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

 

Dated: 01-10-2007

 

Present

 

K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and

Vidyut Ombudsman

 

Appeal No.05 of 2007

 

Between

 

Sri Shiva Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd,

21-2-631, Urdugalli,

Patthergatti, Hyderabad                                                                                                                                                                                    … Appellant

 

and

 

 

1.      Senior Accounts Officer/Operation/RR. South Circle/Hyderabad

2.      The Superintending Engineer/Operation/R.R (South)  Circle /   Hyderabad

3.      The Divisional Engineer/Operation /Rajendranagar/R.R.Dist

4.      The General Manager/Customer Services/APCPDCL, Hyderabad

5.      Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL, Hyderabad              

 

…  Respondents

 

 

The representation dated 22.01.2007 of the Appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 20.09.2007 in the presence of the representative of appellant and  respondents and stood over for consideration till this day,  the Vidyut Ombudsman passed/issued the following:

 

AWARD

 

            Aggrieved by the order of the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short the “Forum”) dated 10.01.2007 in CG.No.61/2006-07/RR(South) Circle, the appellant herein filed a representation (appeal) on 22.01.2007 stating that;

 

a)                  The Forum below failed to notice that R-3 without considering the actual facts issued assessment Notice No.DEE/OP/RJNR/F.No.54/ D.No.1747/ 2004, dated 10.10.2006.

 

b)                  Even though the appellant filed objections through its letter dated 16.10.2006 before R-2 within the stipulated period as  directed by R-3 in his notice dated 10.10.2006 referred to above, the Forum below failed to notice that R-2 without considering the correct facts issued ex-party Assessment Notice Vide Lr.No.SE/OP/RR (South) Circle/T2/D.No.1443,  dated 10.11.2006 or  that R-2 did not allow minimum sufficient time to represent the case of the appellant or that the appellant was not provided with an opportunity for “Personal Hearing” by R-2 before issuing notice dated 10.11.2006 referred to above.

 

c)                  The Forum below failed to notice that R-2 did not prove consumption of additional units by the appellant for the billing month of August, 2006 or that R-2 took figures based on assumption but not as recorded in the meter.  The Forum also failed to observe that without proof of consumption, demand for consumption charges is incorrect.

 

d)                  The Forum failed to observe that the mill of the appellant was not working well and production was going down continuously as evident from the statement annexed  to its order dated 10.01.2007.

 

e)                  The Forum below failed to appreciate that the question of meter not working in the billing month of August 2006 does not arise, because as  soon as the jumper failed on 18.08.2006, the appellant reported to the department of the respondents concerned and the same was rectified on 19.08.2006 immediately.

 

f)                    On  05.01.2007 during personal hearing, the learned Presiding Officer of the Forum below has not recorded what the appellant stated, but whatever that suits the department of the respondents concerned was only recorded.

 

2.         Along with the representation (appeal) the appellant also filed a petition praying that pending disposal of the said appeal, the operation of order of the Forum below dated 10.01.2007 may be stayed and further stated that the appellant paid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- out of disputed amount of Rs.9,40,772/- under protest.  However, vide proceedings No.VO/08-2007, dated 07.02.2007, the Ombudsman dismissed the said petition.

 

3.         In terms of Clause 8 (1) (c) and 11 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004 notified by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Ombudsman conduct reconciliation meeting on 19.02.2007 for arriving at a mutually acceptable settlement.  However, even after detailed deliberations, settlement could not be arrived at between the parties and consequently by notice dated 20.02.2007, the Ombudsman directed the respondents to file counter with copy to the appellant.  The Ombudsman further directed the R-2 to furnish copies of certain documents mentioned in the said notice.

 

4.         On the same day i.e., 20.02.2007 the appellant submitted in writing that during the meeting on 19.02.2007 R-1 informed that the initial CC bill for the billing month of August 2006 issued to the appellant without signature by him is wrong and on information of the appellant about the discrepancy in the bill, R-1 issued revised bill duly verifying the record and that the same is the correct bill.  In the revised bill,  R-1 deducted an amount of Rs.9,40,772/- of back billing from the total amount payable and shown the balance amount only as payable.  It is requested that the above fact may be taken on record.

 

5.         On 17.03.2007, order dated 22.02.2007 in WP.No.3411 of 2007 is received wherein the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. directed that the collection of further installments of back billing amount from the appellant was stayed till disposed of the matter by the Ombudsman.

 

6.         On 08.03.2007,  R-2 filed written submissions stating that:-

a)                  Based on a complaint, the service of the appellant was inspected on 19.08.2006 by Assistant Divisional Engineer/0P/Gaganphad who observed that ‘B’ Phase PT jumper fell down on wall isolating ‘B’ Phase PT.  The Inspection was done in the presence of representative of the appellant and the inspection report was signed by Mr.Budvan.  The meter data was logged into CMR1 for analysis.  On review of CMR1 data it was found that the ‘B’ Phase voltage was missing from the meter from 22.07.2006 at 9.21 hrs with KWH reading 4178700 till 19.08.2006.  The ADE rectified the Jumper cut connection on 19.08.2006.  The appellant was availing healthy supply all these days, but the meter recorded less units up to 19.08.2006.  Based on review as stated above, the ADE arrived at consumption of shortfall as 297712.50 units.

 

b)                  R-3 took reading on 21.08.2006 and communicated the meter reading card to R-2 office with a request to back bill the shortfall units as per the test report of ADE dated 23.08.2006.

 

c)                  Because of not processing the bill in computer after entering the back billing amount of Rs.9,40,772/- the total amount payable appeared wrongly in the CC bill.  The appellant made its own calculations for 668805 units of energy recorded and made payment after deducting energy allocation from other sources and arranged payment.

 

d)                  The assessment of back billing amount as arrived by R-3 is found correct by R-2 who is the appellate authority as well as by the Forum.  As back billing amount is assessed after noticing the problem occurred in the meter, intimation of short fall units in advance is not possible so as to unable the appellant to give requisition for the energy required from other sources.

 

e)                  Thus the appellant is liable to pay back billing amount.  Along with the written submissions, copy of the letter of ADE dated 23.08.2006, copies of survey data of 18.08.2006, 19.08.2006 and from 17.07.2006 to 23.07.2006 of the appellant and consumption particulars of the appellant from April 2004 to November, 2006 were filed.

 

7.         On 26.03.2007 R-2 filed copies of (i) Inspection report of ADE/DPE/HT-1 done on 19.08.2006 (ii) extract of CMRI data retrieved from the meter on 19.08.2006 and (iii)  notice issued to appellant about assessment of energy for the defective recording by the meter were filed as directed by the Ombudsman in the notice dated 20.02.2007.

 

8.         On 13.04.2007 on behalf of the appellant rejoinder dated 02.04.2007 is filed stating that :-

a)                  Budvan is a watchman but not a representative of the appellant.  Acknowledgement of said Budvan only confirms repair of PT Jumper, but not CMRI data as he has not got technical knowledge.  Moreover, he is an unskilled labour and does not know English.

 

b)                  R-3 recorded total consumption of 668805 units only on the meter reading card.  He did not record any discrepancy in the meter reading card.  Hence, the claim of so called back billing by R-2 is not correct and imaginary.  As per the meter reading taken by R-3, appellant paid full amount for the billing months of August 2006 and no other amount is required to be paid by it.

 

c)                  As per Electricity Act, 1910 assessment notice is to be given within a week from the date of receipt of inspection report from the inspection officer to the consumer.  As the assessment notice in this case was issued after fifty days from the date of meter reading, the claim of back billing during August 2006 is not correct or valid or acceptable.

 

d)                  The claim of back billing is time barred and hence order of the Forum is  ultravires  and against rules.  As per Electricity Act, appellant is not liable to pay any amount.

 

9.         On 16.06.2007,  R-2 filed counter to the rejoinder of the appellant and stated that:

(a)                It is not mentioned anywhere in the Electricity Act that issuing assessment notice after one week is not valid.

(b)               Consequent to inspection of the meter when it was found that B-phase jumper was cut and analysis of CMRI data, it is noticed that voltage was missing in B-phase from 22.07.2006 at 09.21 hrs with KWH reading at 4178700.

 

(c)                Last three months average MD was taken for arriving at shortfall units of 297712.50 in the CC bill of August, 2006 and the defective billing period is covered in the same billing month i.e., August, 2006.

