Appeal No.33 of 2006

Between

Smt.P.Nirmalamma,

W/o Sri P.Madhava Naidu,

D.No.13-7-906E, Korlagunta,

HUDA Shopping Complex,

Tirupati. ... Appellant

and

1) Divisional Engineer/Construction/Tirupati.

2) Divisional Engineer/Operation, Puttur

3) Assistant Engineer/Operation, Rayalacheruvu,

4) Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Puttur ... Respondents

The representation dated 02.12.2006 of the Appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 07.09.2007 in the presence of the appellant and respondents and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed/issued the following:

A W A R D

This appeal signed and presented by the husband of the appellant on 02.12.2006, is filed against order of the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL (for short, ‘Forum’) dated 08.11.2006 in C.G.No: 72/2006-07/Tirupati Circle stating that:

(a) Order of the Forum instructing the R-1 to give connection to the service of the appellant from a distance of 1000 ft., i.e. 300 mtrs is not correct. The very purpose of installing the HUDS transformers is to install the transformer as near to the motor as possible so as to get better voltage and to avoid pilferage by way of hooking to the LT line.

(b) Further if the connection is to be given as per the order of the Forum, looping has to be done from the wires at POLE-A (shown in the sketch enclosed to the appeal) and at POLE-2 which are two extra loopings than normal looping and on account of 1000 ft. distance, the voltage will come down.

(c) If theft occurs, which is quite common, the appellant has to spend about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for replacement of wires, as the department will not act quickly to replace it.

(d) The reason given by the Forum for not ordering connection from the nearby transformer T-2 which is at about 40 ft. distance stating that the said transformer T-2 is overloaded is not correct. The consumer to whom connection is given from transformer T-2 is having two agricultural services. Out of which, only one service whose capacity will not be more than 12.5 HP is connected to transformer T-2. The other service which is at a different place for a different well is connected to a different transformer.

(e) Even if transformer T-2 is fully loaded as opined by the Forum, nothing prevents the respondent department from erecting another transformer near the well of the appellant as many transformers are connected with only one motor for which consumer is not charged anything.

(f) It is not correct to state that the connected load of service connection Nos.81 and 37 of the appellant comes to 15 HP. The connected load of the said services put together comes to 22.5 HP, for which the erected transfer of 16 KVA is insufficient.

(g) The remarks of the Forum that the delay, if any, in reconnecting supply to S.C.No.37 is only due to the obstruction by the appellant for which the respondents cannot be made responsible is incorrect and unwarranted. The appellant never objected for reconnection. On the other hand, the appellant is eager for reconnection. The version of the respondents in this regard is not believable, in view of their contradictory statements made in the written statement.

(h) Fifteen days time from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum given for reconnection is far excessive as looping of wires at two places, one at S.C.No.81 pole and the other at S.C.No.37 pole, will not take 15 to 20 minutes.

(i) Therefore, it is prayed that the Ombudsman may direct R-1 to reconnect S.C.No.37 to the nearest transformer or by erecting another transformer near the well of the appellant. It is further prayed that the remarks made by the Forum that the appellant is responsible for not connecting the service may be removed and pass such other order or orders as the Ombudsman thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, including payment of costs to the appellant.

2. In terms of clauses 8(1)(c) and 11 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004, reconciliation meeting was held between the parties on 30.12.2006 at Hyderabad to promote a settlement by mutual agreement between the parties, wherein the sketch provided by ADE(Construction), Tirupati was examined and after discussions with the parties, the Ombudsman came to conclusion that an amicable settlement is possible. Accordingly, in terms of provisions of Regulation No.1 of 2004, the Ombudsman made a recommendation for settlement by mutual agreement and by notice dated 03.01.2007 parties are put to notice of the said recommendation for their consideration and acceptance.

3. In pursuance of the said notice dated 03.01.2007, the appellant (as well as her husband) confirmed in writing stating that she is agreeable for the recommendation made by the Ombudsman. However, the appellant submitted that the sketch enclosed to the notice dated 03.01.2007 is neither approved nor attested by any one of the respondents. In addition, she enclosed a sketch with existing facts known to her, to her letter of confirmation dated 16.01.2007 wherein it is stated that connected load of S.C.No.37 is 12.5 HP, but not 10 H.P. Further, the distance mentioned in point No.2 of Annexure to the notice of the Ombudsman dated 03.01.2007 is 40 ft. or 12 meters, but not 40 meters. Similarly the connected load of S.C.No.81 is 10 H.P., but not 5 H.P.

