Dated: 13-02-2007

Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman

Appeal No 32 of 2006

Between

Smt. M.Savithri,

W/o M.Srinivasa Raju,

H.No.11-20-25,

Huda Shopping Complex,

Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ……. Appellant

and

1. Assistant Accounts Officer / ERO / Saroornagar

2. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Saroornagar ……. Respondents

This representation (appeal) dated 22-11-2006 filed in the name of Smt. M.Savithri, consumer of S.C.No.1104-1307, (Category – II) and signed by Sri.M.Srinivasa Raju, husband of Smt.M.Savithri (hereinafter called as the appellant or consumer), against the Order dated 30-10-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (herein after called as the Forum or CGRF) of CPDCL in C.G.No. 43/2006-07, R.R (South) Circle, coming up before the Ombudsman and having stood over till this day, the Ombudsman issues the following:-

O R D E R

2. The facts on record in this case are briefly narrated herein. The consumer is availing electricity supply for a shop in Huda Shopping Complex of Saroornagar bearing S.C.No.1104-1307, under LT Category – II. The respondent No.1 demanded the consumer to pay the Additional Security Deposit of Rs.1250/- in terms of Regulation No.6 of 2004 of APERC, which stipulates that the monthly-billed consumers have to keep the SD equivalent to two months average charges. The amount of Rs.1250/- was arrived at as follows:

Two months average charges as per 2005-06 consumption	Rs.2650.00
Existing Deposit	Rs.1400.00
Balance Deposit to be paid	Rs.1250.00

The consumer objected for the above demand and made representations to the officials of CPDCL, Secretary/APERC etc., and also filed a complaint before the Forum. The learned Forum confirmed that the demand for the Additional Security Deposit of Rs.1250/- is in order. Hence the appeal.

3. As required under clause 8 (1) (c) read with clause 11 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004 of Hon’ble APERC, the Ombudsman made efforts to promote a mutually acceptable settlement between the parties by convening a conciliation meeting on 18-12-2006 in the office of the APERC. No settlement was possible inspite of explaining the provisions of Regulation No.6 of 2004 of APERC, which governs the collection of security deposit/additional security deposit from consumers. Hence the Ombudsman took up further proceedings and issued notices to the parties on 23-12-2006 to file counters/rejoinders and the hearing was scheduled on 05-02-2007. The AAO/ERO/Saroornagar filed counter in his letter dated 05-01-2007. The consumer filed rejoinder in letter dated 15-01-2007.

4. The issues raised in appeal, counter and rejoinder are briefly stated hereunder:

(i) In the appeal dated 22-11-2006, the appellant has stated that the Forum has not replied to the five questions raised by him and also contended that non-reply by the officials should be treated that there is deficiency. He stated that rectification of defect will resolve the issues for the benefit of both parties. He requested that officials should desist from penalising them with their official position without caring for the statute.

(ii) In the counter dated 05-01-2007, the respondent No.1 has stated that readings are taken after a month, consumer is giving 21 days for payment and 7 days period is taken for disconnection, and thus the consumer would have used electricity for 2 months before disconnection. Hence 2 months deposit is required.

(iii) In the rejoinder dated 15-01-2007, the appellant contended that even the existing deposit equivalent to about one month charges is not necessary as he is paying the bills regularly for the last 15 years. The additional deposit may be insisted from the consumers who are defaulting in payment of monthly bills.

5. Neither the appellant nor the respondents have attended the hearing scheduled at 11:00 AM nor any postponement was sought.

6. In the background of the facts and contentions narrated above, the issue for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant is required to pay the additional security deposit to cover 2 months charges as demanded by the Respondent No.1?

7. The issue in appeal is concerned with the provisions of the Regulation No.6 of 2004 of Hon’ble APERC, which enables the Licensees to collect the security deposit equivalent to 2 months charges from the consumers for whom monthly billing is done. This regulation is notified by the Commission in exercise of the powers vested with it u/s 181 read with Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The regulation of the Hon’ble Commission is rational and is arrived at after undertaking the procedures prescribed in the statute and after considering all the suggestions/comments received on pre-publication of the draft regulation, as can be observed from the Introductory para of the Regulation No.6 of 2004. Thus the contention of the consumer that the ACD is demanded without caring for statute is un-founded and is liable to be rejected.

It is true that as per the meter reading/billing schedules specified under the Electricity Supply Code notified by the APERC in the Regulation No.5 of 2004, the consumer would have used electricity for a period of 2 months before supply is disconnected for non-payment of monthly bill, as explained in the following example:

Example:

Date of previous month meter reading	01-12-2006	0 days
Date of meter reading for current month	01-01-2007	31 days
Date of issue of bill (spot bill)	01-01-2007	- do -
Credit period for payment	15 days	--
Due date of payment	15-01-2007	46 days
Notice period before disconnection for non-payment by due dated	15 days	--
Date of disconnection	30-01-2007	61 days

It may be seen from the above schedule that even if the Licensee promptly effects disconnection after expiry of the 15 days notice period, the electricity is used for 60 days i.e., for 2 months before the supply is disconnected. Hence 2 months deposit is reasonable. Actually Deposit paid by consumer is being appropriated day-by-day and it exhausts at the end of 60 days. Thus the Licensee will face risk if the deposit of 60 days is not available. Thus there is no merit in the contention of consumer that no deposit is required from him as he is paying the bill regularly, and such contention is against the provisions of Regulation No.6 of 2004 of APERC.

7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal of the consumer is dismissed. No costs.

8. The Telugu version of this order will be sent to the appellant shortly.

This Order is signed by me on the 13^th of February 2007

Dated: 13-02-2007

Between

O R D E R

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN