Appeal No 11 of 2006

Between

Sri. A.Venkatachari

S/O A.Poornaiah

H.No:9-75

Piduguralla – 522 413

Guntur District

... Appellant

and

1. Assistant Engineer/Operation/Piduguralla

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Piduguralla

3. Junior Accounts Officer/S-ERO/Piduguralla

4. Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Piduguralla … Respondents

This representation (Appeal) dated 02-06-2006 filed by Sri.A.Venkatachari (hereinafter referred to as Appellant or consumer) against the order dated 08-05-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (hereinafter referred to as CGRF or Forum) SPDCL, Tirupathi in C.G.No.2/2006-07 (Guntur Circle) coming up for consideration 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 matter are briefly narrated here in. The supply for the premises bearing H.No.9-75, Piduguralla was released in the name of Sri.M.Venkateswarlu (who is the father-in-law of the appellant) in 1991, with S.C.No.3543 under LT category I. It was later converted to LT category II from June 1998 onwards. The premises were leased to a person form 01-05-2003 for business purpose for a period of 3 years and he vacated the premises on 28-02-2006. Though the tenant did not pay electricity bills for the entire period of about 3 years the power supply was not disconnected and hence the appellant is required to pay all the arrears of CC charges from June 2003. As his financial position is weak, the appellant expressed his inability to pay the arrears. He approached the Forum to waive the surcharge for delayed payment and correct the bills on the basis of average, and also grant 3 instalments for the principal amount as the arrears have accrued due to the negligence of the officials of the Licensee. The learned Forum having rectified some defects in billing, granted 3 instalments for payment, but did not waive the delayed payment surcharge. Aggrieved by the decision of the Forum, the appellant filed this appeal.

3. In this appeal the appellant made following grounds of appeal

(i) Power supply was not disconnected for about 3 years even though the tenant did not pay the CC bills till he (tenant) vacated the premises.

(ii) Had the supply been disconnected when the bill of first or 2^nd month was not paid, the arrears would not have mounted.

(iii) The reason for non-disconnection and the connections between local officials and the tenant are not known.

(iv) It is unfair on the part of officials of licensee to demand huge arrears of CC bills from appellant after neglecting for 3 years.

(v) The financial position of appellant is weak. The income is total Rs.3500 per month (Rs.2000 + Rs.1500 rent).

In view of the above, the appellant requested for waival of surcharge for delayed payment and grant reasonable instalments taking into account his financial position.

4. As required under clause 8(1)(c) of Regulation No.1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble Commission, a notice was issued on 06-06-2006 to the parties herein to endeavor to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement by 24-06-2006. If no settlement is reached, the respondents are required to file counter by 30-06-2006 and the appellant to file rejoinder if any by 10-07-2006. The parties herein met on 15-06-2006 for the purpose of settlement by mutual agreement but no settlement was reached. The AAO/ERO/Piduguralla (respondent No.4) furnished in his letter dated 26-06-2006, the written statement (counter) signed by the respondent No.3 and 4. The respondents No.1 and 2 to have filed their replies (counters) in their letters dated: 28-06-2006 and 27-06-2006 respectively.

5. In their written statement, the respondents 3 and 4 have contended as follows:

(i) The appellant is not the registered consumer of S.C.No.3543.

(ii) The supply was released on 11-06-1991 under category I and changed to category II from June 1998 onwards. The consumer started defaulting in payments from July 2003 onwards.

(iii) The Sub-ERO at Piduguralla was formed in August 2004. Records were not handed over in full shape by sattenapalli ERO.

(iv) The disconnection list is issued regularly. The service was disconnected on 17-08-2005 with final reading at 7135.

(v) Registered consumer is responsible for payment irrespective of the use of electricity by the tenant or owner.

6. The respondents No.1 and 2, while making similar contentions in their separate written statements, have stated that whenever staff members went for disconnection, the consumer protested about wrong billing done by ERO and it is to be settled. The respondents also wanted to be heard in person.

7. As no settlement was reached, the parties herein were heard at the office of the respondent No.2 at Piduguralla on 24-07-2006 after issue of notice on 03-07-2006. During the hearing the appellant repeated the same averments made in his appeal. Responding to the point in written submissions of respondents about the appellant being not the registered consumer he stated that Sri.M.Venkateswarlu (registered consumer) is his father-in-law. The appellant re-iterated his request for waival of surcharge and also grant liberal instalments as non-disconnection for a 3 year period was un-fair on the part of respondents and he con not pay such huge amount in view of his financial position. He also subsequently filed a letter dated: 31-07-2006 signed by Sri.Mamidala.Venkateswarlu authorizing him (appellant) to represent the matters pertaining to S.C.No.3543. A copy of this letter is provided as Appendix – A to this order.