4. In continuation of written confirmation and submissions dated 16.01.2007 mentioned supra, the appellant as well as her husband further submitted on 24.01.2007 that the ADE(Construction) checked the voltage of S.C.No.37 on 22.01.2007 and found it was 360 volts.

5. In continuation of written submissions dated 16.01.2007 and 24.01.2007 mentioned supra, the appellant as well as her husband further submitted on 01.02.2007 that as per the information obtained by the husband of the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, S.C.No.154 is adjacent to S.C.No.37 of the appellant, but not S.C.No.86 as stated by the respondents. S.C.No.86 is connected at a far away place to a different bore-well under another HVDS transformer. Further S.C.Nos.81 and 37 are not side by side, but are 250 meters away from each other. Showing S.C.No.81 by the side of S.C.No.37 appears to be subsequent addition for the purpose of this case.

6. In pursuance of notice of Ombudsman dated 03.01.2007 and submissions of appellant dated 16.01.2007, R-2 instructed R-4 to conduct physical verification and to regularise additional loads. Copy of the Memo No.DE/O/PTR/COML/AAE/F/D.No.422 /07 dated 29.01.2007 issued by R-2 in this regard is filed before Ombudsman on 02.02.2007.

7. On 05.02.2007, detailed report signed by all the four respondents containing information relating to different agricultural service connections under Venkatramapuram Sub-station together with sketch of Venkatramapuram SS-III and SS-IIIA in Ramachandrapaurm (Mandal) was submitted to the Ombudsman.

8. In view of the above, the endeavour made by the Ombudsman to promote settlement by mutual agreement between the parties did not materialize and by notice dated 27.02.2007 the Ombudsman directed the respondents to file counter with a copy to the appellant and further directed the appellant to file rejoinder, if any, with a copy to respondents. However, none of the respondents filed counter. Consequently the appellant is not necessiated to file any rejoinder.

9. After careful examination of the entire record, the principle grievance of the appellant relates to reconnecting supply to S.C.No.37. In the appeal submitted on 02.12.2006, the appellant requested the Ombudsman to direct R-1 to reconnect SC.No.37 to the nearest transformer or by erecting another transformer near the well belonging to her.

10. On 05.02.2007, the Ombudsman received a joint report from the respondents as mentioned supra. As per the field conditions, the respondents have come up with certain options for consideration of the Ombudsman. The respondents stated that ASC No.78 (12.5 HP) and ASC No.81 (10 HP) can be connected to a proposed 25 JVA transformer to be erected in place of the existing 16 KVA transformer which will be located near the structure of original 100 KVA distribution transformer.

11. Nextly, it is proposed that the existing 16 KVA transformer of S.C.No.81 will be dismantled and re-erected by tapping 11 KVA line at Pole No.8 (as shown in the drawing appended to report submitted on 05.02.2007 referred above) for connecting S.C.No.37 of the appellant whose connected load is 12.5 HP. It is submitted by the respondent that it will satisfy the desire of the appellant for having her S.C.No.37 near to the HVDS distribution transformer. In view of the above, it is also proposed that AB Cable available between S.C.No.81 and S.C.No.37 belonging to the appellant and two poles will be dismantled.

12. On 07.09.2007 during the course of hearing, the husband of appellant who represented the appellant submitted that the above proposal of the respondents is acceptable. However, he requested that respondents may be directed to place the 16 KVA distribution transformer as proposed to be re-erected, as near as possible to ASC No.37 and not to cause any damage to the trees and other property on the field while doing so.

13. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the said proposal contained in paragraphs II(1) to (3) of the report submitted by the respondents on 05.02.2007 referred to above will solve the grievance of the appellant. Interest of justice will be met if the respondents are directed to comply with the proposals submitted by them on 05.02.2007. Accordingly the respondents are directed to comply with the said proposal, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report within one week thereafter. While executing the work, the respondent(s) concerned is/are further directed to take reasonable care so as not to cause any damage to the growing trees in the field of appellant when connecting the ASC 37 and re-erecting the 16 KVA distribution transformer at the Pole No.8 as far as possible depending on the field conditions.

Ordered accordingly.

This order is corrected and signed on this 22^nd day of September, 2007.