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

 

Dated  10-10-2007

 

Present

 

K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and

Vidyut Ombudsman

 

Appeal No.09 of 2007

 

Between

 

Smt.M.Anjana Devi,

W/o Sri M.Madhava Rao,

#26-38-70, A.T.Agraharam,

14th Lane, Guntur.                                                                                                                                                                                  … Appellant

 

and

 

1.      Asst. Accounts Officer/ERO/Town-1, Guntur

2.      Asst. Divisional Engineer/Town-3, Guntur  

3.      Asst. Engineer/Operation/D-6, Guntur

4.      Sr.Accounts Officer, CO, Guntur                                                                                                                                                     …  Respondents

 

 

 

The representation dated 26.02.2007 (received on 28.02.2007) of the Appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 05.10.2007 in the presence of the representative of appellant and  respondents and stood over for consideration till this day,  the Vidyut Ombudsman passed the following:

 

AWARD

 

            Aggrieved by the order of the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL (for short the “Forum”) dated 12.02.2007 in CG.No.96/2006-07/Tirupati Circle, the appellant herein filed a representation (appeal) dated 26.02.2007 stating that;

 

(a)        The issue that was examined by the Forum below, viz., “whether the revision of bills from the date of supply from 12.12.1993 to 06/2003 (9 ½ years) in order?” itself is besides the point that was raised by the appellant before it.  Had the service connection was released under category-II as applied by the appellant and bills were issued by the respondent concerned under category-II, working of shortfall amount that was required to be paid by the appellant as decided by the Forum below would not have arisen.   Instead examining the correctness of the revision of bills, the Forum below should have examined fixing the responsibility on the respondent concerned for the loss caused to their organization as the Divisional Engineer/Assessments, Vijayawada in his proceedings No.2172/GNT/DE/A/VJA/Doc/No./GNT-1410/D.No.6920 dated 22.12.2004 categorically stated that “due to the mistake of departmental officers the service was released under category-I instead of category-II and billing under category-I up to 06/2003”.  The appellant is of the opinion that any loss caused to an institution or organization due to lapse, negligence or mistake of its employees shall be made good by such employees only.  The appellant never questioned the competency of APSPDCL to revise electricity bills retrospectively.  The trust of the appellant in her complaint before the Forum is for taking action to recover shortfall amount from the person responsible and credit the same to the organization viz., APSPDCL.

 

(b)        The Forum below mis-directed itself and relied solely on clause No.35 of the “Terms and Conditions of Supply” and by doing so it stepped into shoes of respondents, instead of looking into the grievance of the appellant before it.  During the hearing before Forum below, the respondents have not invoked the said clause in support of their case at any stage of proceedings, but merely stated that they acted as per the orders of the Divisional Engineer/Assessments, Vijayawada.  Thus the appellant is of the opinion that the Forum below assumed the role of respondents and did not act as a judicial body.  The Forum wrongly concluded that it is the responsibility of the consumer to check the bills issued by the department of the respondents and make  payments.

 

(c)        During personal hearing on 07.02.2007 before the Forum below the appellant quoted several examples where loss caused to certain institutions was ordered to be recovered from the salaries of the employees who are responsible for such loss.  The Chairperson of the Forum has not referred to the said examples in the order dated 12.02.2007. On the other hand, the order of the Forum would disclose that the Forum is only interested to safeguard the interest of the persons responsible for the loss caused to APSPDCL.

 

(d)        Thus, the questions raised by the appellant with regard to issue of wrong bills by the respondent concerned, fixing responsibility for issuing such wrong bills the power of APSPDCL to take action against its employees who are responsible for the loss, etc., have remained unanswered.  As far as the knowledge of the appellant, every department has power to make its employees responsible for the mistakes committed by them and punish them suitably.  But the Forum below instead directing APSPDCL to punish the guilty, penalized the appellant and it is against the principles of natural justice.

 

(e)        For all the reasons above, the appellant prays the Ombudsman to exempt the appellant from payment as decided by the Forum below and further direct the respondent concerned to adjust the amount already paid by the appellant in the future bills.

 

2.         In order to promote settlement by mutual agreement, the Ombudsman conducted re-conciliation meeting on 24.07.2006.  However, in spite the endeavor made by the Ombudsman, parties could not arrive at a settlement.

 

3.         On 03.08.2007, a common written submissions were filed on behalf of the respondents stating that --

 

(a)        As per the order of the Divisional Engineer/Assessments, APSPDCL, Vijayawada, shortfall amount was calculated as Rs.23,451/-  After deducting an amount of Rs.8,471/- already paid by the appellant towards 50% of the provisional assessment amount, R-1 by his letter dated 14.03.2005 directed the appellant to pay the balance amount.  As the appellant did not pay the said amount of arrears, the service connection was disconnected.  However, on payment of Rs.1000/- the service connection of the appellant was reconnected on 20.12.2006 tentatively at the request of the appellant.

 

(b)        In pursuance of the order of the Forum below dated 12.02.2007, a letter was sent to the appellant on 21.02.2007 requesting her to pay the amount as directed by the Forum.  An amount of Rs.23,725/- is still due as on 30.06.2007 from the appellant including surcharge on the shortfall amount from the month of April, 2005.

 

(c)        There is neither negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, and there is no fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance that is required to be maintained by the department of the respondents.  Therefore, the Ombudsman may be pleased to dismiss the representation (appeal) without costs.

 

4.         Heard the appellant as well as the respondents.   

 

5.         Perused the records.  Eventhough, the thrust of the appellant in various representations and the complaint before the Forum below was that she applied for service connection under category-II and also paid required deposits for release of service connection under the said category, service connection was released under category-I due to mistake of officer(s) concerned of respondents department and therefore, the difference of amount between the tariff of these two categories should be recovered from the those persons concerned who were responsible for such mistake, the appellant cannot get away from the fact that the ultimate relief claimed by her is to the effect that she is not required to pay any amount as shortfall and that the amount already paid by her may be directed to be adjusted towards future bills.  Therefore, the Forum below rightly decided to examine the issue of revision of bills by the respondents.  The fact that the Forum below did not fix responsibility for releasing service connection under category-I and issuance of bills under that category, by itself will not vitiate the order of the Forum.  Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the appellant that the issue framed by the Forum below is besides the point and the same is rejected.

 

6.         Similarly, simply because none of the respondents have taken a plea that Clause 35 of the “Terms and Conditions of Supply” which empowers the department to alter classification of a consumer and issue revised bills with retrospective effect  in support of the claim for short fall amount due to APSPDCL, will not debar / prohibit an adjudicating authority like the Forum below from examining the issue in terms of rules, regulations, etc., relating to the subject matter before it.  Thus merely because the Forum below relied on Clause 35 of the “Terms and Conditions of Supply”, it cannot be stated that the Forum acted with bias towards the appellant.  In fact, it is the duty of the Forum below to examine rival contentions advanced before it in the frame work of rules, regulations etc., governing the subject matter and arrive at appropriate decision.  Thus there is also no force in the contention of the appellant that the Forum below mis-directed itself by relying on the said Clause or stepped into the shoes of the respondents .

 

7.         Similarly, there is no force in the contention of the appellant that because the Forum has not adverted to the examples quoted or referred by the appellant with regard to the practice of recovering loss caused to certain institutions from their employees who are responsible for such loss, leads to the conclusion that the Forum below is only interested in safeguarding the interest of respondents herein or their organization. In electricity sector, utilities are empowered to recover amounts due to them towards consumption charges from the consumers under different grounds, including on the ground of reclassification of consumers. Not referring to the practice with regard to recovery of loss of revenue by certain institutions from the salaries of their employees who are responsible for such loss in its order dated 12.02.2007, does not suggest that the Forum below is interested in safeguarding the interest of the respondents or their organization, viz., APSPDCL.

 

8.         But the Forum below failed to examine the issue framed by it, i.e., “whether revision of bills from the date of supply from 12.12.93 to 6/03 in order?”  properly as per the law governing the subject matter of charges for electricity supplied.  Sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers licensees to collect charges for electricity supplied and disconnect supply for default till such charges are paid.  However, Sub-section (2) the said Section categorically states that no sum due from any consumer, under Section 56 shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. 

 

9.         Clause 35 of the “Terms and Conditions of Supply” under heading ‘Reclassification of consumer and Revision of bills’ relied upon by the Forum below is subordinate to the mandate of  Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  Though “Terms and Conditions of Supply” of erstwhile APSEB which was made applicable to APTRANSCO by Govt. of AP in G.O.Ms. No.11 Energy (Power-III) dated 30.01.1999 was in vogue till 05.01.2006, when “General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees” is approved by APERC in accordance with provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, reliance placed on Clause 35 mentioned above by the Forum is not correct application of law in view of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 mentioned above.

 

10.       By the date of issuance of proceedings dated 22.12.2004 by the Divisional Engineer / Assessments / Vijayawada, Section 56 of the Electricity Act came into force.  It is an admitted fact that the appellant applied and also made necessary deposits for release of service connection under category-II.  It is also an admitted fact that because of the mistake of ‘departmental officers’, service connection was released under Category-I instead of under category-II.  In view of the same, the Divisional Engineer / Assessments / Vijayawada rightly decided to drop malpractice case against the appellant.  But the said Divisional Engineer was not correct in directing R-1 and R-2 to raise the shortfall amount from the date of supply from 12.12.93 to date of inspection and include in the CC bills as mentioned in his proceedings dated 22.12.2004 as by that time Section 56 of the Act came into force as stated supra. 

 

11.       In view of Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the decision of the Forum below that the appellant is liable to pay difference of electricity charges between Category-II and Category-I for the entire period from December, 1993 to June, 2003 is not correct. The appellant is only liable to pay for such difference of electricity charges for two years prior to June, 2003. 

12.       Accordingly, the order of the Forum below is modified to the extent that the appellant is liable to pay difference of electricity charges between Category-II and Category-I for two years immediately preceding the month of June, 2003.  The Ombudsman directs the respondent concerned to calculate such charges payable by the appellant for two years prior to June, 2003 and adjust the amount already paid by the appellant in response to the provisional assessment order. On such adjustment if any amount is due from appellant, the respondents are at liberty to recover the same from the appellant by providing reasonable time.  On the other hand, if the amount already paid by the appellant towards 50% of provisional assessment is in excess of the amount due as per the award of the Ombudsman, such excess amount shall be adjusted against future bills of the appellant.  Amount paid by appellant for reconnection need not be taken into consideration for calculation of charges payable by the appellant for two years prior to June, 2003 as directed supra by the Ombudsman. 

 

13.       Accordingly, the representation (appeal) is partly allowed as mentioned above in paragraph-12.

 

14.       In pursuance of Clause 12 (6) of the APERC (Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for redressal of grievances of consumer) Regulation, 2004 the appellant may furnish a letter of acceptance within one month from the date of receipt of this award to the respondents stating that the award is in full and final settlement of her claim.  If the appellant intimates her acceptance to the respondents within the said time, the respondents shall comply with the award passed by the Ombudsman.  If the appellant does not intimate her acceptance, the respondents shall not be required to implement the award passed by the Ombudsman as mentioned in clause 12 (8) of the Regulation mentioned supra.

 

This award is corrected, signed and issued on 10th day of October, 2007.

                                                                                                             

 VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN