VIDYUT
OMBUDSMAN
5th
Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad –500 004.
K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director
(Law) and
Vidyut Ombudsman
Between
Sri.Pamireddy
Pratap Reddy,
S/o
Sri Sivasankar Reddy,
D.No.18/278/1,
Bapu Nagar,
Nuzvid,
Krishna District. ... Appellant
and
1)
Assistant
Engineer / Operation / Musunuru
2)
Assist
Divisional Engineer / Operation / Nuzvid
3)
Divisional
Engineer / Operation / Gudivada
4)
Assistant
Accounts Officer / ERO / Nuzvid
5)
Superintending
Engineer / Operation / Vijayawada ... Respondents
The representation (appeal) dated 13.02.2007 of the appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 06.10.2007 in the presence of the appellant, his counsel and respondents and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:
A W A R D
This appeal arises against the order passed by the
Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL (for short, ‘Forum’) in
C.G.No: 95 / 2006-07 / Vijayawada Circle dated 24.01.2007.
2.
The
grounds of appeal raised in the appeal by the appellant are as follows:
(a) Appellant has got Ac.5-50 cents in R.S.No. 31/2A, Ac.4-51
cents in R.S. No. 31/2 Ac.70-99 cents of Tallavalli Village in Musunuru Revenue
Mandalam, Krishna District. For the purpose of irrigating the said lands the
appellant submitted an application on 10.09.2003 for agricultural service
connection for 10 HP under Tatkal Scheme.
The said application was registered as No. 87. On 24.10.2003, the appellant paid Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty
thousand only) under D.D. No.452383 towards Development charges and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) under D.D. No. 78190 towards security
deposit charges.
(b) After payment of the above mentioned amounts, work order was issued on 11.11.2003, vide No. 10016. Even after issuance of work order, R-1 has not taken up the work. Subsequently, in the month of July, 2004, ban was imposed on agricultural services. Ultimately on 11.04.2005 Service No. 89 was released in the name of appellant and motor was installed on 05.07.2005.
(c) During the period from November 2003 to July 2004, R-1 released seven agricultural services, but failed to release agricultural service in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, R-4 issued C.C. Bill to the appellant in respect of his Service Connection No. 89 at the rate of 50 paise per unit of electrical energy consumed. Appellant submitted several representations requesting the respondents to treat his service No. 89 as eligible to free power, but, to no avail. Therefore, appellant filed a complaint on 29.12.2006 before Forum. The Forum, without properly considering the complaint of appellant, held that appellant’s service will not come under free power and directed the respondents to refix the bills relating to the service of appellant at 20ps per unit of electrical energy consumed.
(d) The order of the Forum below, is not correct and contrary to the rules. The Forum ought to have seen that though the estimate relating to the service of appellant was sanctioned on 11.11.2003, R-1 has not taken any steps to release the service till the imposition of ban in the month of July, 2004. The Forum ought to have called for the release orders issued by R-1 from the November 2003 to July 2004 and ought to have held that the contention of R-1 that the release order was not issued in respect of the service of the appellant for want of material is not correct.
(e) The Forum ought to have held that the appellant is entitled to free power, as he paid amount as early as on 24.10.2003 and work order was also issued on 11.11.2003 and that the appellant is not responsible for delay in release of service. The observation of the Forum that ryots, who obtained service connection under Tatkal Scheme are not entitled to free power is not correct and against the guidelines fixed for sanctioning of free power to ryots.
(f) The Forum ought to have seen that the contention of the R-1 and R-2 that the service of the appellant is being fed from SS No. 44 is not correct. The service of the appellant is being fed from SS No. 13. This clearly shows that R-1 and R-2 have not even applied their mind to the grievances of the appellant.
(g) For these grounds, appellant prays that the Vidyut Ombudsman may be pleased to direct the respondents to place the Service Connection No.89 of Tallavalli Village belonging to the appellant in the Category of free power and direct the respondents to return Rs.2,050/- (Rupees two thousand and fifty only) to the appellant, which was collected from the appellant on 31.01.2007 under B.C.R. No. 36322, in the interests of justice.
3. In terms of Clause 8(1)(c) and Clause 11 of the Regulation No.1 of APERC, the Ombudsman is required to endeavour to promote settlement of the representation (appeal) by mutual agreement between the appellant and the respondents through conciliation or mediation. Accordingly, re-conciliation meeting was held on 23.07.2007. However, inspite of best efforts by the Ombudsman, parties could not arrive at settlement by mutual agreement. Therefore, respondents were directed to file counter, if any, to the representation (appeal) filed by the appellant, with a copy to the appellant.
4. On 09.08.2007, counter affidavit on behalf of all the
respondents is filed stating that:--
(a) Even though the Work Order No.10016 was issued on 11.11.2003
in favour of the appellant and to other paid applicants prior to him, the said
works could not be completed because material was not supplied by the
department. Some paid applicants came
forward to avail supply through service wire to save their crops and avail
supply without erection of lines i.e., capital work for releasing services. But
the appellant herein has not come forward to avail supply without doing capital
work.
(b) Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) gave orders for
implementing free power supply to the released services which were existing
upto the date of 14.05.2004 (cut off date).
After that the government has modified the free power policy, stating
that those services which are eligible under certain guidelines and which were
released upto the date of 31.03.2005 are also eligible for free power, vide
Circular Memo.No. CGM/ Proj/ SPDCL/TPT/Comml/F.No.New policy/D.No.271/05 dated
09.06.2005. If appellant has availed
supply by erecting meter with service wire like other applicants, the service
of the appellant would have been considered under free power supply.
(c) Riots who have registered their agricultural applications
under normal plan are only given free power supply, whereas the services
released under tatkal after cut-off date, that is 31.03.2005, fixed by
government are not considered for free power supply. Service of the appellant was released with meter on 11.04.2005
after completion of line work under SS-13, 100 KVA transformer with a load of
10 HP, but he availed the supply from 05.07.2005.
(d) In view of release of additional load of 10 HP, another 63
KVA transformer (named SS-44) was erected.
As per the Forum orders and guidelines, a separate individual 25 KVA
transformer was erected under HVD System and connected to the appellant
service.
(e) Hence, there are no tenable grounds to consider the appeal. However, if any guidelines are issued against the above appeal, the respondents follow the instructions and implement the same.
5. On 01.09.2007 appellant filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondents and stated that:
(a) The averments and allegations made in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 are all false and the respondents are put to strict proof of the said averments.
(b) The allegation that the appellant has not come forward to avail supply without doing capital work, whereas some other paid applicants have come forward to avail supply through service wire to save their crops and availed supply without erection of lines i.e. capital work for releasing service, is not correct. The respondents never informed the appellant either orally or in writing to come forward with service wire. In fact when the appellant applied for service to his land, there already exists inline service and release of service does not require any material. The respondents are only required to provide meter to the appellant, which took about 1 ½ year after release of Work Order.
(c) The contention of the respondents that the appellant had not come forward to avail supply without doing capital work is unbelievable, especially in view of lack of documentary evidence to that effect and it appears the said contention is aimed to escape liability and cover up their mis-deeds.
(d) The appellant is a small farmer and is eligible for free power. But because of mis-deeds of respondents he sustained loss. It is, therefore, prayed that Ombudsman may be pleased to allow the appeal in the interest of justice.
6. On 06.10.2007 heard the arguments Sri G. Ram Babu, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and also arguments of the respondents.
7. The point that arise for consideration is “whether the order passed by the Forum below is sustainable”.
8. Perused the records. Much of the facts relating to filing of the application by the appellant for supply of electricity, payment of necessary charges for release of supply, policy of the Government for free supply of electricity, representation of the appellant to adjust development charges paid by him for release of additional load in view of reduction in development charges, release of electricity supply after cut-off date announced by Government for free supply of electricity, etc., are not in dispute.
9. The grievance of appellant herein is that even though he paid all the required deposits and Work Order was also issued as early as on 11.11.2003 by the respondents concerned, agricultural service connection was not released. Further grievance of the appellant is that he was not informed to avail supply through service wire, without undertaking capital work by the respondents, for releasing agricultural service. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that even though Work Order was issued on 11.11.2003 in favour of the appellant and to some other paid applicants, works could not be undertaken and completed because material was not supplied by the department. However, those paid applicants who came forward to avail supply through service wires to save their crops and to avail supply without erection of lines i.e., capital work for release of services, their services were released.
10. Examination of the order passed by the Forum below reveals that the stand of the respondents before the Forum with regard to delay in release of service connection in favour of the appellant is for want of material and imposition of ban the period from July to November, 2004. For the said reasons, the respondents pleaded before the Forum that supply was not given to the appellant immediately. But later when material was issued by the department, connections were released to the applicant as well as to other paid applicants on priority basis.
11. Thus the stand now taken by the respondents before the Ombudsman in the counter affidavit filed on 09.08.2007 that some paid applicants services were released as they came forward to avail supply through service wire, without erection of lines i.e., capital work, to save their crops and that the appellant herein did not choose to do so appears to be a improvement and new ground sought to be brought on record of the Ombudsman. Normally, parties cannot be permitted to take new stand at the appellate stage. However, had the respondents produced any evidence in support of their above mentioned stand, the Ombudsman would have occasion to consider the same on merits. But, except stating in the counter affidavit that the appellant has not come forward to avail supply through service wire without erection of lines i.e., capital work, the respondents have not produced any evidence to show that they have informed the appellant to avail supply through service wire or that the appellant refused to avail supply without erection of lines i.e., capital work. In the absence of any iota of evidence or documentary proof, the Ombudsman has no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the respondents that apart from non-availability of material, the appellant did not come forward to avail supply without doing capital work and hence the delay in release of supply to the appellant. In this context there appears to be force in the contention of the appellant that the respondents never informed him either orally or in writing to come forward to avail supply through service wire and without erection of lines i.e., capital works for releasing supply.