 

10.       On 29.06.2007 on behalf of the appellant another rejoinder dated 20.06.2006 is filed, wherein apart from reiterating averments made earlier and narrating chronology of events, it is stated that the Divisional Engineer did not find any discrepancy in the seals of the meters at the time of taking reading and in fact, he found all the seals in intact position.  Therefore, the claim of tamper in the meter data is baseless, false and concocted. 

 

11.       Heard the arguments on behalf of the parties concerned on 20.09.2007.  On perusal of the record, it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the complaint made by the appellant about the fall of jumper, inspection of the service of the appellant on 19.08.2006 on jumper cut complaint by ADE/OP/Gaganpahad, AE/DPE/HT-1/Hyd and ADE/DPE/HT-1/Hyd and found that B-phase PT jumper fell down on a wall isolating the B-phase PT, logging of meter data into CMRI for analysis, rectification of the jumper which was reconnected on 19.08.2006 itself with KWH reading 4218395, etc.

 

12.       The crux of the dispute relates to review of meter data logged into CMRI for analysis on 19.08.2006 as mentioned supra at a later date and submission of inspection report dated 23.08.2006 by ADE/DPE/HT-1/Hyd wherein apart from other details noticed during inspection on 19.08.2006 it is stated that review of meter tamper data revealed that the problem occurred on 22.07.2006 at 9.21 hrs with reading 4178700.  The ADE in his report stated that because of the said problem, a short fall of 297712.5 units is noticed for the missing period from 22.07.2006 to 19.08.2006 and the cost of such shortfall is Rs.9,40,772/-.  Based on his assessment, the ADE in his report dated 23.08.2006 requested R-3 to add shortfall units of 297712.50 in the CC bill for the month of August, 2006 and to realise cost of such units.   Based on the report of ADE/DPE/HT-1/Hyd dated 23.08.2006, R-3 issued ‘Assessment Notice’ on 10.10.2006 demanding payment of Rs.9,40,772/- as advised by the ADE/DPE.

 

13.       The principal contention of the appellant is that as soon as jumper fall was noticed, respondent department was informed and the jumper cut defect was rectified immediately and therefore, the revelation of common Meter Reading Instrument Report that problem occurred on 22.07.2006 is not correct.  Moreover, on 19.08.2006 wherein ADE/DPE/HT-1 inspected the service of the appellant, he did not mention that B-phase was missing from 22.07.2006 as alleged or mentioned the same in meter reading book.   There is no proof for consumption of 297712.5 units and therefore, demand for consumption charges is incorrect.  Similarly, it is also the contention of the appellant that at the time of inspection and taking meter reading, the ADE did not find any discrepancy in the seals of the meter and in fact found the seals intact and therefore demand of consumption charges from 22.07.2006 without any fault on the part of the appellant is incorrect.  In short, the question of meter not working in the billing month of August, 2006 does not arise and therefore the demand for consumption charges based on CMRI Report is not correct. 

 

14.       The ADE/DPE/HT-1/Hyd in his inspection notes on the date of inspection of the service of the appellant i.e. on 19.08.2006 mentioned under column 10 that on observation, it is found that ‘B’ jumper cut and that short fall of units will be intimated after rectification of jumper.   It is a fact that meter data logged in CMRI for analysis on the date of inspection was not reviewed on that day or that short fall units were intimated to the appellant on that day, but the ADE who prepared inspection notes on 19.08.2006, submitted inspection report on 23.08.2006 wherein after review of the meter data which was logged into CMRI on 19.08.2006 found that the problem occurred on 22.07.2006.  Simply because the ADE did not mention that B-phase was missing from 22.07.2006 on the date of inspection itself or that the ADE did not mention the same in the meter reading book, it cannot be stated that the finding of ADE that the problem occurred on 22.07.2006 is an after thought or that it is incorrect. 

15.       Review of meter data logged in CMRI for analysis on the date of inspection (in this case on 19.08.2006) at a later date (in this case on 23.08.2006) by an inspecting officer (in this case the ADE / DPE / HT-1 / Hyd) is not an unusual practice. After logging-in meter data in CMRI on the date of inspection, the shortfall in units, if any, can be arrived at by an inspecting officer after reviewing such data with the aid of computers. In this case, the ADE reviewed the data and submitted his report on 23.08.2006 as stated supra. The graphical survey details of the meter data pertaining to the meter of the appellant on from 17.07.2006 to 23.07.2006, 18.08.2006 and 19.08.2006 appended to his report dated 23.08.2006 clearly reveal that the problem of jumper cut occurred on 22.07.2006. As the data provided by CMRI is the only scientific method of detecting problems like missing of a phase, etc., the report submitted by the ADE cannot be ignored or rejected. Moreover, no incriminating material is brought on record to show that the review of short fall in consumption by the appellant based on data logged in CMRI is done by inspecting officers with any malice or motive.

