VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

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

 

Dated: 09-09-2006              

 

Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman

 

 

Appeal No 13 of 2006

 

Between

 

Sri A.Satyanarayana

M/s.Sambasiva Rice Mill

S.C.No.1128

Piduguralla

Guntur (Dist) 

…           Appellant

 

and

 

1. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Piduguralla

2. Junior Accounts Officer/S-ERO/Piduguralla

3. Divisional Engineer/Operation/Macherla

4. Superintending Engineer/Operation/Guntur

5. Assistant Divisional Engineer/LT.Meters/Guntur

 

                       …           Respondents

 

 

 

This appeal dated 21-06-2006 from Sri A.Satyanarayana, of M/s. Sambasiva Rice Mill, Piduguralla (hereinafter called the consumer or appellant) against the order dated 01-06-2006 of the Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers (hereinafter called the Forum or CGRF), Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (SPDCL), Tirupathi in C.G.No.9/2006-07 (Guntur Circle) and having stood over till this day, the Ombudsman issued the following:

 

 

O R D E R

 

2.         The facts on record in this case are narrated briefly herein M/s. Sambasiva Rice Mill has been availing supply from 1st October 1996 for a contracted load of 45 HP with S.C.No.1128, Piduguralla, Guntur District, under LT Category III.  The meter of this service was changed on   21-09-2000 pursuant to the programme undertaken by TRANSCO/DISCOMs to replace the Electro-mechanical meters of Industrial connections with Electronic tri-vector meters under APL – 1 scheme.  On 04-05-2002, the new meter was tested by ADE/LT Meters, MRT Guntur (respondent No.5) and found that the meter was recording 33.3% less as the voltage in one (R phase) out of the    3 phases is recording zero.  He found that ‘R’ phase potential is connected over tape.  He also examined the MRI data and found that “missing potential” status started occurring from 31-10-2000 and hence recommended for back billing of Rs.1, 31,178 towards the short recording of 31138 units for the period from 31-10-2000 to 04-05-2002, in his letter dated 06-05-2002 addressed to the ADE/Operation/Piduguralla respondent No.1, who issued notice on 31-08-2002 to the consumer about “missing potential” and proposed back billing for the period from 31-10-2000 to 04-05-2002 for an amount of Rs.1,31,178.  The consumer made a representation to the DE/Operation/Macherla (respondent No.3) on 25-09-2002 protesting the proposed back billing.  The DE/Operation/Macherla in his proceedings dated 19-07-2004 confirmed the back billing amount of Rs.1,31,178 and the same was included in the monthly CC bill of June 2005.  The consumer again protested for the back billing and made a representation to SE/Operation/Guntur (respondent No.4) on 18-07-2005.  There was no response on the said representation.  The consumer therefore approached the CGRF, SPDCL Tirupathi, with a complaint on 04-05-2006.  The learned Forum in its order dated 01-06-2006, while confirming the back billed amount of Rs.1,31,178, granted some relief to the consumer by waiving the surcharge for belated payment till 15 days from date of its order.  Not satisfied with the decision of the learned Forum, the consumer filed this appeal.

 

3.         In his appeal the consumer raised the following prime contentions:

 

(i)                 He was not given opportunity to examine the MRI data.

(ii)               As the power supply was disconnected during the pendency of his complaint before the Forum, the supply should be restored immediately and compensation should be paid for such disconnection.

(iii)             Much delay was made to issue orders on the various representations made to concerned officers, as per the Terms and conditions of supply (TCS).

(iv)              The consumption pattern during the year prior to inspection date (04-05-2002) and after that date supports his contention that the MRI data and the instrument on which the (-) error was arrived is wrong.

 

For all the above reasons, the appellant sought withdrawal of the total back billed amount.