8. The respondents on the other hand have pleaded that they could not disconnect the service for the reasons, which can be summarised as follows:

(i) The Sub-ERO at Piduguralla was formed only in August 2004 and hence there was some delay in streaming the procedures.

(ii) ‘D’ Lists were issued regularly, but they were not returned.

(iii) In spite of review by the officers, the operation of ‘D’ lists was not effective earlier and the position has improved later.

(iv) There was no un-due favor in not effecting disconnection of S.C. No. 3543. The disconnections were not done effectively in the past.

(v) The registered consumer is responsible for payment of the CC charges for the electricity used irrespective of whether it was used by him or the tenant.

9. In the backdrop of the facts on record and the rival contentions, the point for consideration in this appeal is:

“Whether the respondents have shown undue favour to the consumer (tenant) to enjoy the power supply without payment for above 3 years in violation of the rules? and if so whether the registered consumer (appellant) is entitled for any relief on the arrears accrued consequent to such violation of rules.”

10. POINT:

There is absolutely no doubt that non-disconnection of supply to the S.C.No.3543 for a period of about 3 years in spite of non-payment of monthly CC charges is a gross violation of the rules. But whether there was discrimination and willful default on the part of respondents is required to be established with the supporting evidence. The appellant did not produce any evidence in this regard. During the hearing on 24-07-2006 I tried to elicit from the respondents, the reasons for non-disconnection of this service for such long period of about 3 years. The main reason put forth by the respondents is that, the consumer raised dispute on the billing and protested whenever disconnection is attempted. In support of this ground the respondent No.1 furnished during the hearing, a copy of the letter dated 05-11-2004, signed in the name of registered consumer. At this point it is also necessary to mention that the appellant, during the hearing contested that no letter was given by Sri. M.Venkateswarlu (registered consumer and father-in-law of the appellant) on 05-11-2004. It is possible that the tenant would have submitted the complaint in the name of consumer, and I do not consider it as a serious lapse to use the name of consumer by the occupier while making a complaint. In the said letter it was stated that the monthly bills are not issued and the amount is too much and so may be billed on average as possible. The then Assistant Engineer (operation) piduguralla in his letter dated 08-11-2004 addressed to AAO/Sub-ERO/Piduguralla, recommended for billing on average consumption for the period from 10-05-2003 to 05-11-2004. The Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO did not implement this recommendation. During my enquiry at the time of hearing on 24-07-2006 neither the present AAE/Operation/ piduguralla, could not inform why billing on average was recommended, nor the Junior Accounts officer/Assistant accounts officer, ERO piduguralla could not inform why the recommendation of AE was not accepted. However the letter dated 08-11-2004 of the AE gives an impression that the consumer has complained about non-issue of bills, and hence average is recommended. It is pertinent to note that the AE has mentioned in this letter that the meter reader furnished the readings regularly. This matter is further discussed later herein.

With a view to find out whether there was any discrimination in not affecting disconnection of S.C.No.3543, I wanted the respondent No.4 to furnish the data on the disconnections in respect of LT category II consumers in piduguralla section. In response to the notice dated 26-07-06 issued for this purpose the respondent No.4 furnished the data in his letter dt. 31-07-06 and it reveals the following:

(i) The D-lists issued from June 2004 to June 2005 were not returned from assistant engineer/operation/piduguralla.

(ii) The number of L.T. category II consumers appearing in ‘D’ lists varied from 193 (December 2004) to 375 (August 2004), and in all the lists the S.C.No3543 was included.

(iii) The D-list of August 2005 was returned confirming disconnection of only 14 services out of 228. The s.C.No3543 was among the 14 services disconnected in August 2005.

The abstract of disconnection data as furnished by the respondent No. 4 in his letter dated 31-07-2006 is provided here under:

S.No.	Month	No.of LT/Cat-II Consumers convered in the ‘D’ list	No.of LT/Cat-II consumers whose service were disconnected	Whether Sc.No.3543 was in the ‘D’ list	Remarks recorded in the ‘D’ list in respect of Sc.No.3543
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
1	6/04	362	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned
2	8/04	375	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned
3	10/04	257	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned
4	12/04	193	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned
5	2/05	226	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned
6	4/05	215	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned
7	6/05	218	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned
8	8/05	228	14 (disconnected Services list)	Yes	S.No	Sc.No.	Date of disconnection	Final reading
					-	-	-	-
					9	3543	17-08-05	7135
					-	-	-	-
9	10/05	593	‘D’ list not returned	Yes	‘D’ list not returned. But the Sc.No.3543 continues to be under disconnection until unless information received, otherwise with regard of CC charges.