12. As it is already mentioned, this is a new stand taken by the respondents and the Forum below had no opportunity to deal with the said aspect of the case. The Forum below based its findings on the ground that free power is not applicable to agricultural services released under Tatkal scheme irrespective of date of release of supply and in view of such rule position it concluded that appellant service connection will not come under free power.
13. Thus the Forum below had no occasion to look into or verify services released for the period from October 2003 to December, 2005. However, along with counter affidavit, the respondents on 09.08.2007 filed a list of services released during the above mentioned period pertaining to Musunuru Operation Section. Against Sl.No.1 of the said list with regard to service connection of the appellant herein, it is mentioned under ‘Remarks’ column that service connection was ‘Released after erection of pole’. Similarly, it is also mentioned against Sl.No.6, 11 and 15 (in page-1), under the said ‘Remarks’ column that service connections were ‘Released after erection of lines’, all in the year 2005. Whereas, in respect of several others mentioned in page-1 of the said list who paid Development charges around the same time as that of the appellant herein, it is revealed that service connections under ‘free’ category were ‘Released on service wire’ on different dates in the same year i.e., 2003 or in the next year i.e., 2004.
14. In the absence of proof, it is hard to believe that the appellant did not come forward to avail supply through service wire, without undertaking capital work by the respondents. When the applicant paid Rs.20,000/- towards development charges and Rs.2000/- towards security deposit in the year 2003 and subsequently Rs.10,000/- as development charges for additional load and Rs.2000/- towards security deposit in the year 2005, it is difficult to believe that he refused to incur expenditure to avail supply through service wire, without erection of lines i.e., capital work by the respondents for releasing service. Thus the version of the respondents appears to be far fetched and cannot stand for scrutiny. Thus it appears service connection to appellant was not released for some extraneous consideration, not for want of material and imposition of ban. Had the appellant been informed to avail supply through service wire, he could have availed service without erection of lines i.e., capital work by the respondent(s) concerned. The action or inaction in this regard on behalf of the respondent(s) concerned is unjustified and resulted in damage to the appellant.
15. The Forum below in its order mentioned that as per Government of Andhra Pradesh order agriculture services released in normal course only are declared under free power with effect from 14.05.2004 subject to certain conditions prescribed therein. The Forum below did not mention the details of the Government order. Whatever it may be the finding of the Forum below is not based on proper appreciation of Government orders with regard to agricultural services. As per modified policy of the Government, farmers in dry-land areas who are eligible for free power supply shall not grow paddy in second crop. If they do so, they will fall under Tatkal scheme and they will be charged at the tariff of Rs.0-20 ps. per or equivalent flat rate tariff. They will not be eligible for free power for that crop. Moreover, the respondents in their counter has stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) gave orders for implementing free power supply to the released services which were existing upto the date of 14.05.2004 (cut off date). After that the government has modified the free power policy, stating that those services which are eligible under certain guidelines and which were released upto the date of 31.03.2005 are also eligible for free power, vide Circular Memo.No. CGM/ Proj/ SPDCL/TPT/Comml/F.No.New policy/D.No.271/05 dated 09.06.2005. If appellant has availed supply by erecting meter with service wire like other applicants, the service of the appellant would have been considered under free power supply. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has paid the necessary amount on 24.10.2007 itself, for agricultural service connection for 10 H.P. under Tatkal scheme. Even the work order was issued on 11.11.2003 vide Work Order No.10016. But the service connection to the appellant was released on 11.04.2005. The reasons for delay in releasing the service connection to the appellant as stated by the respondents are not convincing and acceptable. The Ombudsman has already discussed about the same in the preceding paragraphs. If there was no delay in releasing service connection to the appellant, the service connection of the appellant would come under the category of free power. When there are no latches on the part of the appellant for the delay in releasing the service connection, the appellant cannot be penalised stating that the service connection of the appellant was released subsequent to the cut-off date with regard to free power.
16. For the above reasons, the appellant is entitled for the
relief sought for in this appeal by setting aside the order of the Forum below
in C.G.No.95/2006-07/Vijayawada Circle dated 24.01.2007.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the Forum below
and the respondent(s) concerned is directed to categorize the service of the appellant which is subject matter of this appeal (i.e., Service Connection No.89 of Tallavalli Village) as falling under ‘free’ and further direct the respondent(s) to refund Rs.2050/- to the appellant herein within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
This order is corrected and signed on this 7th day of November, 2007.
Vidyut Ombudsman