 

4.         As required under clause 8(1)(c) of the Regulation No.1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble APERC a notice was issued on 03-07-2006 for reconciliation meeting at Piduguralla on 24-07-2006 to arrive at mutually acceptable settlement between the parties.  After issue of the said notice the appellant has separately requested in his letter dated 04-07-2006 to arrange for restoration of supply pending hearing of the matter.  The request was not granted.  During the conciliation meeting held on 24-07-2006 SE/Operation/Guntur (respondent No.4) offered to grant 6 instalments and to restore supply on payment of 1st instalment.  No settlement could be reached on the matter of back billing.  As no settlement was reached, the notice for hearing was issued on 26-07-2006 fixing the date of hearing as 30-08-2006 in the office of SE/Operation/Guntur.  The respondents were required to file their counters by 11-08-2006, and the appellant was required to file his rejoinder if any by 21-08-2006.  The respondent No.5 (ADE/LT Meters/Guntur) was required to supply a copy of the MRI data to the appellant by 05-08-2006.  The respondent No.4 (SE/Opeation/Guntur) was asked to request the meter manufacturer to depute the concerned engineer to give evidence on the analysis of MRI data.  The respondent No.1 (ADE/Operation/Piduguralla) was required furnish the date of installation of the Electronic meter.

 

5.         In reply to the said notice, the ADE/Operation/Piduguralla, (respondent No.1) confirmed in his letter dated 05-08-2006 that the old electro-mechanical meter was replaced with new Electronic (secure make) meter on 11-09-2000, under APL – 1 scheme.  He also enclosed a copy of the extract of Meter Reading Book (MRB), containing the meter readings from 31-08-2000 to October 2004.  None of the respondents have filed any counter (written statement) on the appeal under consideration.

 

6.         On receipt of the MRI data the appellant has filed a rejoinder dated  20-08-2006 with the following main pleadings:

 

(i)                 The MRI data does not show that the error was (-) 33.3%.

(ii)               The meters are to be tested once in every six months as per guidelines in the TCS.

(iii)             As per clause 7.5.1.4.4 of TCS approved by APERC, the assessment is to be made for a maximum period of 6 months for the categories other than Domestic/Agriculture.

 

The appellant also wanted a copy of MRI data certified by the engineer of the meter manufacturer and requested to do justice by withdrawal of the assessed amount.

 

7.         During the hearing held on 30-08-2006 the appellant, while re-iterating the grounds made in the appeal, essentially re-asserted the pleadings made in the rejoinder and strongly urged the following:

 

(i)                 The Terms and conditions of supply (TCS) stipulated only 6 months period for assessment.

(ii)               Notice was given as per clause 22.3.3.3 of the TCS and hence 6 months assessment rule applies.

(iii)             Meters are to be tested every 6 months as per Rule 57 of IE Rules 1956.  If this rule is followed, back billing for one and half years would not have become necessary.

(iv)              The Meter Reading Instrument (MRI) through which data was collected, may also be faulty.

(v)                The SPDCL officials have not given opportunity of hearing on the representations made to them.

(vi)              The back billing done for one and half years is not justified.

(vii)            There were 5 lease holders in 2000/2002 and now only the appellant is left and appellant has to bear the entire burden due to the delay in settling the matter since 2002.

(viii)          Meter was installed and connections were given by the Licensee’s staff and hence the appellant cannot be held responsible for the defect in connection. 

 

The appellant also sought interim order for restoration of supply.

 

8.         Sri V.Rajasekhar, SE/Operation/Guntur (respondent No.4) has stated as follows on behalf of the respondents.

 

(i)                 The meter was installed by the construction wing as part of the works taken up under APL – 1 scheme for replacement of Electro – Mechanical meters with Electronic meters for Industrial consumers.

(ii)               Periodical testing of meters for every 6 months is not required for Electronic meters.

(iii)             The TCS do not contain any limitation of 6 months period for assessment in meter defect cases.

(iv)              The MRI data clearly shows the parameters on which the power consumption was measured and hence the short measurement with reference to actual power used should be paid by the consumer for the total period during which such measurement happened.

 

In reply to the question of the Ombudsman, the SE/Operation/Guntur stated that there is no record of the new meter having been tested by the MRT at the time of its installation in consumer premises.

 

9.         Sri P.Nageswar Rao ADE/LT Meters/Guntur (respondent No.5) has stated that the meter was tested by MRT only on 04-05-2002 after its installation.  In view of the large number of about 3300 LT CT meter services it takes about 3 years for testing every service.  He confirmed that there is no record of having tested the meter at the time of its installation in September 2000.

 

10.       Sri Murali Krishna Senior Technical Associate of the meter manufacturer M/s. Secure meters has explained the conditions under which the “missing potential” status is recorded in the meter, as follows during the hearing on 30-08-2006 in the presence of the appellant and respondents on the MRI data down loaded form the meter on 04-05-2002.

 

(i)                 In all 49 events have been recorded in the MRI data during the period from 31-10-2000 to 04-05-2002.

(ii)               When the events cross 50, the scrolling commences and only last 50 events only will be in the Memory.

(iii)             The following are the pre-requisites for the tamper data to be recorded in meter.

(a)   Voltage should be less than 15 Volts, or

(b)   Total current in all 3 phases – minimum 10% of rated current of meter.

(c)   Such conditions should persist for a minimum period of 5 minutes.

(iv)              For Restoration to take place:

(a)   Voltage should be > 15 volts

(b)   Total current should be > 10% of rated current

                                            or

(c) total current becomes zero, and voltage is less than 15 volts.

(v)                Plus or – values of current have no significance as the recording is always forward.

(vi)              Neutral Distortion event occurs on account 12 events like meter on - off 50 times in 8 hours, D/C or High sequence A/C interference neutral loose contact etc.

 

            He categorically stated that the energy recorded in the meter during the period of “missing potential” status represents the energy consumed in the other phases only and thus the energy in the phase under “missing potential” status is not reflected in the total energy recorded in the meter.

 

11.       In the back ground of the above rival contentions of the parties herein, and the information provided by the representative of the meter manufacturer, the point for consideration is

 

(i)                 Whether the meter installed in September 2000 was recording less than the energy actually consumed by the consumer? and

(ii)               Whether the period of assessment should be limited to 6 months as contended by the appellant?

 

12.       This is a case where the meter by it self is not defective.  It is measuring and recording less energy than that actually consumed, due to   non-transmission of voltage parameter to the meter in one phase due to improper connection at the tapping point.  The data down loaded from the meter through the Meter Reading Instrument (MRI) by the ADE/LT Meters/Guntur (respondent No.5) on 04-05-2002 provides a clear evidence of occurrence of “missing potential” status in R-phase from 31st October 2000 onwards.  The MRI data is provided as Appendix - A to this order. 

 

The Test Report of MRT in respect of the test conducted on the meter on 04-05-2002 contains the following remarks under item 20:

 

 

“20 Remarks: R ǿ potential in the meter is ‘O’ v.  On detailed checkup it is seen that R phase potential is connected over tape.  The fault is rectified and tested with Acucheck meter and found that the errors are with in limits (i.e.) (-) 1.8%, while the error before rectification was (-) 33.3%.”

 

            I checked up with ADE/LT Meters whether the consumer load received full potential in all the 3 phases.  He replied in positive and shown the arrangements of connection to the meter and load as follows, where CTs are used.

 

 

 

 

 


                                                                                                                   LOAD

                                                             

                                                        

 

                                                                    

 

 

 

 

 

 


            The connection at         above is reported to have been given on a tape instead of on bare conductor and thus there was obstruction to the potential resulting in occurrence of “missing potential” status in the meter.  It is evident from the test report dated 04-05-2002 and the connection arrangement described above that the meter was recording 33.3% less during the “missing potential” status period between 31-10-2000 and 04-05-2002, and the units short billed are 31,138 in the said period as per ADE/LT Meters/Guntur letter dated 06-05-2002, which is provided as Appendix-B.

 

            The other contention, perhaps the prime contention, of the appellant is that the consumption pattern does not indicate any increase even after rectification of the defect in the connection of meter and hence the inference of (-) 33.3% error is not correct.  The SE/Operation/Guntur has countered this contention by stating that the level of usage is not really relevant in this case in view of the specific evidence of ‘missing potential’ status data downloaded from the meter through MRI.

 

            Another objection of the appellant that the MRI data may be wrong, is highly speculative and is not based on any specific evidence.  There is no ground to suspect that MRI was not functioning correctly. 

 

            In view of the position stated above I am of the definite view that the meter was recording 33.3% less energy than the energy actually used by the consumer during the “missing potential” status period occurred between 31-10-2000 to 04-05-2002.

 

13.       The next issue to be considered is the period of back billing that can be done on this account.  The appellant strongly urged that the period of assessment should be limited to 6 months.  The relevant provisions quoted by the appellant in support of his contention are discussed hereunder:

 

Clause 22.3.3.3 of the TCS: The appellant contended that as per this clause of TCS, the assessment is to be limited to 6 months.  But actually there is no such limitation in the procedure prescribed under clause 22.3.3.3 of the TCS as asserted by SE/Operation/Guntur.

 

Clause 7.5.1.4.4 of New TCS:  It is true that this clause limits the period of assessment to 6 months in the case of defective meters.  But New TCS has came into force w.e.f. 06-01-2006 and hence cannot applied with retrospective effect, and it does not explicitly state whether the wrong or improper connections where clear evidence is available to establish the correct period of short recording by the meter would be covered by this condition.

 

Periodical Testing under IE Rule 57: This rule interalia specifies, that the Licensee shall test the meters before installation, and at such other intervals as the state Government may specify.  The said rule also provides that where the supplier has failed to test, the Electrical inspector may cause such meter to be tested at the cost of the owner of the meter.  Thus the default of the Licensee in complying with the requirement of periodical testing does not explicitly prejudice the rights available to the supplier in the matter of assessment.

 

            The appellant has not made any reference to the provisions of the IE Act 1910 in this appeal.  It is necessary to examine this provision also though the appellant did not claim relief under it, as this Act was in force during the period of assessment in this appeal.  The sub section 6 of section 26 of the IE Act 1910 stipulates a limitation of 6 months for the assessment to be made by Electrical Inspectors in respect of the meters declared as defective by the Inspector.  As stated in para 12, this is not a case of defective meter per se and hence this provision is not applicable in this case.  The rationale behind this conclusion was explained by the Ombudsman in the case between East Coast Railways Vs EPDCL in Appeal No.5 of 2005, which is extracted hereunder:

 

“The critical issue to be decided is whether the 6 months limitation under section 26 (6) of the IE Act 1910 is applicable even if the respondent him self proceeded to determine the defective connections and assess the energy lost as per the Terms and Conditions of Supply.  The respondent has vehemently contended that wrong connection to a meter is different from defective meter and hence the limitation under Section 26 (6) of the Act is not applicable in such cases.  There is a distinct difference between these two positions i.e. defective meter vs wrong connection, from the viewpoint of ascertaining the probable date of development of defect and level of error over the period of continuance of defective status.  In the meters, the defects may arise on account of mechanical parts like the bearings that support the Disc which rotates due to electromagnetic force of the Electrical windings or the electrical windings getting damaged due to heat or over load / local conditions / surges etc., in electrical systems, over a period of time.  Thus, it is difficult to exactly identify the time of commencement of defect in a meter and also how the defect develops, resulting in different levels of errors in measuring the energy over a period of time.  This could be the reason for stipulating the statutory limitation on the period of back billing in respect of defective meters.  Whether such limitation is applicable to cases of short measurement by a healthy meter due to wrong connection is a moot question. The Legislature would not have foreseen that Licensees would give wrong connections to the meter and hence such contingency might not have been dealt in the Act. 

 

The Appellant has failed to provide any formidable ground supported by specific statutory provision or any case of law on the interpretation of the provisions u/s 26(6) of IE Act to prove that the limitation of 6 months is applicable for wrong connection cases.  On the other hand abundant material / record is produced by the respondent in support of the wrong connections to the meter at the time of release of supply on 31-01-2000 which continued till rectification on 21-02-2002, establishing that this is not a case of defective meter or malfunctioning of meter, but a case of wrong connection.  As the element of un-certainty about the commencement of defect / malfunctioning of meter is not an issue in this case and in the absence of any other statutory constraint on claiming the short billed amount based on actual findings in such cases of wrong connections, I am of the view that the Licensee is entitled to claim the short billed amount for the full period from 31-01-2000 to 21-02-2002.”  

 

            For the reasons stated above, I am unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the assessment in this case is to be limited to a period of 6 months.

 

14.       It is also necessary to examine and decide the contention of the appellant that the respondents should not have disconnected power supply during the pendency of his complaint before the CGRF Tirupathi.  The Regulation No.1 of 2004 of the Hon’ble APERC does not contain any such provision of constraint on the Licensee from exercising its rights as per the other Regulations and the TCS.  The said Regulation No.1 of 2004 enables the Forum/Ombudsman to issue interim orders.  The Forum or Ombudsman, considering the specific circumstances in each case may issue interim order restraining the respondents from disconnecting supply pending final decision on the complaint/appeal.  Unless such interim order is issued by the Forum/Ombudsman the Licensee is entitled to proceed as per the TCS.

 

15.       Regarding the amount of back billing towards the short recorded energy of 31,138 units, the details of calculation for arriving at the amount of Rs.1,31,178 is not on record in this appeal.  The energy tariff for the relevant period is as follows:

 

Period

 

Upto

1000 units

ps/unit

Balance

Units

ps/unit

 

04-06-2000

to

31-03-2001

-

385

430

01-04-2001

to

31-03-2002

-

385

430

01-04-2002

to

31-03-2003

-

All units 385 ps/unit

Hence the energy consumed from 31-10-2000 upto 31-03-2002 shall be billed at 430 ps/unit while energy consumed from 01-04-2002 to 04-05-2002 should be charged at the rate of 385 paise/unit.  The units consumed from 01-04-2002 shall be arrived at on prorata basis of number of days between the successive meter readings prior to, and after 01-04-2002 and charged accordingly.

 

            The Electricity duty shall be charged @ 6 paise/unit and accounted for separately as per the relevant provisions of the Electricity Duty Act 1939 and rules thereunder and in accordance with the orders of State Government in this regard.

 

16.       Through the consumer did not seek any relief in the surcharge for delayed payment or for grant of instalments, the Ombudsman considers it just and equitable to provide some relief to the consumer by way of waiving surcharge for belated payment with respect to the back billing done in June 2005 and also allowing payment of the back billing amount in reasonable instalments, without liability for the interest charges payable for the instalment facility, in the spirit of the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and considering the delay that happened in disposing the representation of the consumer to the various officers of the Licensee, on the back billing assessment.  In fact the learned Forum of SPDCL has already granted relief of surcharge for belated payment of the back billing amount.

 

17.       Concluding the above discussion, I decide the following award:

 

(i)                 The consumer is liable to pay for the short recorded energy of 31,138 units during the period from 31-10-2000 to 04-05-2002,

(ii)               A fresh supplemental bill shall be issued for the amount arrived at, as per para 15 above

(iii)             The consumer shall be entitled to pay the short billed amount demanded as above in 6 equal monthly instalments without liability for payment of interest charges for 2nd and subsequent instalments.

(iv)              Re-connection shall be given on payment of 1st instalment.

(v)                On re-connection of supply, if any subsequent instalment is not paid by the due date, the interest charges shall be payable for that instalment from the date of re-connection of supply.

(vi)              Failure of the consumer to pay the instalments attracts action as per the TCS.

 

18.       The Licensee is required to implement this award only on receipt of the consent from the appellant for this award in terms of clause 12 of the Regulation No.1 of 2001 of the Hon’ble APERC.

 

19.       Before parting with this case it is necessary to make some observations on the defective connection of R phase potential over tape, which was detected by ADE/LT Meters/MRT/Guntur on 04-05-2002.  

 

(i)                 Any electrical connection would never be given over a tape.  The normal practice is to clean the contact area before connecting the leads so as to have perfect contact at the connection point.

(ii)               Assuming that the person who gave connections followed a wrong procedure ignorantly, it should have been the same for all the 3 potentials i.e. 3 phases.

(iii)             There is no record of having taken note of this aspect by the officials of the Licensee.

 

It is essential that public utilities like the DISCOMs should take effective action to set right the practices followed in connecting CT meters and ensure that such mistakes are not repeated, so as to avoid inconvenience to the consumers and loss to the public utility. 

 

This order is signed on the 9th day of September, 2006.

 

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

 

 

 

To

 

1. Sri A.Satyanarayana

    M/s.Sambasiva Rice Mill

    S.C.No.1128

    Piduguralla

    Guntur (Dist)         

       

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Piduguralla

3. Junior accounts Officer/S.ERO/Piduguralla

4. Divisional Engineer/Operation/Macherla

5. Superintending Engineer/Operation/Guntur

6. Assistant Divisional Engineer/LT.Meters/Guntur

 

 

Copy to

 

The Chairperson,

Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers,

SPDCL, Tirupati.

 

The Secretary, APERC,

Hyderabad.