V I D Y U T O M B U D S M A N
O/o: The
Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
4th & 5th Floors,
Singereni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad
Representation of Sri K.Sreenivasa Rao, S/o: Late K.V.Subba Rao (S.C.No.973, Cat – II, Pedanandipadu), Guntur District – Appeal No.VO-02 of 2007 - Disposed off with certain observations.
Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao,
***
Sri. K. Sreenivasa Rao, S/o: Late. K. V. Subba Rao (S.C.No.973, Category – II, Pedanandipadu) made a representation (Appeal) dated 16-01-2007, starting that the October 2006 bill was issued for an abnormal amount of Rs. 2967/- (Rupees two thousand nine hundred and sixty seven only) and his complaint in C.G.No. 85/2006-07 of the CGRF, APSPDCL, Tirupati was dismissed by the learned Forum in its order dated 19-12-2006. He also made a foot-note stating that, the S.C.No.973 was disconnected on 06-12-2006 while changing the meter for testing. He also stated that subsequently he received a notice dated 20-12-2006, informing him of the malpractice against S.C.No.993, Category – I, Pedanandipadu, assessing the value of energy misused as Rs.4597/- and asking him to pay 50% of the said assessed amount to avoid disconnection. He also enclosed a copy of the notice dated 20-12-2006 of ADE/Opn/ Pedanandipadu. It is observed that the assessment was made for one year and the penal rate was taken as 3 times normal rate.
2. Having regard to the facts of this case as presented in the representation, the Ombudsman makes the following observations:
(i) The S.C.No.973, Category – II shall be restored if the consumer pays Rs.2967/- (Rupees two thousand nine hundred and sixty seven only) for October 2006 - CC bill as per the order dated 19-12-2006 of CGRF, APSPDCL, Tirupati.
(ii) If the consumer has any objection for the observation under item (i) above, he may separately submit a fresh representation on S.C.No.973 without mixing up with the malpractice case of S.C.No.993.
(iii) Prima facie, the notice dated 20-12-2006 is not in accordance with the clause 9.2.3 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply approved by the Hon’ble APERC in proceedings dated 06-01-2006. But, as the Ombudsman is not entitled to deal with cases of malpractice (un-authorised use of Electricity as per clause 8 (1) (a) of the Regulation No.1 of APERC, no proceedings can be initiated by Ombudsman in the present case of malpractice in respect of S.C.No. 993 of Pedanandipadu.
(iv) However, in the spirit of the provisions u/s 42(5) and 42 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in creating these institutions (Forum/Ombudsman) for consumer protection and grievance redressal, the Ombudsman is of the view that the S.C.No.993 shall not be disconnected until the said notice dated 20-12-2006 is rectified in accordance with clause 9.2.3, read with Appendix V and Appendix XII of GTCS approved by the Hon’ble APERC.
3. The Ombudsman also makes a request to the management of SPDCL to ensure that the provision of the GTCS and the Act are implemented properly without causing avoidable hardship to the consumers.
4. The representation dated 16-01-2007 of the consumer is disposed off at the admission stage with the above observations.
VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN