case no. 85/2016€¦ · goyal & company and accordingly laid the cable for orchid whitefield....
TRANSCRIPT
Case No.85/2016
Page 1 of 13
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, GUJARAT STATE
Polytechnic Compound, Barrack No.3, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015
CASE NO. 85/2016
Appellant: Shri Sunilbhai K.Patel, Partner
Nirgun Buildpro, Scheme Nirgun-14 7, Trishla Apartment Nr. Manavmandir B/h. Shakamba Party Plot, Memnagar
Ahmedabd-380052.
Represented by: Shri Sunilbhai K. Patel, Partner Shri Miteshbhai A. Thakkar, Partner Shri Brijeshbhai Vyas.
V/s.
Respondent: Manager,
Torrent Power Limited
Jubilee House, 2nd floor, Shahpur Ahmedabad.
Represented by: Shri Prafulbhai Thakkar,VP, TPL,Ahmedabad. Shri Pradyot Vasaiya, Manager, TPL, Ahmedabad.
Smt. Falguni Malviya, Manager, TPL, Ahmedabad. Smt.Kumudben Modi, Executive,TPL,Ahmedabad. Smt. Sristi Patel, MT-Legal,TPL,Ahmedabad.
:::PROCEEDINGS:::
1.0. The Appellant had submitted representation aggrieving with the
review order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Consumer
Grievances Redressal Forum, Torrent Power Limited,
Ahmedabad, in case No.09/2016. The representation was
registered at this office as Case No.85/2016. The hearing of this
case was kept on 07.07.2016.
2.0. The Appellant has represented the case as under.
2.1. 100305559
Case No.85/2016
Page 2 of 13
The Orchid White Field
“M” “N”
way leave
NOC way leave
NOC
Supply Code 2005 Section 4.1.4 Supply Code,2015
Section 4.27(4)
“ ”
“ ” “ ”
Case No.85/2016
Page 3 of 13
“ ” “ ”
“ ”
Case No.85/2016
Page 4 of 13
“ ”
Case No.85/2016
Page 5 of 13
NOC NOC
NOC
“M” “N”
3.0. Respondent has represented the case as under.
3.1. Respondent has taken a preliminary objection by submitting that
appeal is not maintainable as Appellant is not a consumer of
Respondent company as per Section 1.5(c) of Consumer
Grievances Redessal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations,2011.
The connection is in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company. The
issue regarding cable shifting charges cannot form a part of the
complaint as per Section 1.5(d) of the Consumer Grievances
Redessal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations,2011.
Case No.85/2016
Page 6 of 13
3.2. Respondent has submitted the facts of the case as under:
(1) Appellant has applied for new connection on 29.04.2015.
Appellant has applied in the name of M/s. Goyal &
Company and interim order came to be passed to give
connection to Appellant on 11.02.2016, even though sale
deed was in the name of M/s. Nirgun Buildpro, Sub-plot
No.2, Survey No. 855/1. The final order came to be passed
on 02.03.2016. The said order could not have been passed
as he was not a consumer of the company and hence does
not come under the purview of the complainant within the
definition of Regulations,2011.
(2) Appellant has taken the issue of charges to be paid by him
for shifting of cable in the said complaint made before
Forum. The said issue could not have been made by the
Appellant as he was not the applicant/owner of the same
premises. However he has clearly mentioned that Sub-plot
No.2 has been purchased by him from M/s. Goyal &
Company who has entered into an agreement to sale of the
same premises with Mr. Rameshji Maganji Thakor, the
original owner.
(3) M/s. Goyal & Company has constructed “Orchid
Whitefield” for which the power supply was given to them
through LT cable from the said line which belongs to M/s.
Goyal & Company at the point of time. The said service was
given to M/s. Goyal & Company in the year 2014, bearing
service No. 100120944.
(4) It is stated that both these plots purchased by M/s. Nirgun
Buildpro, were in possession of M/s Goyal & Company and
was holding Banakhat of the said land from the original
owner Mr. Rameshji Maganji Thakor. Respondent company
has taken wayleave permission to lay LT cable from M/s.
Case No.85/2016
Page 7 of 13
Goyal & Company and accordingly laid the cable for Orchid
Whitefield. M/s. Goyal & Company was the Banakhat
holder from the year 2012 to 2015 till the land was sold to
M/s. Nirgun Buildpro. Therefore, the application was
made in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company as there was
no sale deed in the name of M/s. Nirgun Buildpro at that
time. The application for new connection was made on
29.04.2015 whereas the sale deed was executed on
03.07.2015.
(5) The original complaint filed by the Appellant on 21.01.2016
does not mention the issue of wayleave or shifting charges
to be paid for shifting of cable, which further shows that
the complaint was not maintainable before Forum on that
ground only. Further it could not have been entertained for
not granting connection to M/s. Nirgun Buildpro as the
application was in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company
while ownership was in the name of Appellant as per the
statement of Appellant.
(6) The service No. 10305559 granted to M/s Goyal &
Company from which appeal has been preferred is still not
in the name of Appellant and therefore this appeal is not
maintainable. It is submitted that Ombudsman is not the
competent authority to decide regarding the legality/civil
dispute of wayleave rights given by M/s. Goyal & Company
to the Respondent.
(7) It is stated that even if the appellant is treated to be
consumer then property purchased by him would be in “as
is where is” basis and whatever his predecessors have
agreed or documented with the Respondent regarding the
wayleave permission shall be binding on him as well and
any dispute regarding the same cannot be entertained by
Case No.85/2016
Page 8 of 13
the Forum. However, if Appellant wishes to shift the cable,
same can be done by the Respondent on payment of
charges as per Clause No. 4.27(4) of Supply Code-2015.
(8) It is stated that as on today the service has not been
transferred from M/s. Goyal & Company to M/s. Nirgun
Buildpro even though he is the owner of the property as
claimed by him. Therefore, the application for shifting or
dispute for payment of the same cannot be entertained by
the Respondent till the name change process has been
carried out buy him, nor can he has any objection for
making to payment of shifting charges as M/s. Goyal &
Company is legal owner of the service who had consented
for laying of the cable.
3.3. It is submitted that appellant and his representative were
remained present before Forum at the time of hearing, so the
grievance of Appellant regarding not consider the contention of
Appellant by Forum, is false.
Respondent has not submitted any reply regarding the provisions
of Supply Code shown by the Appellant.
3.4. It is stated that Respondent company has not violated any of the
provisions of Supply Code with regard to shifting of cable and the
wayleave permission. It is submitted that even if we give
contentions of appellant benefit that Regulations 4.27(4) of the
Supply code,2015, only deals with the service line, even then as
per the definition of service line as per Section 2(56) it refers to
any electric supply line through which electricity is or is intended
to be supplied to a single consumer/group of consumer. Hence
the definition is for the purpose of understanding that cable also
come under the purview of service line and hence Section 4.27(4)
of the Supply Code-2015 would apply.
Case No.85/2016
Page 9 of 13
3.5. It is stated that the NOC given by M/s. Goyal & Company was in
the capacity of the owner of the said plot. There was no sale deed
between M/s. Goyal & company and M/s. Nirgun Buildpro at the
time of giving NOC to the Respondent Company in the year 2012.
3.6. M/s. Goyal & Company was the legal owner of the said plot
F.P.No.84/1 when the wayleave permission was granted to the
Respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that permission of
wayleave given by M/s. Goyal & Company was within its legal
capacity and does not need to be disputed.
3.7. It is stated that as per the practice of Respondent laying down
cable and digging a trench do not have different meanings and
hence there is no require to mention the presence or absence of
trench to the Appellant.
3.8. There is no provisions in the Supply Code,2015 for appointment
of an Electrical Inspector to inspect the present or absence of a
trench in any premises and therefore there is no need of an
Electrical Inspector or any site visit for the same.
3.9. The extent of the duty imposed on the distribution licensee in
relation to seeking wayleave permission from the owner of
premises, it is submitted that Clause No. 4.27(4) of Supply Code
2015 specifically entails the duty of seeking wayleave permission
on the consumer if the consumer has no frontage abutting a
public street.
3.10. It is stated that there is no dispute whether the Respondent
company has filed revised reply or not at the time of hearing of
Review Appeal in case No. 9/2016 before Forum.
3.11. The prayer of Appellant is not required to be granted as the
Respondent company has not violated any of the Supply Code
provisions at any point of time and need not bear the risks and
burden of costs of shifting charges as prayed for by the Appellant
in the Appeal as this was not the original prayer before Forum
Case No.85/2016
Page 10 of 13
and Appellant cannot subsequently make new issues. The prayer
of appellant is baseless and not to be granted.
:::ORDER:::
4.0. I have considered the contentions of the Appellant and the
Respondent and the facts, statistics and relevant papers, which
are on record, and considering them in detail, my findings are as
under.
4.1. Appellant has purchased a land sub-plot No.2 of 238.89
Sq.metres from M/s. Goyal & Company on 03.07.2015 through
sale deed. He has applied to Respondent for electric connection
in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company service No. 10005559 on
29.04.2015 for construction purpose. 4.2. As per definition of
consumer:
“Consumer” refers to any person who is supplied with electricity
for his/her own use by a Licensee or the Government or by any
other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to
the public under the Act or any other law for the time being
inforce and includes any person whose premises are for the time
being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the
works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the
case may be. By this way Appellant is not a consumer of
Respondent.
4.2. It was observed by Respondent during site visit that the plot for
which connection was requested was subset of the plot for which
the connection was requested in April,2014 by M/s. Goyal &
Company Pvt. Ltd., having service No.100120944.
It was also found that the premises applied for construction
services is having cables in plot area and installation of meter was
not finalized. The same was conveyed to the Appellant by
Respondent in June,2015.
Case No.85/2016
Page 11 of 13
4.3. The issue involved in present grievances is to remove the cable
wires from the plot No. 84/1 and sub-plot No.2, where Appellant
has asked electric connection in the name of M/s. Goyal &
Company. The said cable was laid down by Respondent in the
year 2013 as per statement submitted by him for giving power
supply to Block No. “M” and “N” of Orchid Whitefield, Scheme of
M/s. Goyal & Company.
Respondent came to know that applicant of present electric
supply i.e. M/s. Goyal & Company is not an owner of premises
and same premises has been sold out to M/s. Nirgun Buildpro
for which documents submitted by him. Accordingly, Respondent
has informed M/s. Nirgun Buildpro to apply for shifting of the
cables and to pay necessary shifting charges and to provide
necessary wayleave permission for the new cable route. The
present Appellant M/s. Nirgun Buildpro has denied to pay
shifting charges, even though Forum has passed the interim
order and accordingly Respondent has released the electric
service of Appellant for the construction purpose vide service
No.10305559.
4.4. The service No.10305559 was granted to M/s. Goyal & Company
for construction purpose as per the application dated
29.04.2015, which is also not in the name of Appellant and the
said service has not been transferred from M/s. Goyal &
Company to M/s. Nirgun Buildpro.
As per Section 1.5(c) of Notification No. 2 of 2011
“c) “Complainant” means (a) any Consumer or Consumers including their legal
heirs or successors, having a Complaint against a Licensee and lodging the same
either directly or through their representatives; or (b) any voluntary consumer
association or associations, registered under the law for the time being in force and
making the Complaints in the larger interest of the Consumers; or (c) any
consumer(s)/voluntary consumer association(s) where the Licensee does not
register or fails to register the Complaint of such Consumer(s)/voluntary consumer
association(s); or (d) any person whose electricity connection is disconnected; or
(e) an applicant for a new connection for the supply of electricity.”
Case No.85/2016
Page 12 of 13
As per above definition present Appellant is not a consumer and
hence he is not eligible to file grievance before Forum as well as
Ombudsman.
As per Section 1.5(d) of Notification No. 2 of 2011 the present
representation filed by Appellant and prayer sought by Appellant
cannot form the part of complaint to decide.
4.5. It is an established fact that cable was laid by Respondent in the
year 2013 prior to sale deed of said Plot No.84/1, Subplot-2
between parties in which Appellant is a purchaser of said plot,
while M/s. Goyal & Company is a confirming party as per sale
deed. The sale deed was made on 03.07.2015. By way of sale
deed, Appellant was become an owner of that premises, while NA
was accorded in the year 2015. Prior to that Respondent has laid
cable wire, passing through said plot, for electrification of Block
“M” and “N” of Orchid Whitefield.
4.6. N.A. permission accorded by concern authority for survey
No.855/1, TP No.84/A, FP No.84 of 2792 Sq.metres for
residential purpose vide letter dated 22.06.2015 to Shri Ramesh
Maganji Thakor with certain conditions.
4.7. As per GERC Notification No.4 of 2015, Electricity Supply Code
& Related Matters Regulation, Clause No. 4.27:
“During the inspection, the licensee shall:
(1) Fix the point of supply and the place where the meter and the MCB etc. shall be
installed in consultation with the consumer:
Provided that the service line shall be laid at an accessible location and the meter shall
be fixed outside or at the entry point of the premises in such a manner that it is protected
from elements like rain etc. and is easily accessible without getting the premises
unlocked or opened for this purpose;
In no case, the Distribution Licensee shall fix its apparatus, meter or any of its property
in a place, which entails entry by its employee into private quarters.
(2) Record the correct full address of the premises, if not provided in the application
form, and note down landmarks near the property and the pole number from where
service connection is proposed to be given; and
(3) Verify all other particulars mentioned in the application form, as required.
(4) The Distribution Licensee shall obtain the necessary way leaves and permissions
for laying down the service lines for the supply of power. The applicant shall fully co-
operate with the Distribution Licensee in obtaining such necessary way leaves and
permissions. However, where the consumer has no frontage abutting a public street
Case No.85/2016
Page 13 of 13
and where the service line has necessarily to cross over or go under other property,
the consumer shall obtain the necessary way leave and permission at his own expense
and continue them as long as supply is to be maintained. Should, however, the way
leaves or permissions be withdrawn, the Supply may be cut off forthwith, subject to the
provisions of Acts, rules and regulations for the time being in force. Any extra expense
incurred in laying the service line and maintaining the same in accordance with the
way leaves shall be recovered from the Consumer. The Applicant shall provide
necessary undertaking to the Distribution Licensee if required.”
By way of having ownership of the premises through sale deed
dated 03.07.2015 Appellant was entitled to register application
before Respondent, even though he has registered application on
29.04.2015 for construction service in the name of M/s. Goyal &
Company, having legal ownership of the said premises. Regarding
the legality/civil dispute of wayleave rights given by M/s. Goyal
& Company to Respondent, it is not a part of dispute to be decided
by Ombudsman.
4.8. Looking to the above observations, the subject matter is not
within the purview of Ombudsman to decide, as per Para 4.4
Appellant not falls under the definition of complainant and
complaint also not falls under the definition as specified under
Regulations.
4.9. I order accordingly.
4.10. No order as to costs.
4.11. With this order, representation/Application stands disposed of.
(Dilip Raval)
Electricity Ombudsman
Gujarat State Ahmedabad.
Date: 08.08.2016.