In the said letter the respondent No.4 also furnished the bill book abstract (BBA) for the period from January 2000 to February 2006. A copy of this BBA is provided as Appendix-B to this order. This data reveals that the then assistant engineer/operation has wrongly computed the average consumption by taking the initial reading in June 2003, as 5702 instead of 5102 and thus did not account for 600 units, to the advantage of consumer (tenant) as shown here under:

S.No.	Particulars	As calculated by the AE	Correct calculation
1.	Check reading on 05-11-04	6370	6370
2.	Initial reading on 06/03	5702	5102
3.	Total consumption in kWh	668	1268
4.	Average consumption kWh/ month	39	75

It is to be established whether this omission of recommending average of 39 units as against 75 units, is deliberate or inadvertent.

It is difficult to believe the consumer’s complaint that the bills are not issued, when meter readings are furnished regularly as stated in AE’s letter dated 08-11-2004. The record of ‘D’ lists data shown above reveals that bills are being issued bimonthly and thus the S.C.No.3543 was appearing in ‘D’ lists at least from 6/04 onwards. As the AE him self is required to operate the ‘D’ lists, he must have been in the knowledge of issue of bills for each bimonthly period. Hence the complaint of the consumer (tenant) about non-issue of bills regularly is not correct. The AE should not have resorted to recommending average billing on this ground. This gives scope to believe that the above omission of showing lesser average consumption per month could be intentional for giving undue benefit to the consumer (tenant). This, coupled with the non-disconnection for about 3 years establishes the role of at least the then respondent No.1 in the un-due favour shown to the consumer (tenant).

The next issue to be decided is whether the appellant is entitled for any relief, especially the waival of surcharge for delayed payment, as requested by him. While it is a fact that there had been violation of rules by the respondent No.1 in not effecting the disconnection for about 3 years, there is no provision either in the Terms & Conditions of Supply (TCS) or in any regulations or the Act, which entitles the consumers to demand relief of waival of surcharge for the delayed payment merely because tenant or consumer got away without payment of CC bills or because licensee neglected to collect the payment from the tenant or consumer. The licensee cannot be exposed to the risks of the transactions between registered consumer and his tenant. Such risks if any have to be squarely borne by the registered consumer in terms of the lease agreement between the consumer and tenant, and the registered consumer has to recover the amount from the tenant under appropriate law in terms of such lease agreement. Hence the request of the appellant for waival of surcharge for delayed payment cannot be accepted, for the afore said reasons.

However considering the huge amount accrued over the 3 year period coupled with surcharge which accrued due to negligence and violation of rules by licensee’s officials, it is necessary to allow liberal instalments to enable repayment by the consumer. While granting such instalment facility, the Ombudsman considers it fair and equitable to grant relief by way of waival of interest charge on the instalments. Though the TCS provide for interest charges for allowing instalment facility, in my view the consumer is entitled for relief from this burden in a case like this, where the willful negligence of Licensee’s officials is established in continuing supply with out receiving payment for about 3 years. If such reasonable relief is not granted, the very purpose of establishing the consumer grievance redressal mechanism established u/s 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act 2003 would be defeated.

11. Concluding the above discussion I decide the following award in this appeal.

(i) The consumer has to pay the CC charges including surcharge for delayed payment, up-to-date.

(ii) The total amount payable up-to-date along with the surcharge shall be allowed to be paid in 6 equal monthly instalments.

(iii) Reconnection shall be given on payment of 1^st instalment of the total amount worked out as per item (ii) above.

(iv) The consumer is not required to pay interest charges on the instalments if they are paid regularly every month.

(v) On payment of first instalment and on re-connection of supply, if any subsequent instalment is not paid by the due date in any month that instalment attracts interest charges calculated from the date of re-connection (i.e. date of payment of first instalment).

12. The respondents shall be required to implement the award only after the appellant gives consent to the award in terms of clause 12 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004.

This order is signed on the 23^rd day of August 2006.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

1. Sri. A.Venkatachari

S/O A.Poornaiah

H.No:9-75

Piduguralla – 522 413

Guntur District.

2. Assistant Engineer/Operation/Piduguralla

3. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Piduguralla

4. Junior Accounts Officer/S-ERO/Piduguralla

5. Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Piduguralla

Copy to

The Chairperson,

Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers,

SPDCL, Tirupathi.

The Secretary,

APERC, Hyderabad.