order dated 06-03-2006 of the
Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (hereinafter called the Forum or
CGRF) SPDCL, Tirupathi in CG No. 62 /
05-06, 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 case are
briefly narrated herein. The consumer
is availing supply for their hatchery under LT industrial category with SC No.
318 of Bharthipudi. For the month of
September 2005, he received an abnormal bill for Rs. 53,662 for a consumption
of 13, 695 units. The consumer made
representation to the respondent No.1 on 30-10-2006, which was rejected by him
in his letter dated: 28-12-2006. The
consumer then approached the Forum of SPDCL on 06-02-2006 requesting for
revision of the bill. The learned Forum
confirmed that the bill issued is in order and requires no revision. Hence the appeal.
3. In his appeal the consumer made the
following prime contentions:
a. The Hatchery is
meant for production of scampi shrimp with a connected load of 29.99 HP, out of
which two rotor blowers of 7.5 HP (2 x 7.5 HP) are used for aeration of the
water tanks and another 13 HP for pumping and clearing of water. Balance load is for lighting.
b. Out of the two
blowers, one blower is used on a continuous basis and the other is a
standby. The water pumps are used 2 to
3 hours per day. The process of shrimp
production runs for about 40 to 50 days.
c. The hatchery could
not be run at the full capacity due to depressions, rains etc. from 09/2005 to
11/2005. 2/3rd of the
hatchery is in outdoor while 1/3rd is indoor. It is not possible to run outdoor hatchery
at full capacity during rainy season.
Their consumption pattern for the previous 3 months was much less than
the 13695 units shown in 09/05, as follows:
|
May, 2005 |
- |
8820 units |
|
June, 2005 |
- |
4557 units |
|
July, 2005 |
- |
8475 units |
|
August, 2005 |
- |
3768 units |
d. The respondent No.
1 and 2 were informed that the shrimp production was stopped from 13-09-2005.
4. As required under clause 8 (1) (c) and
clause 11 of the Regulation No. 1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble APERC, the Ombudsman
endeavoured to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement and for this purpose
a conciliation meeting was held at Tenali on 05-12-2006 in the office of
Divisional Engineer / Operation, Tenali.
While there was no settlement, it was suggested to make efforts to
retrieve the data from the meter through MRI so as to have the data of the
record stored in the memory of the meter.
5. As no settlement was reached, by notice
dated 20-12-2006 the respondents were directed to file counters by 12-01-2007
with copy to the appellant and the appellant was asked to file rejoinder, if
any by 25-01-2007, with copy to the respondents, and the hearing was fixed on
05-02-2007 in the office of the Ombudsman at
6. In the counters, the respondents 1, 2
and 4 have merely enclosed copy of the report dated 08-01-2007 of the Assistant
Divisional Engineer / LT Meters / Guntur wherein it was stated that it is the
Omniagate meter of this service was tested on 14-11-2005 and found with “no-display”, and from such display
failed meter, the MRI data cannot be taken as the CMRI shows unable to sign and
final reading also not available. They
sought dismissal of the appeal on this ground.
The respondent No. 3 has furnished the data of monthly meter readings,
units consumed, bills raised and payments made from May, 2004 onwards and
stated that the consumer has not paid the amount of Rs. 53,662 claimed in 09/05
bill. He requested for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. The parties herein were heard on
05-02-2007 in the office of Ombudsman (APERC office) at
8. The respondents represented by Assistant Divisional Engineer /
Operation / Bapatla on the other hand have contended that the meter reading
taken in September 2005 is correct and the consumer’s version is not
correct. They further stated that by
30-10-2006, the subsequent meter reading of October 2005 was also taken on
10-10-2005, which was noted as 41769.
Thus the consumer’s statement of meter reading on 30-10-2006 being 31,
887 is not correct. They also stated
that there was no severe cyclone or depression which could badly affect the
hatchery work.
9. In the above background of the rival
contentions, the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the
consumption billed in 09/05 bill is in order?
10. To decide the point in para 9 above, it is
necessary to examine whether the meter reading was wrongly noted or whether
meter was defective or whether the meter was ok, at the time of the taking
meter reading in September, 2005 (10-09-2005).
Further, whether there was any evidence for the meter reading of 31,887
mentioned by the appellant as on 30-10-2005?
There is no evidence on record to
prove that the meter was defective during September, 2005. There is also no evidence to prove that the
reading was wrongly noted by the respondents on 10-09-2005, except the letter
dated 30-10-2005 of the appellant. The
appellant could not produce any other record like the register of meter
readings if any, maintained by the consumer.
Further this reading was stated to be reported by the staff of the
hatchery. There is no supporting proof
on correctness of such meter reading.
Thus it is difficult to rely on the meter reading mentioned by the
consumer as on 30-10-2006.
Now coming to the issue of
defectiveness of the meter, it is pertinent to note that the meter eventually
became defective by 1st November, 2005, as no display was found at
the time of inspection by the respondents on 01-11-2005 after receipt of letter
dated 30-10-2005. The meter was
replaced on 14-11-2005. It is further
to be noted that the make of this meter is Omniagate company whose meters are
found to be defective in respect of single phase meters which were reported to
have been withdrawn from service. It is
difficult to know the behaviour of the Electronic meters before they develop
any defect as they are new and there is no past history. Having regard to the fact that the meter of
this service developed defect by 31st of October 2005 (as there was
no display on 01-11-2005) it is reasonable to assume that the meter might have
malfunctioned before it finally became defective. Thus, either the reading of 31,887 reported to have been seen by
the staff of the hatchery might be due to the malfunctioning of the meter and
even the earlier readings of October / September, 2005 might also be due to
malfunctioning. It is therefore
reasonable to assume that the meter might be malfunctioning during the disputed
month of September, 2005, giving the benefit of doubt in favour of consumer
which is just and fair in the circumstances of this case.
Having
decided that the meter might have malfunctioned from September, 2005, the
assessment of energy consumption is to be done on the basis of average of
previous 3 months consumption as follows:
|
June, 2005 |
- |
4557 units |
|
July, 2005 |
- |
8475 units |
|
August, 2005 |
- |
3768 units |
|
Total for 3
months |
- |
16800 units |
|
Average per
month |
- |
5600 units |
Thus,
the consumer is liable to pay for a consumption of 5600 units instead of 13,965
units billed earlier for September, 2005.
It is pertinent to note here that
when once the meter is considered defective from September, 2005 onwards it follows
that the reading for October, 2005 would also be defective and hence the bill
for October, 2005 also requires to be revised.
However, if average consumption of last 3 months is applied, the bill
requires upward revision, which would be against the spirit of consumer of
consumer protection envisaged in the Electricity Acts, more so when the
consumer (appellant) is pleading that the hatchery was stopped from
13-09-2005. Considering this aspect and
as seen from the consumption recorded after the meter was changed on
14-11-2005, it is considered that the bill of October, 2005 need not be
revised. During the hearing, both the
parties have confirmed that the dispute is only in respect of September, 2005
bill.
Concluding the above discussion, I decide the
following award in this appeal.
The
respondents shall revise the September, 2005 bill on the basis of consumption
of 5600 units and the consumer shall pay the amount of such revised bill within
15 days from the date of receipt of the revised bill.
12. The Respondents are required
to implement this award only after receipt of acceptance in writing for this
award in toto from the appellant as required under clause 12 of the Regulation No
1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble APERC. The
revised bill shall be issued only after receipt of acceptance letter of the
appellant for this award.
13. Reasons for delay: There is a delay of about a week over the period of 3 months
specified by the Hon’ble Commission for disposal of the appeals in the
Regulation No. 1 of 2004, which is mainly due to the schedule of work as
Secretary in conducting Public hearings in January, 2007 in respect of ARR /
Tariff filings of DISCOMs for 2007-08.
No one is responsible for the delay.