 

16.       The contention that as soon as the jumper failed on 18.08.2006, the appellant reported the same to the department of the respondents concerned and therefore, the Forum below failed to appreciate that the question of meter not working prior to that date during the billing month of August, 2006 would not arise, is not tenable. Simply because the appellant itself reported the incident of falling of jumper, does not mean that the problem, if any, relating to jumper cut could have been from the date of report by the appellant only. If the contentions of the appellant were to be correct, the meter survey graph from 17.07.2006 to 23.07.2006 prepared and submitted by ADE / DPE / HT-1 / Hyd appended to his inspection report dated 23.08.2006 would not show sudden and down side fluctuation on 22.07.2006, but such down side fluctuation would have been on 18.08.2006. The survey data pertaining to 19.08.2006 appended to the inspection report of the ADE also reveals that soon after rectification of jumper cut, there is rise in voltage unit from about 40 unit to about 60 units.  Similarly, with regard to 18.08.2006, the survey data reveals that voltage of the appellant service was hovering between 40 to 45 units, which was at the same level ever since 22.07.2006. Thus viewing from any angle there is no force in the contention of the appellant.

17.       Likewise, simply because the meter is not tampered by the appellant or that the inspecting officers did not find any discrepancy in the seals of the meter at the inspection or the seals of the meter of the appellant are found intact, does not by itself show that there could not have been short fall in recording electricity consumption. It is also not the case of the respondents that the appellant tampered with the meter or committed theft of electricity or such other malpractice to get undue advantage. It is the case of the respondents that consumption of power by the appellant was not recorded correctly due to cut in B-phase jumper.

 

 

18.       The other contention of the appellant is that the notice dated 10.10.2006 issued by R-3 is not a valid notice as it is time barred and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the assessed amount for the period from 22.07.2006 to 19.08.2006. The procedure  mentioned in clause 22.3.3.3 (of the “Terms and Conditions of Supply”, but not of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 or  the Electricity Act, 1910) deals with cases where supply to the consumer has been given without a meter or where the meter fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no pilferage of energy or malpractice is suspected.  The case on hand does not fall under any of the above categories. It is not the case of the respondents that the meter  of the appellant  was defective or that it ceased to function.  Because of jumper cut, which is incidentally reported by the appellant itself,  supply made to the unit of the appellant was not recorded by the meter as discussed earlier.  Thus simply because notice of assessment was not given to the appellant with in a week from the date of receipt of the inspection report from the inspecting officer, will not defeat the claim of the respondents. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that in view of clause 22.3.3.3, the assessment notice and claim of back billing for the month of August, 2006 is not correct or not valid is not acceptable and it is rejected as untenable.

 

19.       On examination  of the entire material on record, it can be said that the respondents have placed sufficient material to substantiate their case that the consumption of power by the appellant was not recorded correctly due to cut in B-phase jumper and that the revised bill was given for shortfall units. On the other hand, the appellant failed to substantiate its contention that the assessment notice and claim for back billing by the respondents for the month of August, 2006 is not correct or invalid.

 

20.       Also perused the order of the Forum and on such perusal, the Ombudsman is of the view that all contentions raised by the  appellant herein before the Forum with regard to assessment for the period from 22.07.2006 to 19.08.2006 were dealt by the Forum and conclusions arrived on the said contentions by the Forum are correct.

 

21.       For all the reasons mentioned above, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that there is no merit in the representation (appeal) dated 22.01.2007 of the appellant and it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the Forum   Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.   However, in the interest of justice, the Ombudsman directs the respondents to receive the balance amount if any due to them from the appellant with regard to the assessment notice dated 10.10.2006, without interest and other charges subject to the condition that the appellant pays such dues within two months from the date of this order. 

 

This order is corrected and signed on  1st day of October, 2007.

 

                                                                                                   VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN