office of the consumer grievances …chdengineering.gov.in/pages/cgrf_order_sep2014.pdf1 office of...

1

OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING

UT, CHANDIGARH-160009

BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 535

Date of Institution - 16.06.2014 Date of Order - 23.07.2014

In the matter of Sh. Ashwani Kumar on behalf of Sh. Siri Ram, H. No.1473/2, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh.

………………..Petitioner

Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.

……………….Respondents

Date of Hearing – 23.6.14, 27.6.14, 08.07.2014 and 23.07.14.

1. Sh. Ashwani Kumar on behalf of Sh. Siri Ram, H. No.1473/2, Sector 30-B,

Chandigarh made a complaint vide letter dated 29.11.2013 that he received an excess

bill amounting to Rs.1,04,499/- for the period 26.12.2012 to 26.4.2013, against his

average bill of Rs.1000/-.

2. The Nodal Officer (XEN (OP) Divn.No.3) was asked to submit para-wise reply,

comments, action taken report and also the Consumption data for the last three years of

consumer on dated 02.12.2013. The Nodal Officer concerned supplied the consumption

data of the consumer and other relevant documents vide letter dated 21.01.2014.

3. Thereafter the representation of Sh. Ashwani Kumar was treated as formal

complaint and got registered as Complaint No.535. First hearing was fixed for

23.06.2014. But the SDO concerned did not appear on 23.06.14. Accordingly, next

dates of hearing were fixed for 27.06.14 and 08.07.2014.

4. The case was listed for final hearing on 23.07.2014 when the complainant (the

Petitioner) and the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh (the

Respondent) both were present. It was seen that the consumption of 20799 units

during the period 26.12.2012 to 26.04.2013 appeared to be very much on higher side

2

when compared with the average consumption of last two years (around 400 units). The

complainant stated that the excess reading could be due to meter-jumping.

5. It was also noted from the documents supplied by SDO concerned, that the meter

was got testing in the M & T Laboratory on 06.10.2013 and the same was found to be

O.K. The SDO, however could not attribute any reasons for the high consumption

recorded during the period 26.12.2012 to 26.04.2013. The SDO concerned further

informed that the existing meter has already been replaced with a new meter on

03.10.2013.

6. Since the new meter has already been installed, the SDO concerned was advised

to calculate average on the basis of new meter consumption from date of MCO and

charge the same for the period in question i.e. 26.12.2012 to 03.10.2013 with

simultaneous adjustment of the amount already charged with surcharge. The

complainant and SDO concerned also conveyed their consent to the above

methodology.

7. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.

With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed off.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may

make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman

for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd

Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-

2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one

month from the date of receipt of this order.”

8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to

the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance

wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly

numbered and indexed.

(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF

mailto:[email protected]

3

OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM

ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009


Complaint No. - 538


In the matter of Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia, SCO No.48, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Date of Hearing – 20.06.14, 09.07.14 and 23.07.14

Order

Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia, SCO No.48, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh (Petitioner) vide his

letter dated 03.04.2014 intimated that the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, Sector-20,

UT, Chandigarh (the Respondent) raised a bill for Rs.1,10,029/- on average basis for the

period 10.12.2011 to 06.04.2013. He pointed out that he took the possession of

Showroom on 07.12.2011 from M/s Mosaic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and started his business of

Bhatia & Co. from 03 Feb. 2012 onwards. He requested that amount already charged

be withdrawn and a fresh bill based on the consumption recorded by the new meter be

got issued.

2. The details of the record were called from the Respondent Sub Divn. The position

emerged as under :-

3. That the premises namely SCO NO. 48, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh was in

possession of M/s Mosaic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. who were running a liquor wine shop till

31.03.2011. The possession of the said premises was taken over by the complainant

from M/s Mosaic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 07.12.2011.

4. That the meter installed at the premises was declared dead in October, 2012 and

a new meter was installed vide MCO dated 11.03.2013. The Respondent SDO

conveyed that the amount for the period meter remained dead (12/2011 to 04/2013) has

been charged on the basis of average consumption from 06/2011 to 12/2011.

4

5. The representation made by the Petitioner, was taken as formal complaint and

registered as Case No. 538 on 16.06.2014. The first hearing was held on 20.06.2014

followed by another hearing on 09.07.2014.

6. Based on the details furnished in respect of consumption recorded from 08/2010

to 10/2013 by the SDO concerned, it was inferred that the basis of charging to the new

occupant, on the consumption recorded by the old occupant, may not be correct as the

consumption pattern of both occupants may not be same due to different nature of their

business.

7. The sitting of the Forum was held on 23.07.2014 and both parties were present,

it was amicably agreed to charge the consumption for the period meter remained dead

on the following basis :-

a) For the period upto 07.12.2011 when premises was being used by the previous occupant - Average on the basis of previous 6 months’ consumption.

b) For the period after 07.12.2011 when the premises was being used by the complainant - On the basis of consumption recorded by new meter replaced in April, 2013.

8. In view of above, the respondent SDO is directed to overhaul the account

on the basis of methodology as indicated in the para-7 above and charge the

amount to the consumer during the next bill. He may also ensure that the amount

charged earlier is withdrawn alongwith its surcharge.



“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”







5




Complaint No. - 536


In the matter of Ms. Karishma on behalf of Sh. Puran Chand, H. No. 22/106, ITBP Complex, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Date of Hearing – 27.6.14, 3.7.14, 17.07.14 and 23.07.14

Order

1. Ms. Karishma on behalf of Sh. Puran Chand, resident of H.No. 22/106, ITBP

Complex, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh vide letter dated 02.05.2014 represented that

they have been issued bills on average basis since 2012 which is very much on

higher side.

2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, the Nodal

Officer/Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh was asked

for issue-wise comments and action taken report on the representation alongwith

consumption data of the consumer with copy endorsed to the complainant. The

complainant was also directed to submit the list of fittings and appliances installed

in the premises, copy of ownership, lease rent deed and the copy of the disputed

electricity bill.

3. During the final hearing on 23.07.2014, it was seen from the data that the

amount charged by the Sub Division is on higher side. After detailed

discussions, it was amicably agreed between complainant and the respondent

that the amount needs to be overhauled on the basis of consumption

recorded by the meter replaced vide MCO No. 25/733 during June, 2013. The

complainant also informed that they have already made excess payment and

are likely to vacate the premises (a Govt. Accommodation) in a month or two.

6

Accordingly, it was requested that extra amount paid by them may be refunded to

them.

4. In view of above position, the SDO concerned is directed to overhaul the account

of the consumer (for the period average was charged), on the basis of

consumption recorded by the replaced meter vide MCO No. 25/733 dated

15.05.2013 and reflect the revised amount in the next cycle bill. He is also

directed to refund the excess amount through cheque in case the refund amount

is more than 2 cycle billing, if the complainant desires so.


With above amicable settlement, the complaint is treated as disposed off.








the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for

compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having

it properly numbered and indexed.

6.



7




Complaint No. - 539


In the matter of Sh. Krishan Lal, H. No. 31/11, Bank Colony, P.W.T. Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Date of Hearing – 27.06.14 and 23.07.14. 1. Sh. Krishan Lal, H. No. 31/11, Bank Colony, P.W.T. Manimajra, Chandigarh vide

application dated 18.03.2014 stated that for the period from 18.12.2012 to

18.02.2013 he received a bill for Rs.30,952/- with consumption of 6397 units. He

stated that the consumption was very much on higher side as compared to his

regular average consumption. The complainant also enclosed a receipt of

payment made by the complainant regarding the check meter fee vide Book No.

873 receipt No. 28 dated 23.4.2014 to the SDO concerned for checking of the

behaviour of the electric meter of complainant. Complainant also stated that he

made a complaint to the SDO concerned with the depositing Rs.10/- for the

challenging fees for the correction of the electricity bill. The complainant visited

number of times the office of SDO concerned regarding his grievance but all in

vain. No sufficient reply has been given by the SDO concerned in this regard.

2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to

the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh. He was asked to

supply para-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last three years and

action taken report by 04.04.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-

Misc/2013/231-232 dated 20.03.2014 with a copy to the complainant. The

complainant was also directed to supply list of fittings and appliances installed in

8

his house. The complainant submitted his reply on dated 13.04.2014 alongwith

photocopies of the electricity bills and the report of the appliances instruments

fitted in his house.

3. The SDO concerned in his response submitted that the check meter was installed

as per request of the complainant. As per check meter report, the meter was found

OK and as such, no action was taken. He further informed that the meter has

been replaced with new one vide MCO dated 21.03.2013 affected on 17.10.2013.

As per MCO report, the existing meter was dead stop. He also supplied the

consumption data of the said connection for last three years.

4. The consumption data of the complainant supplied by the SDO shows that almost

about 400 units consumption had been consumed by the complainant for the

period February, 2011 to December, 2012. Thereafter, for the 2 month period

(December, 2012 to February, 2013) the recorded consumption was 6397 units.

However, the next three bills were issued for 4370 units on average basis, with

meter status code defected. The consumption recorded by the replaced meter

after October, 2013 has again been found in the range of about 400 units during

the period October, 2013 to February, 2014.

5. In view of above facts, the representation of Sh. Krishan Lal, was treated as formal

complaint No. 539 on 18.06.2014 and a notice was issued to the XEN/Nodal

Officer concerned with a copy to the complainant fixing the case for consideration

on 27.06.2014 vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-539/2014/607 dated 18.06.2014.

6. The first hearing fixed for 27.06.2014 was not attended by both parties. So, it was

decided to send a notice to both the parties for the next date of hearing. As per

relevant regulation, the quorum Forum was not complete.. So, case was

adjourned for next date on 23.07.2014.

7. The sitting of the Forum was also not attended by the both parties, on dated

23.7.14. The complainant, however, subsequently came on dated 28.07.2014 to

pursue the case but the respondent SDO concerned did not appear on the both the

dates of the hearing. The Forum considered the application and the other

submissions submitted by the complainant for reaching the final observations of

this complaint. The arguments of the complainant and also considering all the

9

documents submitted by the SDO concerned and by the complainant regarding the

grievance of the complainant in this regard have been scrutinized. The main

points of the complaint and the submissions of the SDO concerned submitted to

the Forum are given below :-

a) Consumption of the complainant is almost same i.e. about 400 units for the period

of February, 2011 to December, 2012 and after the replacement of the meter i.e.

defective on date October, 2013. The consumption was also found same as in the

previous period i.e. for the period from October, 2013 to February, 2014 - about

400 units.

b) This electricity connection was D.S. category i.e. domestic connection. The

consumption of 6397 units consumed by the consumer for one billing cycle i.e.

18.12.2012 to 18.02.2013 billing cycle, appears to be on higher side before the

meter became “dead stop”. So far, the consumption data concerned, the

consumption of the complainant was same, for the period before the meter became

dead stop and after the change of the electricity meter, the consumption was

almost regularly same.

c) The SDO concerned installed a check meter vide SJO No.22/73 dated 14.05.2013

in response to the application submitted by the complainant. But as per the check

meter report, the meter found OK and no action was taken by the SDO concerned.

SDO concerned in written submissions had stated that the defective meter of the

complainant has been replaced with the new electricity meter vide MCO dated

21.03.2013 affected on 17.10.2013.

d) Under the Section 3.7 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2010, the time for change of

electricity meter and installation of new connection under this Section has been

stipulated as one month but in the present case, the office took much more time for

changing the defective meter.

I. The Forum advises the SDO to ensure that the time limits stipulated under

Section 3.7 of Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2010 are adhered. The

connected load i.e. appliances/instruments fitted in the premises of the

complainant had been with the very small load consumption, in his premises.

The documents submitted by the complainant shows that his consumption

was same in regularly billing cycle.

10

The bill has been raised to the complainant by the department is about 400

units before and after the replacement of defective meter period.

Considering all the points, the Forum concluded that the consumption billed

during the disputed period is on very high side for which no reasons could

be attributed. The SDO is directed to overhaul the account of the consumer

from February, 2011 to 17.10.2013 on the basis of consumption consumed

by the consumer on the new electricity meter installed on 17.10.2013,

keeping in view the actual payment made by the complainant for this period.

II. The compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.

With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.


make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for

JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd

Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,

Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the

date of receipt of this order.”

III. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to






11




Complaint No. - 541


In the matter of Smt. Mona Sharma on behalf of Sh. Surinder Singh, H. No.2775/C, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Mona Sharma on behalf of Sh. Surinder Singh, H. No.2775/C, Sector 49-D,

Chandigarh made a complaint. The main grievance of the complainant was

regarding the sundry charges of Rs.37,489/- levied by the Electricity Department in

the electricity bill received on 12.12.2013. The complainant stated that the SDO

concerned told that sundry charges were raised against the consumer for the

period 6.11.11 to 10.4.13 when the meter was defective and directed her to deposit

the bill including the sundry charges. The consumer also stated that the sundry

charges were raised after passage of 2 years 9 months, without any prior notice.

The complainant stated that they were not living in this house during that period,

when meter was defective and had been living in the Govt. Accommodation at H.

No. 3141D, Sec.48D, Chandigarh allotted to the complainant by the GMCH-32 and

the same was vacated by the complainant in May, 2013.

2. The complainant also stated that in the month of March, 2013, when informed by

the meter reader of Electricity Department that the meter is dead, they made

continued efforts with the concerned department to get the meter changed. The

department never informed the consumer regarding the position of the electricity

meter and the bills continued to be raised on the average basis. She attached

12

disputed electricity bills pertaining to period 6.9.13 to 6.11.13 in which department

raised the bill alongwith sundry charges.

3. This representation was forwarded to the Nodal Officer/Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh for examination and para-wise

comments, action taken report and supply of consumption data for the last three

years by 30.12.2013 to the Forum. The SDO concerned was directed not to

disconnect the supply of complainant and to accept consumption charges of the

current bill till the decision of the Forum, with a copy to the complainant for supply

of proof of ownership, copy of GPA or valid tenancy in respect of the premises, list

of electrical fittings and appliances, copy of the correspondence with the SDO.

4. The complainant submitted reply vide letter dated 26.12.2013 alongwith the GPA

and the list of electrical fittings and appliances installed in the premises to the

Forum. The SDO concerned also submitted his reply vide dated 31.12.2013

regarding the complaint of the consumer.

5. The SDO concerned stated that Rs.37,479/- was charged for the dead meter for

the period 6.11.10 to 10.4.12 and also stated that the consumer did not sent any

intimation to the Sub Divn. concerned that the premises was vacant/not in use,

during the period when the electrical meter was defective. As per the consumption

data, the accommodation/premises was in continuous use of the electricity. The

meter was changed on dated 10.4.13 vide MCO No. 15/596 on dated 11.3.2013.

The meter was dead stop, as such, the sundry charges were levied. The

consumption data for the 3 years was also provided by the Department.

6. The sitting of the Forum on 3.7.14 was attended by the both parties. Due to the

non-completion of the Forum, the case was adjourned for next date of hearing on

23.7.14.

7. The sitting of the Forum on 23.7.14 was attended by both parties. The reply of the

SDO concerned and the complaint of the complainant were seen during the

hearing on 23.7.14. Forum considering the submissions made by the both parties

and observed :-

13

a) Subsequent to hearing, the complainant in response to Forum’s letter dated

04.09.14, supplied a copy of vacant report and copy of last electricity bill of H.

No. 3141B, Sector 48-D, Chandigarh, Govt. Accommodation allotted by GMCH,

Sector-32, Chandigarh vacated on 19.06.2013.

b) No reply received from Nodal Officer for the queries raised vide Forum’s letter

dated 04.09.2014 and reminded on 16.09.14 in respect of

(i) detailed calculation of sundry charges,

(ii) ascertaining the status of the premises (vacant/occupied) during the

disputed period

(iii) the reasons for average charging, though the bills were issued on Z-

code for the period 06.11.2011 to 06.11.2012.

c) On scrutiny of consumption data, it is observed that the meter was recording

consumption till September, 2012 where after the meter did not record any

consumption and the meter reader reported in March, 2013 that the meter

became dead. However, during the period November, 2011 to May, 2012, the

bills were issued with same (old and new) reading as 5999 with ‘Z’ meter status

code for NIL consumption where after bills were prepared on consumption with

meter status code as Z for the period May, 2012 to September, 2012. Thus

charging of average for the period when meter was recording consumption and

bills were being issued with Z-status code for the period 06.11.2011 to

06.09.2012 is not in order.

d) In view of above, the Forum directs Nodal Officer to re-work out the charges for

the period when the meter became dead at reading 6999 during September,

2012 upto date of its replacement i.e. 10.04.2013.

8. With above directions, the complaint is treated as disposed.






I.



14




Complaint No. - 470


In the matter of Sh. Gurdev Singh on behalf of Sh. Atma Singh, SCO. No. 126-127, G.F., Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. Gurdev Singh on behalf of Sh. Atma Singh, SCO. No. 126-127, G.F. Sector 8-

C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh vide his representation dated 13.09.2013 stated that

he received a notice from SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh vide

ECR No. 31/533 dated 19.04.2013 that excess load to the tune of 14.320 KW was

detected against NRS connection by the Enforcement Wing on 29.04.2013 during

checking of his premises. He stated that there was a double count in respect of

plug and some appliances (microwave with 1200W) were out of order. He

requested for withdrawal of the notice of the Sub Division.

2. Before treating the representation as formal complaint, para-wise comments on the

representation of the consumer were called from the Addl. Superintending

Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh by the Forum vide letter dated

13.09.2013. The consumption data of the consumer for the last three years was

also called. The applicant was also asked to supply the proof of ownership and list

of electrical fittings and appliances installed in the premises. The SDO through his

written submissions dated 03.10.2013 stated that the electricity meter installed at

the consumer premises was checked by the Enforcement Wing of the department

15

and submitted the report dated 29.04.2013. As per the report, the load was found

24.2 KW against the sanctioned load of 9.880 KW. Thus, unauthorized load of

14.320 KW was found. The penalty amounting to Rs.1,35,259/- was charged

under Section 126 of the Electricity Act through Provisional Assessment Notice

dated 08.05.2013. The Final Assessment Notice was served to the consumer on

23.07.2013. The SDO also stated that the applicant is not the consumer and thus

has no right to file the above complaint for the connection checked by the

Enforcement Wing.

3. The representation was treated as formal complaint and registered vide Complaint

No. 470 on 22.10.2013. The hearings of the case were conducted on 30.10.2013,

14.11.2013, 26.11.2013, 17.12.2013, 14.01.2014, 20.02.2014, 01.04.2014,

07.05.2014, 29.06.2014, 18.07.2014 and on 24.07.2014.

4. During these hearings, the complainant submitted that his case is not covered

under Section 126 of the Act and penalty may be charged on the basis of

amendment issued in the Supply Code Regulation by the Hon’ble JERC on

07.08.2013. On the other hand, SDO stated that the notice was sent under

Section 126 and is beyond the jurisdiction of CGRF.

5. The Forum after carefully examining the submissions made by both the parties

observes as under :-

i) That in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14, notification by Hon’ble JERC, only

Domestic Supply Category consumers have been exempted for treating them

under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in case, the load in excess of the

sanctioned load is found at the premises of the consumer. However, subsequently

through amendments notified on 7.8.2013 vide No. JERC-11/2010, the Hon’ble

Commission has considered all the LT consumers (including domestic consumers)

for not treating as Un-authorised Use of Electricity under Section 126, if connected

load is found to be at variance from the sanctioned/contracted load, as a result of

increase of load.

ii) The Forum has further noted that the checking was done on 29.04.2013 and the

connection is NRS category, whereas the amendments in Supply Code were

notified subsequently on 07.08.2013, as such, the amendments issued vide

Notification No. JERC-11/2010, are not applicable to the complainant.

16

iii) The Chandigarh Administration, Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) through

Notification dated 11th June, 2013 vide Notification No. G1-2013/01 has notified as

under :-

“No. G1-2013/1. – In supersession to previous notification issued, vide No.

G1/2011/02, dated 10th August, 2011 and in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) to Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with

notification dated 22nd June, 2004 issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the Administrator, Union Territory,

Chandigarh hereby designate the following officers as the “Appellate

Authority” for the purposes of Section 127 of the Electricity, Act, 2003 :-

Sr. No.

Category of Consumers Appellate Authority

1. (a) Domestic, Agriculture Supply, Commercial/NRS Supply and other services (Upto 500 KW) of sanctioned load). (b)Small Power Supply (Industrial)

Sub-Divisional Magistrate (within his jurisdiction)

2. Domestic Supply, Agriculture Supply, Commercial/NRS Supply and other services (above 500KW of sanctioned load)

Additional Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh

3. Industrial :

(a) Medium Supply (b) Large Supply

Additional Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh

6. From above, it is clear that the Appellate Authority in the present case is Sub-

Divisional Magistrate. The Forum has no jurisdiction to take up the case where

notices has been served under Section 126 of the Act. The complainant may

approach the Appellate Authority as notified by Chandigarh Administration,

Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) for redressal of his grievance.

7. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as disposed.



17

8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the

office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance




18




Complaint No. - 457


In the matter of Smt. Kaushalya Devi, H. No. 516, Mauli Jagran, UT Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.


Date of Hearing - 03.10.2013, 15.10.2013, 02.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 16.01.2014, 03.03.2014, 06.05.2014, 21.05.2014, 25.06.2014, 14.07.2014 and on 24.07.2014.

Order

1. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, H. No. 516, Mauli Jagran, UT Chandigarh through letter

received on 04.07.2013 stated that she had 2 No. Domestic connections whereas

electricity bill for only 1 No. was being sent. It was further informed that her

premises (H. No. 516, Mauli Jagran, UT Chandigarh) was visited by officials from

SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh on 29.05.2013

and pointed out that the working of the meter was in order and for the second

meter, the supply was not connected. Further, the Electricity Department raised

a bill of Rs.89941/- on account of load surcharge and DMC charges.

2. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh was asked to

offer para-wise comments on the representation of the consumer and also to

supply consumption data of the complainant for the last three years vide letter

dated 06.08.2013.

3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh submitted a

reply in response to Forum’s letter dated 06.08.2013 stating that the premises of

the complainant was checked on 29.05.2013 and it was found that the electricity

19

supply was being given to a Mobile Tower i.e. was being used for commercial

purpose also. Accordingly, the case has been treated as Unauthorized Use of

Electricity as per Electricity Supply Code, 2010 and, the consumer was raised bill

for Rs.89941/-, amount assessed as per the Supply Code. It was also submitted

that electricity supply of the other connection has been connected.

4. The representation of Smt. Kaushalya Devi was treated as formal complaint No.

457 and first hearing was fixed for 17.09.2013. Subsequent hearings were held

on 03.10.2013, 15.10.2013, 02.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 16.01.2014, 03.03.2014,

06.05.2014, 2105.2014, 25.06.2014, 14.07.2014 and on 24.07.2014.

5. It emerged from the written/oral submissions made by the respondent and the

representative of the complainant on 24.07.2014 that the complainant had applied

for 2nd D.S. connection in December, 2012. Though the meter against the

second connection was installed yet the supply was connected in the month of

May, 2013. The first connection was released on 14.12.2005. Thereafter, for the

2nd connection, a regular bill is being sent by the Sub Division to the consumer

which was also confirmed by him during the hearing.

6. As per written submissions made by SDO, the charges levied were on account of

use of domestic supply connections for commercial purpose. As per checking on

13.05.2013, it was found that the supply was given to mobile tower i.e.

commercial purpose whereas the connection was D.S. category. The amount

charged to the consumer was worked out on the basis of NRS tariff and as per

Electricity Supply Code, 2010 (Page-204).

7. From the above, it is seen that though the second connection was applied in

December, 2012, same was released on 11.05.2013 as per SDO letter dated

24.06.2014. The checking of the premises was made on 29.05.2013 i.e. after

release of second connection. It appears that the assessment has been made on

the basis of total load of both the connections detected at the time of checking.

The calculation of charges on the basis of total load of both electricity connections

is not in order. The connected load of the two connections are 4.760 KW and

3.60 KW totalling 8.360 KW. The Forum directs the respondent SDO to re-

calculate the charges on account of use of domestic connection for commercial

20

purpose as per relevant instructions for the first connection with connected load

of 4.760 KW.

8. The Forum noted that the time taken for release of 2nd connection was on higher

side. The Forum advises the respondent to adhere to the time limits for

completion of various activities as stipulated under para 3.7 of Electricity Supply

Code Regulation, 2010 and standards of performance Regulation 2009 of JERC

in future.



“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum

may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity

Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC

Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016

(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-

[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this

order.”







21



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER

Complaint No. - 546-550


In the matter of -

(i) Sh. Salinder S/o.Sher Singh, H.No. 3130, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh.

(ii) Smt. Suresh Kumari W/o. Sh. Ram Pher H.No.2804, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh.

(iii) Smt. Rajni, H. No.3511, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh. (iv) Sh.Pritam S/o.Challu, H.No.2896, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony,

Chandigarh. (v) Sh. Tek Chand, H.No. 2897, Sector-25/D, Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh


Versus



Order

1. Complainants are residents of Dainik Bhaskar Colony, Chandigarh namely

Sh.Salinder S/o. Sher Singh, House No. 3130, Sector-25/D, Smt. Suresh Kumari

W/o. Sh. Ram Pher House No. 2804, Sector-25/D, Smt. Rajni, House No. 3511,

Sector-25/D, Sh. Pritam S/o. Challu, House No. 2896, Sector-25/D, and Sh. Tek

Chand, House No. 2897, Sector-25/D, Chandigarh. They filed the complaints

regarding the excess/wrong billing. The gist of the complaints is that the bills

raised by the electrical contractor on the basis of average consumption were on

higher side than the consumption of Complainants and that the tariff applied (@

Rs.8-9/- per unit) was more than the notified tariff. They alleged that the excessive

billing against the complainants is continuously going on for the last 8-9 years. The

complainants made the request for refund of all excess money paid by them to the

electrical contractor. The complainants requested that the bills of the electricity

consumed by them be prepared on the basis of Tariff Order of the U.T. Electricity.

22

It was prayed that they stated that their electricity may not be disconnected without

sending any notice in regard of the pending bills. Complainants also attached their

earlier complaints sent to the concerned SDO Electricity and the electrical

contractor from time to time. The disputed electricity bills that were raised by the

electrical contractor against them, were also attached.

2. Before the complaints of the complainants were treated as formal complaints, the

representations were sent to the concerned Nodal officer/XEN vide letter dated

16.06.14, for the para-wise reply and the action taken report on representation of

the consumers alongwith supply of the consumption data for the last 5 years with a

copy to the complainants for supply the following information/documents to Forum

i.e. list of electrical fittings and appliances, proof of ownership and copy of GPA or

valid tenancy in respect of the premises etc.

3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 01.07.2014 submitted the facts of the case that the power supply in the

Rehabilitation Colony has been allotted to the contractor M/s Rakesh Mishra and

Co. The SDO further submitted that the status of the 5 complaints (as supplied by

Sh. Rakesh Mishra) that the energy meter of all the complainants were burnt and

they were found using direct supply. All the 5 complainants figure in the Defaulter

list of the contractor. He further stated that the JE of the Sub Division deputed to

check status of power supply of all the 5 complainants reported that direct supply

was being used. The photographs showing the uses of electricity directly as

supplied by contractor were also attached. The SDO also enclosed copy of DDR

dated 18.03.2013 regarding damage of the office of contractor and destruction of

register maintained for keeping the record of billing and payment made by all the

consumers.

4. The complaints were registered as formal complaint Nos. 546-550 on 27.06.14 as

the matter of these 5 No. Complainants was same and the respondent parties

were also same. All the complaints have been clubbed for issuance of a single

order.

5. The first hearing was conducted on 04.07.14 when both the parties appeared but

the contractor was not present. Accordingly, another hearing was held on 16.07.14

when all the 5 complainants, SDO concerned and electrical contractor Sh. Rakesh

23

Mishra were present. The electrical contractor stated that the complainants were

indulging in direct supply bypassing the meter which forced him to raise bills on

averages instead of the readings recorded by the meters. The complainants,

however, denied the allegations. The SDO concerned supplied the data in respect

of all the five complainants from March, 2013 to May, 2014 with details of reading

of the meter. The tabulated information included the amount of the bills issued by

the contractor, consumption as well as tariff charged and the revised calculation of

bill amount on the basis of notified Tariff rate and actual consumption/average

consumption (on the basis of previous corresponding period/on load basis). It was

also reported that the meters were found in working order but the consumers were

found using electricity directly by putting kundi on service lines as the power supply

was disconnected due to non-payment.

6. As per the SDO’s calculation, the refundable amount to the complainants on

account of difference in bills raised by the contractor and as revised by the Sub

Division for the period of 12 months worked as follows :-

S. No.

Name Address Refundable Amount

1. Sh. Tek Chand H. No.2897, Sec.25D.

Rs.1866/-

2. Sh. Salinder H. No. 3130, Sec.25D.

Rs.3749/-

3. Sh. Pritam H. No. 2896, Sec.25D.

Rs.758/-

4. Smt. Rajni H. No. 3511, Sec.25D.

Rs.7158/-

7. The Forum also noted that the electrical contractor – Sh. Rakesh Mishra besides

charging higher average was applying higher tariff rate per unit. The SDO vide

Memo.No.1750 dated 17.07.14 supplied month-wise notified tariff rate as under :-

Month & Year Rate (Rs.) per unit

March, 2013 3.85

April, 2013 2.77

May, 2013 3.19

June, 2013 4.17

24

July, 2013 3.86

August, 2013 3.86

September, 2013 3.96

October, 2013 3.34

November, 2013 3.95

December, 2013 2.94

January, 2014 2.92

February, 2014 3.34

8. The Forum after going through the documents and the facts of the case,

observed:-

a) The contractor was issuing bills to the complainants at a higher tariff rate and also

taking higher consumption at random without any basis, on the plea that the

complainants were bypassing the meter and they were not paying the bills issued

by him for quite sometime.

b) The bills issued by the contractor lacks the basic minimum information as

prescribed under Sub-Regulation 20 of the Regulation 8.1 of Supply Code

Regulations, 2010 issued by Hon’ble JERC, such as arrear, connected load, tariff

rate etc.

c) The complainants also admitted that they were not paying the bills of the contractor

for quite sometime on the plea that the inflated bills were being raised.

d) From the photographs shown by the contractor and the report of JE, the use of

direct supply, bypassing the meter/kundi connection cannot be ruled out.

9. Considering above, the Forum is of the view that both electrical contractor and

complainants are indulging in unfair means not permitted under Regulations. The

electrical contractor is bound to issue the bills on the basis of reading at the notified

tariff whereas the consumers are supposed to pay the bills regularly. The

complainants should restrain themselves from kundi/direct connection bypassing

the meter failing which the contractor is free to lodge FIR for theft of electricity as

per the Electricity Act, 2003. The complainants should also clear their defaulting

amounts. The SDO concerned in consultation with the contractor and

complainants may work out the number of instalments to clear the defaulting

amount.

25

10. With regard to complainants submissions for overhauling the account for last 8-9

years, the Forum observed that the Electricity Act, 2003 under Section 56(2)

stipulates that no sum due from any consumer is recoverable after the period of

two years from the date when said sum became first due. The Forum is therefore,

of the view that the account of the consumers can be overhauled for a period upto

2 years.

11. In view of above, the Forum directs the Nodal Officer to get the accounts of

all the 5 complainants overhauled for a period of 2 years as provided under

Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. He is also directed to ensure the

compliance of issuance of proper bills as per recorded consumption and

notified tariff, to the consumers by the contractor in line with Sub-Regulation

20 of the Regulation 8.1 of Supply Code Regulations, 2010. The SDO may

also be directed to make regular checking/inspection of the record of the

contractor to check the compliance.

12. The details of the overhauled amount of all the 5 No. Complainants and the

compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the order.

13. With above directions, the complaints are treated as disposed.






I.



26




Complaint No. - 558


In the matter of Sh. Bhagwan Dass Ahuja, H. No. 2345, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Bhagwan Dass Ahuja, H. No. 2345, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh represented that

for the period September, 2012 to September, 2013, he went to U.S.A. and all the

floors of his house (GF, FF and SF) remained locked and thus, there was no

consumption of electricity. However, on his return, in September, 2013 he noted

that the bills were being served for all the three connections. Though bills against

two connections were revised, the other bills were incorrect. He requested the

SDO for preparation of bills on the actual reading vide letter dated 12 December,

2013.

2. Before the representation was registered as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer

Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh was

called upon to comment upon the representation and also to supply the

consumption data for the last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 27.12.2013.

3. In response to Forum’s letter, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1,

UT, Chandigarh informed that the bills were corrected on the basis of reading.

4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No. 558 on 23.09.14 and was

fixed for hearing on 16.10.2014. The SDO attended the hearing but the

complainant did not attend. The SDO informed that the bills of the complainant

have already been revised to the satisfaction of the consumer. He also supplied a

27

photocopy of the register showing item of sundry allowance of Rs.1936/- in favour

of the complainant towards account No.2347/234503R.

5. The Forum observed that the grievance of the consumer has already been

redressed to his satisfaction and the complaint stands disposed off.






28




Complaint No. - 522


In the matter of Sh. N.K. Gupta, H. No.2211-A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. N.K. Gupta, resident of H. No.2211-A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 18.12.2013 complained about receipt of heavy amount bills for the period

10.05.2012 onwards.

2. The complaint was forwarded to Nodal Officer Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’

Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh for examination/comments and also to supply the

consumption data of the consumer for last three years vide Forum letter dated

19.12.13.

3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 19.12.13 to Nodal Officer, the concerned SDO,

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 21.03.14

submitted that the energy meter of the consumer was replaced on 26.02.2013 vide

MCO dated 18.02.2013 as the consumer was found dead stop. The SDO also

submitted that the consumer account is required to be overhauled for the period

10.9.12 to 26.02.13 on the basis of previous consumption. The consumption data

of the consumer for three years was also supplied.

4. The representation of Sh. N.K. Gupta was registered as formal complaint No. 522

on 07.05.14 and was listed for hearing before the Forum on 23.05.14. The hearing

on 23.05.14 was attended by both the parties. Subsequent hearings were

conducted on 11.6.14, 03.07.14 and 28.07.14. The complainant did not attend the

last three hearings which were attended by the SDO only.

29

5. On perusal of the consumption data, it was observed that there was abrupt

increase in the consumption from 10.05.12 onwards as compared to the

consumption for the past one year. The consumption recorded during the disputed

period was more than 3 times the recorded consumption for the corresponding

period during previous year. On comparison of the consumption, it was not found

to be of accumulation of the reading. Both the parties agreed for overhauling of

the account from the period 10.05.12 to date of MCO i.e. 20.02.13 on the basis of

consumption for the period 10.05.11 to 10.05.12.

6. The SDO vide his letter dated 11.06.14, submitted that the consumer account has

been overhauled for the 9 month period from 10.05.12 to 20.02.13 and amount of

Rs.27,113/- was refunded/adjusted vide sundry item No. 30/84 dated 11.06.14, to

be reflected in the next billing cycle.

7. As the consumer account has been overhauled by the SDO to the satisfaction of

the complainant, the complaint stands disposed off.






30




Complaint No. - 542


In the matter of Sh. Sat Parkash on behalf of Sh. Inderjit Bedi, SCO No.284, Sector-32D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Sat Parkash on behalf of Sh. Inderjit Bedi, SCO No.284, Sector-32D,

Chandigarh vide his representation dated 12.6.2014 stated that he has an NRS

connection at SCO No. 284 Sector 32-C, Chandigarh. He stated that he received

a bill wherein sundry charges were levied on account of cost of burnt meter and

average for the period the meter remained burnt. He also raised that the charging

of ACD is un-justified.

2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer i.e.

Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh was called upon to

submit the para-wise comments on the representation and also to supply the

consumption for the last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 16.6.2014.

3. In response to Forum’s letter addressed to the Nodal Officer/Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-

Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh submitted the facts of the case vide letter dated

07.07.2014. It was stated that the meter was burnt due to short circuit as intimated

by the staff deputed for checking on receipt of complaint from the complainant

about disruption of his supply. The service cable of the connection was also found

to be burnt alongwith the meter. The burnt meter was replaced on 04.03.2013 vide

MCO dated 19.02.2013. Regarding charging of amount of Rs.11,526/-, he stated

31

that same was charged vide Half Margin No. 1367 dated 15.10.13, including the

meter cost of Rs.7750/- and Rs.3776/- on account of average for the period

08.01.2013 to 04.03.2013. On the issue of charging of ACD, it was stated that

same is being levied as per instructions, on the basis of consumption recorded

during the previous year. The consumption data for the period 01/11 to 26.03.2014

was also supplied.

4. The representation of Sh. Sat Parkash on behalf of Sh. Inderjit Bedi, SCO No.284,

Sector-32D, Chandigarh was treated as formal complaint No. 542 and was fixed for

consideration by the Forum on 07.07.2014.

5. During the hearing on 07.07.2014, the complainant reiterated his grievances. As

the SDO was not present, the next date of hearing was fixed for 21.07.2014, which

was not attended by any of the party. Subsequent hearing was held on

28.07.2014, when both the parties were present and made oral submissions before

the Forum.

6. From the submissions made by both the parties, the Forum observed that on

3.6.2012, the consumer made a complaint about disruption of his electric supply.

The officials of the Sub Division informed the complainant that the 3 phase cable

got burnt and the meter terminals also got damaged. The meter with burnt

terminals continued to be inoperation and bill was being prepared on the basis of

reading till 4th March, 2013 when it was got replaced with a new meter. The copies

of the complaint register supplied by the SDO also showed that the 3 phase cable

was found burnt alongwith meter.

7. From the representation as well as remarks given in the complaint register, it

appears that the meter terminals and the 3 phase cable got burnt due to some

short circuit/fault in the premises of the consumer.

8. Regarding complainant’s plea for not charging the cost of meter, the Electricity

Supply Code Regulations, 2010, as notified by the Hon’ble JERC provide under

Regulation 7.8 provides :-

“7.8 - Cost of Replacement of Defective/Burnt meters –

(1) The cost of replacement of meter shall be borne by the consumer or by the Licensee subject to following conditions :

(i) If, as a result of testing, it is established that the meter was burnt due to technical reasons viz. Voltage fluctuation,

32

transients etc. attributable to the Licensee the cost of the meter shall be borne by the Licensee. However, if it is established that the meter was burnt due to reasons attributable to the consumer viz. Defect in consumer’s installation, connection of unauthorized load by the consumer etc. the cost shall be borne by the consumer.”

9. From the above facts of the case, it appears that the meter got burnt due to

reasons attributable to the consumers as the 3 phase cable also got burnt

simultaneously. Thus, cost of meter is to be borne by the consumer. It has further

been noted that the Sub division has charged Rs.7750/- towards cost of meter as

clear (from the para 4 of the written submission made by the SDO vide Memo. No.

2456 dated 7.7.2014) as mentioned in para-2 above. However, the Tariff Order for

FY 2014-15 as issued by Hon’ble JERC, provide the charges recoverable from the

consumer when the meter is found burnt owing to negligence or default on the part

of consumer as Rs.1550/- (3 phase meter under Sr. No.O of Miscellaneous and

General Charges) at Page No. 201. Thus, it has come to notice that the cost of

meter to be charged from the consumer may not be correct. So far as charging of

ACD or average during the period meter remained burnt, it is seen that the

charging done by the Sub Division is in order. The complainant also got convinced

about this during hearing on 28.07.2014.

10. With above findings, that the cost of meter is recoverable from the consumer and

charging on account of average is in order, the complaint stands disposed.

However, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the amount to be charged towards

cost of meter from the consumer reconciled as per observation in para-9 above.

11. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days with regard to amount to be charged

towards cost of burnt meter. In the event, the amount charged is found to be in

excess, the same may be refunded.








33





13.


34




Complaint No. - 490


In the matter of Smt. Usha Rani, House.No.2255/2, MWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

………………..Complainant

Versus



Order

1. Smt. Usha Rani, resident of H.No.2255/2, MWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh vide

letter dated 07.10.2013 , represented that she had applied for Change of name and

Extension of Load of her domestic connection to NRS category to the SDO, Electy.(OP)

Sub Division No.8 on 12.09.2012. The needful was done in respect of Change of Name

and load extension on 04.12.2012. Subsequently, she approached the departments on

20.05.2013 for conversion of this DS to NRS account with extension of load to 18.590

KW for using the connection for Atta Chakki. It has been stated that though she

produced the registration from the Industry Department UT, yet the connection was not

released for want of Pollution Certificate from the Pollution Board of U.T., Administration.

The demand notice was issued on 10.09.2013, after fifteen days of the undertaking

given by her on 26.07.2013. The period of fifteen days was more than the period

specified in the standard performance issued by the JERC. It was further stated that the

demand notice was not accepted in the absence of pollution certificate which is not a

requirement as per the Supply Code but the office is adamant on the issue and her case

is being delayed intentionally.

2. Before this complaint was taken as formal complaint, the Executive Engineer,

Electricity, (OP) Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh was asked to examine and to submit

35

parawise comments/action taken report on the representation of consumer by

31.10.2013 vide Forum’s letter dated 09.10.2013.

3. The concerned SDO, Electy.(OP) Sub Division No.8, Manimajra, Chandigarh

made written submission to the Forum on 30.10.2013 stating that as per Chandigarh

Administration Gazette dated 20.08.2002, the Pollution Certificate is mandatory for

taking any Industrial Connections. He further stated that the applicant has not taken the

consent from pollution authorities and as such the connection has not been released.

He also supplied a copy of guidelines/checklist available on the Internet in respect of

obtaining clearance from Pollution Control Board for Industrial Connections.

4. The representation of Smt. Usha Rani was treated has a formal Complaint

No.490 and was fixed for consideration by the Forum on 22.11.2013.

The first hearing of the Forum was held on 22.11.2013 which was attended by the

complainant. The SDO did not attend. The case was adjourned for 05.12.2013. The

SDO could not come from the proceedings and deputed Sh. Joginder Pal Singh, RA of

the Sub Division. The complainant stated that the connection was not being released for

wants of pollution clearance certificate. The complainant produced a Letter from

Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India which provided that there

would be no need for the industry to obtain periodical renewal of the consent and the

acknowledgement by the State Pollution Control Boards would serve the purpose in

respect of small scale industries. The complainant further informed that the Sub Division

has released connection to Mishra Atta Chakki, Mouli Jagran in the absence of pollution

certificate. The representative of the sub division was directed to bring the complete

record of case of release of connection in respect of Mishra, Atta Chakki. The next

hearing of the Forum was held on 12.12.2013 and then on 20.12.2013, the SDO

submitted that the office record of releasing of Electricity Connections to Mishra, Atta

Chakki could not be traced. He however showed the record file of the Pal Atta Chakki.

It was noticed that the applicant had submitted the pollution clearance certificate before

release of connection. The SDO was again directed to trace out the file of Mishra Atta

Chakki before adjourning the case for 10.01.2014.

36

5. On 10.01.2014 only complainant was present and submitted a documents which

provided that Atta Chakki’s were in the list of green categories of industries and

exempted from obtaining NOC/consent of Punjab Pollution Control Board. Similar,

clarification in respect of Haryana was also supplied on the next date of hearing on

05.02.2014, which was attended by both the parties. The SDO again submitted that the

consumer case of Mishra, Atta Chakki, could not traceable after making sincere efforts.

The complainant was also directed to submit consent/NOC of the Pollution Control

Board, U.T., Chandigarh for getting process the application for release of Industrial

Connections. Further, hearing was held on 25.02.2014, 11.04.2014, and on 30.05.2014.

6. During the hearing on 30.05.2014 the representative of SDO informed that the

consumer had submitted the consent from Pollution Control Board and other documents

and the connection has been released vide SJO. No.74/155, dated 09.04.2014. The

photocopy of relevant documents were also submitted to the Forum. The Forum noted

that the department has addressed the Grievances of the consumer by releasing the

connection after the pre-requisite formalities were completed by the applicant. The

Forum however, could not disposed off the case as the quorum was not complete. The

one member Forum extended the limitation period upto 30.07.2014 while adjourning the

case for 28.07.2014.

7. On 28.07.2014, both the complainant and the respondent SDO were present.

The complainant submitted that they were un-necessarily harassed by the respondent

for insisting on consent of the pollution board for releasing the Atta Chakki connection.

The SDO again submitted that the consent of the Pollution Board was mandatory for

release of Atta Chakki connection. As soon as the applicant submitted the clearance

from Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee and other documents the connection, was

released on 09.04.2014.

So, the Forum after examining the documents submitted by the applicant

and respondent reached the conclusion that the consent of pollution was a pre-

requisite for release of Atta Chakki Connection in Chandigarh. The applicant did

not submit the same in September 2013, along with other details and produced

the same to the office of SDO only in the last week of March 2014/ First week of

April 2014, and the connection was released vide SJO. No.74/155, dated

37

09.04.2014. The Forum do not agree with the allegation made by the consumer

that the SDO was un-necessarily demanding the pollution certificate to harass

them. As the connection has already been released and the consumers

Grievances addressed, the cases is considered disposed.











1.



38



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 477


In the matter of Sh. Arvind Oberoi, on behalf of Lt. Col. Saurabh Gupta, H.No.3283, Sector-15/D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. A complaint was made by Sh. Arvind Oberoi on behalf of Lt. Col. Saurabh Gupta,

the owner of House.No.5724, Sector-38, West, Chandigarh, on 18.09.2013 that the

electricity department served a bill in November 2013, with an arrear of Rs.67,092/-

against the D/S Connection. Mr. Arvind stated that the owner is posted at Jamnagar

(Gujrat) and the house lies vacant and as such there is no consumption in the premises.

He also mentioned that on contacting the Sub Division, he was told that the arrear is on

account of past period when the house remained occupied.

2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the Forum vide letter

dated 18.09.2013 called for parawise comments of the Executive Engineer, Electy.(OP)

Division No.4, Chandigarh along with consumption data of the consumer for last 3

years.

3. In response to Forum letter referred to in Para 2, the SDO, Electy.(OP) Sub

Division No.10, through written submissions dated 27.09.2013 conveyed that the meter

installed at the premises was found defective and was replaced vide MCO.No.171/677

dated 04.05.2013, effected on 16.05.2013. It was also stated the consumption from

20.07.2011 was shown as ‘Nil’ in the bills issued for the period 20.07.2011 to

20.05.2013. Accordingly, the average on the basis of consumption during previous 6

39

month period (from 20.01.2011 to 20.07.2011) was charged to the consumer for the

period of 20.07.2011 to 16.05.2011 (date of replacement of defective meter). The

Consumption data for the last 3 years was also supplied as desired by the Forum.

4. The complaint was treated as formal complaint and registered as Comp.No.477,

on 25.10.2013.

5. The first hearing fixed for 07.11.2013 was not attended by the applicant. The

SDO did not come but deputed his ARA to make submissions in the case. The SDO

was directed to get the position of occupancy enquired from the neighbours to check the

statement made by the complainant. The Forum also decided that complainant he

asked to submit proof/ supporting evidence or affidavit that the house remained un-

occupied during the period under reference.

6. Thereafter hearings were conducted on 13.12.2013, 15.01.2014, 05.03.2014,

26.04.2014, 20.04.2014, 13.05.2014, 05.06.2014 and 30.07.2014. Despite repeated

written notices/ telephone calls, the complainant did not attend any of the hearings

though SDO was present in most of the hearings.

On the basis of subsequent written submissions made by the SDO, the

Forum observed that as per direction of the Forum, Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, JE-I was

deputed by the SDO to enquire from the neighbour with regard to occupancy of the

premises. As per report submitted by official, the house was on rent. For only 3-4

months the house remained vacant after shifting of old occupant (Tenant). The

complainant however did not submit any evidence/affidavit in support of the submissions

made in the representation despite repeated reminders by Forum.

The Forum also noted that the amount of the bill was paid in two

instalments of Rs. 40,000/- vide R.No.41675281 dated 15.10.2013 and Rs.33,341/- vide

R.No.41690735 dated 11.11.2013.

7. The complaint was initiated on 25.10.2013. The case could not he disposed off

within the specified period. The period of limitation was got extended from time to time

by one member as the quorum to announce the decision was not complete. The last

extension was allowed on 05.06.2014 upto 05.08.2014.

40

8. As the complainant does not seem to pursue his case despite number of

opportunities afforded by the Forum and also that the consumer has made payment

for the disputed bill, the Forum see no merit in pursuing the case further and dismiss the

complaint.











1.



41




Complaint No. - 540


In the matter of Dr. Mangla Dogra, H.No. 8, Sector-19A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Dr. Mangla Dogra, resident of H. No. 8, Sector-19A, Chandigarh vide letter dated

13.01.2014 represented that the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT,

Chandigarh has raised an amount of Rs.5,10,255/- in pursuance of ECR dated

27.11.2013. The Final Assessment Notice included the assessment on account of

meter declared slow and charging of Rs.8529/- on this account besides charging

for commercial activity (Rs.2,54,076/-) and Rs.2,21,760/- towards fixed charges @

Rs.70/- per KW. On the issue of charging for the meter declared slow, the

complainant stated that the department never did any inspection/testing of the

meter as per Regulations 7.4 of the Supply Code Regulations, 2010 and as such,

the amount charged is not justified. On the issue of domestic electricity connection

being used for commercial purposes i.e. Nursing Home and charging of

Rs.2,54,076/- as per Regulations 8.1 (6) of Supply Code, 2010, it was submitted

by the complainant that earlier the category of electricity connection at their

premises was being treated as DMC on account of running of commercial activity

(Nursing Home), the tariff of which is at par with NRS tariff. The Electricity

Department of their own changed the category from DMC to DS and thereafter

inspected the premises and levied the charges on this account. Taking a shelter of

Clause 6.1.2 of Supply Code 2010 that in case of non-sanction of new category,

the licensee shall get it converted to appropriate category after completing of

42

necessary formalities. A reference has also been given on the following orders of

CGRF :

“ a) Order dated 28.12.11 in the matter of Sham Singh Vs. Executive Engineer,

Electricity ‘OP’ Divn. No.2.

b) Order dated 20.07.12 in the matter of Holiday Home Society, Indra Holiday Home, Sec.24B, Chandigarh UT Vs Executive Engineer, Electricity ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, SDO Electricity ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1, UT Chandigarh.

c) Order dated 17.04.13 in the matter of Sh. Tarlochan Singh, Sec.42, Chandigarh UT Vs Executive Engineer, Electricity ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, SDO Electricity ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9, UT Chandigarh.”

It was stated in the representation that the CGRF had already directed the licensee

to convert the DMC consumers to NRS category. The consumer also enclosed the

Chandigarh Administration order dated 27.11.2009 converting the premises from

residential side to Nursing Home. The consumer prayed that electricity supply

charges at the tariff relevant category of actual use i.e. NRS shall be charged by

the Electricity Department. On the issue of charging of fixed charges @ Rs.70/-

per KW from 23.05.12 to 27.11.13 amounting to Rs.2,21,760/-, the consumer

objected that penalty imposed is not justified in view of the objection raised against

the point No.2. It was also stated that amount worked out for fixed charges is not

as per Regulation 10.3(c) (iii) of Supply Code. The consumer also showed

willingness to regularise the DMC/DS connection tariff to NRS connection.

2. Before the complaint was formally registered, the comments on the representation

of the consumer were called upon from the Nodal Officer - Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 14.01.14 alongwith past

consumption data.

3. In response to Forum’s letter, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3,

UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 30.01.14 submitted that the connection of the

complainant was checked vide ECR No. 20/503 dated 27.11.13 by the

Enforcement Wing of the Electricity Department. During checking the meter was

found to be running slow by 8.83%. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.8529/- was

charged as per Regulation No.7.5 of the Supply Code for the period 23.8.13 to

27.11.13. This was also pointed out in the ECR that the domestic connection was

being used for commercial purpose i.e. Nursing Home. The amount of

43

Rs.2,54,076/- was correctly charged as per Supply Code 2013 which provides that

in case of use of supply for the category of which higher tariff is applicable twice

the difference of applicable tariff and the tariff charged already recovered is to be

charged to the consumer. With regard to charging of DMC tariff, the SDO

submitted that in the present notified tariff by Hon’ble JERC, there is no such

category. He also submitted that the consumer was requested through notice

printed on the bill issued on 21.10.12 to regulate the DMC connection to originally

sanctioned connection to avoid penalty but the complainant did not bother to get

his electricity connection converted to NRS. During the checking the connected

load was found in excess for which the penalty was charged as per Regulation

No.7.7 (i) (ii) of the Supply Code Regulation 2010 amounting to Rs.1250/-. For the

commercial tariff, the fixed charges @ Rs.70/- per KW are also applicable which

have been charged from 23.5.12 to 27.11.13 amounting to Rs.2,46,400/- as per

Tariff Order dated 07.05.12 i.e. twice the financial loss to the Electricity

Department. He further submitted that the total amount of Rs.5,10,255/- charged

to the consumer as per checking by the Enforcement Wing is correct and as per

applicable instructions. He also supplied the consumption data of the consumer for

the past 3 years.

4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.540 on 23.06.14. The

hearing of the case was conducted on 30.07.14 when the SDO as well as

representative of the consumer were present.

5. On the basis of the documents placed before the Forum and the position of the

case emerged as under :-

i) Since 1999, the Electricity Department was changing the category of domestic

connections to domestic Misuse Commercial (DMC) whenever it was found that

the consumer was undertaking the commercial activity from his residence. The

tariff charged for DMC category was same as applicable for commercial

consumers. However, the JERC while notifying the various categories of

consumers and the applicable tariff did not include any such category of DMC

(domestic misuse commercial). This fact came to the notice of CGRF in the

year 2011 and after going deep into the matter, the Forum in the order dated

27.7.12 of Holiday Home Society registered in complaint No.290 ruled out that

44

the department of Electricity has not been empowered to declare any connection

use for commercial purpose and already paying the NRS tariff under DMC

category. It was directed that till such time, the DMC consumers is converted to

NRS category, the consumer be considered at par with the NRS category.

Further, the Forum while disposing off the complaint, in the matter of Sh. Sham

Singh Vs. EE, Electy Divn. No.2 vide order dated 28.12.11 specifically

mentioned that there is no DMC category and directed the licensee through

operative part of the order as under :-

“All such, DMC electricity consumers of UT who are paying electricity charges as per tariff applicable for commercial/NRS category be also advised to get necessary formalities completed for conversion of their DMC connection to commercial category to avoid any scope of ambiguity and misinterpretation of the provisions and consequent harassment to the consumers. The compliance of this order be made within four months of the receipt of this order.”

(ii) Similar directions were given by the Forum in the matter of Sh. Tarlochan Singh

(comp No.401) in the order dated 17.4.13 that till such time, the DMC

consumers is converted to NRS category, the consumer be considered at par

with NRS category.

As per the documents submitted by the licensee, the Forum observed that the

licensee got printed out the following message on the bills of all DMC/IMC

consumers :-

“Regularize your DMC/IMC connection to your earlier originally sanctioned connection to avoid heavy penalty as per rules notified by JERC/Electricity Act – 2003”

(iii) The Forum also noted that the Supply Code under Regulation-6 under Sub-

Regulation (7) of Main Regulation 6 provides :-

“Where a consumer has been classified and billed under a particular category and subsequently, it is observed that the previous classification is not correct, the Licensee may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills accordingly.”

(iv) The Hon’ble JERC while notifiying the tariff for the FY 2013-14 under Para 16 of

the terms and conditions of LT tariff at N.P-189 provide -

“Usage of electricity for other purpose than authorized :

If either more than one room or only one room having monthly consumption exceeding 150 KWH for consecutive three months are detected in the domestic premises being used for mixed purposes having

45

DS-II connection or any other premises which is used for a purpose other than for which it was authorized and the tariff applicable for which is higher, it shall be considered under unauthorized use of electricity and shall be dealt as per JERC Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2010 and such connection shall further be billed on appropriate higher tariff category until a separate connection of appropriate tariff is taken for that portion.”

6. On perusal of above orders/regulations, the Forum observed that the licensee

through newspapers as well as through messages on their electricity bills, asked

the DMC consumers for getting their connections regularised by filing the

application alongwith requisite documents to the concerned Sub divn. As per

documents placed before the Forum, it appears that the complainant did not

approach the Sub division for converting the DS connection to NRS connection

after the licensee reverted the DMC tariff (which was equal to NRS tariff) to

domestic tariff.

7. The Forum after going through the sub regulation 7 of main regulation 6 of the

Supply Code and the provisions in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14 as

reproduced above concludes that the licensee was permitted to charge the higher

NRS tariff from the complainant after it was clearly established that the

complainant was using the residence for Nursing Home which is covered under

NRS category as notified by the Hon’ble JERC in the orders on ARR for various

years. The Forum also observed that the complainant was granted the permission

for using the residence for Nursing Home by the Chandigarh Administration on

27.11.2009.

8. In response to specific query, the complainant during the hearing stated that they

applied for change of connection from DS to NRS in the year 2009 but the same

was refused by the office of concerned SDO stating (verbally) that the tariff being

charged under DMC category is equal to commercial tariff.

9. The CGRF in the matter of National Consumer Conference Awareness Group Vs.

CE/SE Electy. ‘OP’ Circle vide order dated 27.07.12 directed the licensee to affect

the regularisation of all the DMC consumers to NRS category without reverting

them to original category in the light of order of Sh. Sham Singh Vs. EE, Electy.

‘OP’ divn. No.2, U.T. on the same issue. In the order dated 27.07.12, it was also

directed that for the change over period from DMC to NRS category, the

46

consumers be considered at par with the NRS consumers and necessary action

which is required to be taken by the Department to complete the paper work and

get the security deposited, if any, be completed without further delay.

10. From the Forum’s earlier orders as well as Regulation-6 sub-regulation 7(1)

Regulations 6.1 of Supply Code, it is clear that the consumer is to be classified as

NRS consumer retrospectively from the date it was changed from DMC to

domestic.

With regard to complainant’s objection to the penalty imposed/charges levied, the

Forum observed as under :-

i) Levy of charges on account of slow meter.

The complainant has relied upon the Regulation 8.1.15 of 7.5.2(ii) of the Supply

Code Regulations stating that it was the responsibility of the meter reader, to

detect the shortcomings of the meter and further the revision of the bills should

have been for previous 3 months rather than charging on the basis of previous 6

months.

In this regard, the attention is drawn towards regulation No.7.4 and 7.5 of the

Supply Code Regulations which provides for periodic testing by the licensee as

well as special checking to confirm the accuracy of the meter. As per Sub-

Regulation 7.5(ii), the action for revision of bills is to be taken only when the

consumer agrees to the report. From the final assessment of bill, as supplied by

SDO, the charges for meter being slow has been calculated for 3 months period

only from 23.8.2013 to 27.11.2013 and not for 6 months as stated by the

complainant in the representation. The Forum concludes that the charges on this

account, have been calculated correctly.

(ii) The penalty on account of change of category (from DS to NRS) –

From the final assessment bill, prepared by the SDO, the Forum observed that the

penalty has been levied twice the fixed charges in addition to difference in the bill

amount from the 23.5.12 to 27.11.13 for the units consumed for DS category and

NRS category. As concluded in para 10 above, the connection is to be treated as

47

NRS from the date it was changed from DMC to domestic i.e. 23.05.12 thus NRS

tariff is to be charged from that date and the payment already made for the bill

raised on DS tariff during this period is to be deducted. In other words, penalty on

account of mis-use, twice the financial loss caused to the department for this

period is not applicable. Only the difference of NRS and domestic tariff is to be

charged from the consumer.

(iii) The amount of Rs.1250/- charged for the excess load of 5 KW is also as per

regulations and is in order.

11. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to re-calculate the amount to be

charged treating the consumer in the NRS category from the date it was changed

from DMC to DS category as concluded in para-11 also. The directions given in the

earlier decision of the Forum conveyed vide Order dated 27.7.12 in the matter of

National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E., Elecy. ‘OP’ Circle, UT

Chandigarh, are reiterated and the licensee is directed to convert all those

connections to NRS category from the retrospective date who were changed from

DMC to DS category and have not come forward to get their connections

converted to NRS category and are still mis-using their domestic

connection/premises for commercial use. All these consumers be informed

through a notice clearly indicating that the NRS tariff is being levied on account of

misuse of their domestic connection and in no way give any right to the consumer

to claim that the connections has been converted to the commercial category

pending the mandatory approval to be obtained from various authorities/

departments for legal conversion of their premises. The compliance be reported

within 6 months of issue of this order.

12. With above, the complaint stands disposed off.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No. 0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”


48





1.


49




Complaint No. - 507


In the matter of Sh. N.K. Arora on behalf of Sh. Parkash Singh, SCO. No. 151-152, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. N.K. Arora vide letter dated 14.10.2013 stated that they are having an NRS

electricity connection at their premises i.e. second floor of SCO No. 151-152,

Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. The connection was checked by Electricity Department

on 10.07.2013 and as per the report, vide ECR No. 011/514 dated 10.07.2013,

the load to the tune of 14.896 KW was found in excess than the sanctioned

connected load. Thereafter, notice to deposit a sum of Rs.1,40,399/- was sent

by SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh on 16.7.2013 followed by

supplementary bill dated 23.7.2013. The amount mentioned in the bill was

deposited under protest on 23.7.2013 as mentioned in the complaint. The

complainant has stated that the amount recovered is not justified and prayed for

getting the same refunded from the Sub Division.


the Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh

asking him to supply para-wise reply and action taken report alongwith

consumption data for the last three years by 04.11.2013 to the Forum vide Memo.

No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/963-964 dated 14.10.2013 with a copy to the

complainant. The complainant was also directed to supply list of fittings and

appliances provided in his house.

50

3. The SDO concerned vide his letter dated 04.11.2013 stated that the checking of

the premises was carried out on 10.07.2013 by Enforcement Wing. There were

four connections in the premises. Against the applicant’s connection, un-

authorized load to the extent of 14.896 KW in excess was detected and

accordingly, a penalty of Rs.1,40,399/- was charged under Section 126 of the

Electricity Act, 2003. It has further been submitted that the proceedings under

Section-126, 127 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act are not maintainable before

the Forum.

4. The complaint was treated as formal complaint and registered vide case No. 507

and was fixed for hearing on 03.01.2014. Subsequent hearings were conducted

on 10.02.2014, 27.03.2014, 23.04.2014, 28.05.2014, 01.07.2014, 18.07.2014 and

30.07.2014. As the quorum of the Forum was not complete, the limitation period to

dispose off the complaint has been extended from time to time. The extended

limitation period is upto 30.07.2014. During the hearing on 30.07.2014, the

complainant submitted that as per Hon’ble JERC’s Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14

of the Electricity Deptt. Chandigarh Administration and subsequent amendments

by Hon’ble JERC in Supply Code in respect of detection of excess load under

Section 126 , the amount has been revised as Rs.250/- per KW of the

unauthorized load. He, therefore, requested that the amount charged earlier may

be withdrawn and SDO be directed to charge the amount as per the revised

notification of the Hon’ble Commission @ Rs.250/- per KW.

5. The Forum observed that in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14, notification by

Hon’ble JERC, only Domestic Supply Category consumers have been exempted

for treating them under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in case, the load in

excess of the sanctioned load is found at the premises of the consumer. However,

subsequently through amendments notified on 7.8.2013 vide No. JERC-11/2010,

the Hon’ble Commission has considered all the LT consumers (including domestic

consumers) for not treating as Un-authorised Use of Electricity under Section 126,

if connected load is found to be at variance from the sanctioned/contracted load,

as a result of increase of load.

6. The Forum has further noted that the checking was done on 10.07.2013, whereas

the amendments in Supply Code were notified subsequently on 07.08.2013, as

51

such, the amendments issued vide Notification No. JERC-11/2010, are not

applicable to the complainant.

7. The Chandigarh Administration, Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) through

Notification dated 11th June, 2013 vide Notification No. G1-2013/01 has notified as

under :-

“No. G1-2013/1. – In supersession to previous notification issued, vide No. G1/2011/02, dated 10th August, 2011 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) to Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with notification dated 22nd June, 2004 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh hereby designate the following officers as the “Appellate Authority” for the purposes of Section 127 of the Electricity, Act, 2003 :-

Sr. No.

Category of Consumers Appellate Authority

1. (a)

(b)

Domestic, Agriculture Supply, Commercial/NRS Supply and other services (Upto 500 KW) of sanctioned load). Small Power Supply (Industrial)

Sub-Divisional Magistrate (within his jurisdiction)

8. From above, it is clear that the Appellate Authority in the present case is Sub-

Divisional Magistrate. The Forum has no jurisdiction to take up the case where

notices has been served under Section 126 of the Act. The complainant may

approach the Appellate Authority as notified by Chandigarh Administration,

Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) for redressal of his grievance.







11.

(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF


52




Complaint No. - 518


In the matter of Sh. Sunil Sehgal on behalf of M/s Alka Chemicals, Site No.1056, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. A representation dated 06.12.2013 was received from Sh. Sunil Sehgal on behalf

of M/s Alka Chemicals, Site No.1056, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh

regarding receipt of bill on 22.11.2013 with sundry charges of Rs.40,292/- without

giving any details of the same.

2. Before the representation was registered as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer

Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh was called upon to

comment upon the representation and also to supply the consumption data for the

last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 09.01.2014.

3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 09.01.2014, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’

Sub-Divn. No. 5, UT, Chandigarh submitted that the electric connection installed at

the premises was checked by Enforcement Wing on 06.09.2011 and the electric

meter was found running slow by 4.86%. The connected load was

also found to be 6.539 against sanctioned load of 3.2 KW thus, the unauthorized

use of load of 3.339 KW was found running at the time of checking. The

department charged an amount of Rs.5394/- against short assessment and did not

levy any charges for unauthorized use of load being single phase electric meter

and not covered under rules. Subsequently, the audit section framed a Half Margin

based on the instructions of Supply Code Regulations, 2010 issued by Hon’ble

53

JERC and raised an amount of Rs.40,292/- towards the short assessment as per

the provisions in the Supply Code Regulations. The consumption data of the

consumer from the date of checking was also supplied.

4. The representation of Sh. Sunil Sehgal on behalf of M/s Alka Chemicals, Site

No.1056, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was treated as formal complaint

No. 518 on 28.04.2014 and was fixed for consideration by the Forum on

15.05.2014. Subsequently, the hearing of the case was conducted on 09.06.14,

11.06.14, 24.06.14 and 30.07.14. All the hearings were attended by the

complainant. The SDO concerned only attended the hearing on 09.06.14 and on

other dates of hearing, the RA of the Sub Division was deputed. The SDO

concerned through subsequent submissions dated 24.04.14 submitted that the

present case is covered under Unauthorized Use of Electricity as per Section 126

of the Electricity Act, 2003 and instruction No. 10.3 of the Supply Code

Regulations, 2010 and hence, the same is not maintainable before the Forum.

It was further submitted that the remedy for filing appeal is however available

under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as per the Notification issued by

Chandigarh Administration on 11.07.13 and the Appellate Authority is the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate. The procedure and condition for filing the appeal have been

specified in the Joint Electricity Regulation Commission for Goa & UT (procedure

for filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority) Regulations, 2013, available on

web site of JERC notified by the Hon’ble JERC on 29.04.2013.

5. On the facts of the case, it has been noted that the complainant has been charged

for the Unauthorized Usages of Electricity as per provisions made in the Supply

Code Regulations, 2010 issued by Hon’ble JERC. The Forum concludes that the

charging is in order as the same is as per the Regulations.

6. With above, the complaint is treated as disposed off.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the

Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the

Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya

Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-

122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-


order.”


54





8.


55




Complaint No. - 527


In the matter of Smt. Adarsh, H. No.1, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Adarsh, resident of H. No.1, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh made a complaint

(received on 07.02.2014) about charging an amount of Rs.22,296/- for the period

meter remained defective, taking average of consumption for the summer period in

which A.C. was being used.


the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh for supplying

para-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last three years and action

taken report by 21.02.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-


complainant was also directed to supply list of fittings and appliances provided in

his house.

3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh submitted his reply on

21.02.2014 stating that the amount of Rs. 26002/- was charged on the basis of

average for the period 28.10.2012 to 24.07.2013 @ 646 Units Per Month (on the

basis of previous 6 months consumption). He further conveyed that the meter was

replaced vide MCO No. 22/683 dated 05.06.2013, affected on 24.07.2013. He also

supplied the consumption data for the complainant.

4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal complaint on

04.06.2014 and registered vide Complaint No. 527.

56

5. First hearing was held on 17.06.2014 followed by another hearing on 07.07.2014.

During these hearings, both the parties were present. The complainant agreed for

charging the average but insisted that the period for calculating the average should

include both the summer and winter period.

6. During hearing on 07.07.2014, it was observed by the Forum that the limitation of

the period to announce the decision was expiring on 19.07.2014. As the quorum of

the Forum was not complete, the due date for final orders was extended by three

weeks i.e. upto 09.08.2014 while adjourning the case for next date of hearing as

31.07.2014.

7. The complainant and respondent were present on 31.07.2014. The complainant

reiterated her arguments for charging the average on the basis of one year.

8. The Forum found merit in the submissions made by the complainant as the period

for which charging is to be done, includes winter as well as summer period.

Moreover, it was also brought to the notice that the period for calculating the

average has been enhanced from six months to one year by the Hon’ble JERC in

the Supply Code, through Notification dated 07.08.2013.

9. In view of above, the Forum directs the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT,

Chandigarh to re-work out the charges to be levied for the period in question on the

basis of previous one year consumption. The complainant conveyed her consent

to the above.


With above directions, the complaint is treated as disposed.






11.



57




Complaint No. - 521


In the matter of Sh. John Kumar, H. No.517/2, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. John Kumar, resident of H. No. 517/2, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh vide letter

dated 27.03.2014 stated that he has a Domestic Supply Connection at his

residence. The reading of the electronic meter installed at his house jumped

during the month of September- November, 2013 and recorded a

consumption of 4843 units and a bill amounting to Rs.20,579/- was served to

him. He further stated that his bill for two months in the past one year has

been ranging from Rs.242/- to Rs.2521/-. He requested to get the bill for the

month of September, 2013 to November, 2013 revised on the basis of

average of the bill for the last one year. Through subsequent application

dated 28.03.2014, the applicant submitted that he has received a bill for the

period 18th November, 2013 to 18th January, 2014 on average basis instead of

actual consumption when the meter has already been replaced. He requested

for issuance of bill on actual consumption as recorded by the meter.

2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent

to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh asking him

to supply para-wise reply and action taken report alongwith consumption data

for the last three years by 17.04.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No.

CGRF/Comp-Misc/2014/252-253 dated 31.03.2014 with a copy to the

58

complainant. The complainant was also directed to supply proof of ownership

and copies of correspondence made with SDO concerned.

3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh through his

submissions dated 22.04.2014 stated that the working of the meter was checked

on 16.01.2014 as per SJO No. 26/708 dated 03.01.2014 on the request by

consumer and was found to be slow by 6%. He also supplied the consumption

data for the last three years and pointed out that the consumption in the past has

been erratic. He also stated that a MCO was issued and the meter was replaced

with a new meter on 13.02.2014. It was also pointed out that in case the account

of the consumer is overhauled from the period 18.11.2011 to date of MCO i.e.

13.022014 on the basis of consumption during the period 18.07.2010 to

18.09.2011 then additional amount will become chargeable and accordingly

prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The representation of the consumer was treated as formal complaint No.521 on

07.05.2014 and first hearing was fixed for 19.05.2014 before the Forum.

5. The hearing on 19.05.2014 was attended by both the parties. From the

consumption data, it was observed that the consumption pattern was inconsistent

in the past with recording of as low as 04 units for the period 18.01.2012 to

18.03.2012 against maximum consumption of 1532 unit during the period

18.05.2011 to 18.07.2011. After deliberations, it was agreed to overhaul the

account for past period whereafter there was sharp defective to 263 units, on the

basis of consumption to be recorded by the new meter installed on 13.02.2014.

6. As the limitation period was expiring on 21.06.2014 and the quorum of the Forum

was not complete, it was decided to extend the limitation period by six weeks i.e.

upto 02.08.2014.

7. On subsequent hearing on 31.07.2014 when both the parties were present, the

Forum decided to overhaul the account from 18.09.2011 and directed the SDO to

overhaul the account of the consumer for the period 18.09.2011 to date of MCO

i.e. 13.02.2014 on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter for one

year as the period to be overhauled was more than one year. The consumer

requested that while overhauling, the payment already made by him, may be

taken care of.

59

8. SDO to report compliance by April, 2015 after issuance of revised overhauled bill.












10.



60




Complaint No. - 478


In the matter of Smt. Parveen on behalf of Sh. Ajij Ahmad, H. No.6637-B, Sector 56, Ambedkar Colony, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

2. Smt. Parveen, resident of H. No.6637-B, Sector 56, Ambedkar Colony,

Chandigarh made a complaint on 13.08.2013 about electricity meter running fast

and also that the Sub Division staff is not attending to her grievances.


the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh for supplying

para-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last five years and action taken

report by 26.08.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/731-

732 dated 14.08.2013 with a copy to the complainant.

4. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh through written

submission on 23.08.2013 supplied consumption pattern of last 5 years alongwith

payment made by the consumer. He also pointed out that except for the billing

period April to June (every year) which is peak summer, the consumption pattern is

stable. The allegations of the consumer for not attending by the Sub Division staff

were also denied.

5. The representation of Smt. Parveen was treated as formal complaint No.478 and

was fixed for hearing by the Forum on 07.11.2013. Subsequent hearings were

conducted on 20.12.2013, 23.01.2014, 11.02.2014, 24.03.2014 and 20.05.2014.

61

6. During these hearings, the consumption pattern of the consumer was analysed. In

between, in view of consumer’s complaint that the meter is running fast, the Forum

got installed a check meter vide SJO No. 710/74 dated 08.11.2013 and it was

noted that the consumption of check meter was exactly same as that of existing

meter. This also established the correct working of the meter. The consumer

during these hearings was also made aware of this fact and that the consumption

recorded was in order. However, on consumer’s instance, the meter was got

changed.

7. As the quorum of the Forum was not complete, the limitation period was being

extended from time to time. The last extension was considered during hearing on

25.05.2014 for ten weeks i.e. upto 01.08.2014.

8. The case was listed for final hearing on 31.07.2014 when the complainant did not

appear. The SDO ‘op’ intimated that the consumer got convinced that the bills

issued by the Sub division were in order. He also conveyed that the consumer had

made payment for previous bills, cleared the defaulting amount and was making

regular payments for the future bills.

9. Since the consumer has cleared previous bills, the accuracy of meter got

established through check meter, the Forum sees no merit in the complaint and

dismiss the same.











10.



62




Complaint No. - 503


In the matter of Sh. Sushil Gupta, H. No.26, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. Sushil Gupta H. No.26, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh through his email dated

June 27, 2013 stated that he vacated the H. No. 3959, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh

and requested the SDO for final bill as well as refund of security. He stated that

excess amount was shown while preparing the final bill.

2. Before this representation was treated as a formal complaint, the Addl.

Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh was asked to

examine and submit issue-wise comments/action taken report on the

representation alongwith consumption data for the last two years by 11.7.2013 to

the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/615-616 dated 02.07.2013

with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was also requested to supply

copy of representation duly signed and the correspondence made with the SDO.

3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated

27.6.2013 on receipt of Forum’s letter referred to in para-2 above, refunded the

security amounting to Rs.560/- to the consumer through cheque and also

transferred an amount of Rs.113/- on account of different final bill (of his previous

consumption) to his new electricity account.

63

4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal Complaint No. 503

and fixed for hearing before the Forum on 26.12.2013.

5. The complainant Sh. Sushil Gupta in response to the notice of hearing vide his

letter dated 16.12.2013 confirmed that the security has been refunded and the

amount has been adjusted and now he has no grievances.

6. Though the grievance of the consumer was redressed and he confirmed in writing

that he had no further grievance, the case could not be disposed off due to non-

completion of quorum of the Forum and was adjourned for further date.

7. The Forum during hearing on 31.07.2014 considered the case and it was noted

that the grievances of the complainant have already been taken care.

Accordingly, the Forum decides to close the case.













64




Complaint No. - 517


In the matter of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of Maloya East, Near Saini Hardware Shop, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of Maloya East, Near Saini Hardware Shop,

Chandigarh through his letter dated 14.01.2014 stated that he has been receiving

wrongly prepared high consumption bills and further the arrear charged are wrong.

He also requested for waiving off amount of Additional ACD charged in the bill.


the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh asking him to

supply para-wise reply and action taken report alongwith consumption data for the

last three years by 27.04.2014 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-


complainant was also directed to supply list of electrical fittings and appliances in

the premises, proof of ownership and copies of correspondence made with SDO

concerned.

3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated

27.01.2014 informed that the consumer is not making payment of electricity dues

after May, 2013. The notice for disconnection was pasted on the premises. The

consumer did not make the payment of electricity dues and supply was

65

disconnected. The consumption data for the last three years was also supplied

alongwith letter.

4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal complaint No. 517

and fixed for consideration by the Forum on 19.02.2014.

5. The hearing on 19.02.2014 was attended by both the parties. The consumption

pattern was seen. On the next date of hearing on 09.04.2014, the complainant did

not attend whereas the SDO deputed his ARA Sh. Narinder Kumar. On the

subsequent date of hearing on 22.05.2014, also the complainant did not come.

The SDO concerned through telephonic message conveyed that the complainant

has deputed the total amount which was raised by the department against him.

The SDO concerned was directed to submit the overhauling account of the

consumer on the next date of hearing fixed for 26.6.2014. The hearing of the

Forum on 26.06.2014 was not attended by both the parties and the case was

adjourned for 06.08.2014.

6. The period of limitation to announce the award from the date of institution i.e.

13.02.2014, was extended from time to time and the last extension was allowed on

26.06.2014 upto 08.08.2014.

7. Both the complainant and the respondent SDI were present before the Forum on

06.08.2014. The SDO concerned informed that the applicant sought new electric

connection without clearing his defaulting amount of Rs.58,482/-. The applicant

was called and was asked to clear the defaulting amount as the bill was being

issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter. He also informed that the

consumer cleared the defaulting amount and the account was overhauled as

desired by the Forum on the previous hearings. He also supplied a copy of his

written submissions made on 23.05.2014 wherein it was stated that a credit of

Rs.7180/- is standing against the account closed permanently in favour of the

complainant. It was also confirmed that the same has been allowed to the

complainant.

8. The complainant conveyed his satisfaction to the overhauling done by the Sub-

Division as the complainant has cleared the pending payment and has no

complaint about billing against the Sub-Division, the complaint is treated as

disposed.

66











11.



67




Complaint No. - 543


In the matter of Sh. Ashok Kumar Nagpal, Booth No.48, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. Ashok Kumar Nagpal, occupant of Booth No.48, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh

made a complaint on 21.02.2014 about charging an amount of Rs.45,165/- in

their bill issued during December, 2014 for the period 08.05.2011 to 08.04.2013

meter remained defective. It was stated that the average charged on the basis of

future consumption is on higher side.


the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh asking him to

supply para-wise reply and action taken report on the representation of the

consumer alongwith consumption data for the last three years by 21.02.2014 to

the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2014/159-160 dated 25.02.2014

with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was also directed to supply

proof of ownership, copy of correspondence made with SDO and list of electrical

fittings and appliances installed in his house.

3. The XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 19.03.2014

forwarded the reply dated 10.03.2014 of SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3 stating

that the amount of Rs. 45,165/- was charged on the basis of average for the period

05/2011 to 04/2013 @ 885 Units Per Month (on the basis of new meter

consumption). The meter was replaced vide MCO No. 49/599 dated 07.03.2013

68

affected on 08.04.2013. He also supplied the consumption data for the

complainant.

4. The representation of the complainant was treated as formal complaint on

26.06.2014 and registered vide Complaint No. 543.

5. First hearing was held on 07.07.2014. Both the parties were present. The

consumption data as supplied by SDO was seen. It was observed that the meter

remained defective w.e.f. 05/2011 and bill was being issued on average

consumption. The complainant also pointed out that he had deposited bill

challenging fee of Rs.250/-. It was also noted from the written submissions made

by the SDO on 24.04.2014 that the bill of the consumer issued for the month of

11/2013 to 01/2014 was wrongly prepared due to wrong reading by the Meter

Reader and same was amended by the SDO. The case was adjourned for next

date of hearing as 31.07.2014.

6. The complainant and respondent were present on 31.07.2014. The complainant

reiterated his arguments for charging the average on the basis of one year.

7. The Forum found merit in the submissions made by the complainant as the period

for which charging is to be done, includes winter as well as summer period.

Moreover, it was also brought to the notice that the period for calculating the

average has been enhanced from six months to one year by the Hon’ble JERC in

the Supply Code, through Notification dated 07.08.2013.

8. In view of above, the Forum directs the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT,

Chandigarh to re-work out the charges to be levied for the period in question on the

basis of period of one year consumption recorded by the new meter replaced on

08.04.2013. The complainant conveyed his consent to the above.


With above amicable settlement, the complaint is treated as disposed off.








69





11.


70




Complaint No. - 519


In the matter of Sh. Oliver Tyagi, & Others residents of M/s Uppal’s Marble Arch. Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Executivae Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. Oliver Tyagi, Pawan Valecha, Asha Tayal, Vijay Nayar, Amit Singh Brar, Maj.

Gen. J.S. Sighu , Neeru Saggi, all residents of Uppal Marble Arch. Manimajra,

Chandigarh through their joint petition dated 30.12.2013 submitted before the

Forum that they had purchased 3/4 bed room flats at the Uppal Marble Arch.

Manimajra, Chandigarh in the year 2009-2010, and are receiving the electricity

bills from Petals Management Services Pvt Ltd. (the sister concern of Uppal

Housing Pvt. Ltd responsible for maintenance). It has been indicated in the

petition that Petals Management Services Pvt. Ltd has one single HT Bulk

connection from the electricity department taken by the builder, for further

distribution at LT voltage. It has been stated that they are being billed at much

higher per unit rate then Domestic tariff besides demand charges. Despite their

representation and meeting with concerned XEN/SE, the tariff being charged is

HT Bulk instead of domestic. In this regard a copy of application dated

20.04.2011 addressed to S.E/(OP), UT has also been enclosed. In the petition

prayer has been made for issuance of directions to UT, Electricity department and

Uppal Housing Pvt Ltd. to either allot the individual connection to the applicants or

71

to change the category of existing load from HT Bulk to domestic till the time their

Flats get individual connections.

2. Before the petition was registered as formal complaint, parawise comments were

called from the Nodal Officer, i.e. XEN, Electy (OP) Division No.2, Chandigarh vide

Forum letter dated 21.01.2014.

3. In response to Forum’s letter to the nodal officer (XEN, Electy.(OP) Division No.2),

the concerned SDO, Electy.(OP) Sub Division No.8, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 12.02.2014 submitted that the Electricity Connection exists in the name of

M/s Uppal Marble Arch Housing Complex with sanctioned load of 1583 KW under

Bulk supply and are being billed as per tariff notified by Hon’ble JERC for the year

Financial Year- 2012-13 vide notification dated 07.05.2012. It was further

submitted that Uppal Housing Society neither approached to his office for taking an

individual connection nor the society applied for taking Electricity connection as

per Clause 3.6(18) of the Electricity Supply Regulation 2010 notified by Hon’ble

JERC. The tariff was being levied as per the category opted by the consumer at

the time of taking the Electricity Connection. With regard to prayer by the

applicants for individual connection, the SDO submitted that individual electricity

connection can be released as per regulation 3.6 (20) of the Electricity Supply

Code Regulations 2010, in case distribution is further made by licensee for which

the applicants may apply for the individual electricity connection after completing

the departmental formalities as stipulated in the Supply Code Regulations.

4. The petition of the applicants was registered as formal Complaint No.519 on

06.05.2014 and was fixed for hearing by the Forum on 20.05.2014. The Uppal

Housing Pvt. Ltd. was also requested to depute representative for the hearing as

performa respondent. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 27.05.2014,

10.06.2014, 19.06.2014, 15.07.2014 and 11.08.2014. The hearings have been

attended by the applicants, representative of M/s Uppal Marble Housing and M/s

Uppal Housing Pvt.Ltd, XEN, Electy.(OP) Divn.No.2, and SDO, Electy. (OP) Sub

Division No.8, Chandigarh.

5. It has been noted by the Forum that the main concern of the applicants is payment

of demand charges as well as levy of higher per unit tariff then the domestic supply

category for the electricity being consumed by them. The single point Bulk supply

72

connection is in the name of M/s Upppal Marble Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Petal

Management services Pvt.Ltd (the agency responsible for maintenance of the

society) is collecting electricity charges from the owners of the flats and making the

payment to the electricity department for the one single bill being issued by them.

6. The Forum noted the relevant provision made in the Electricity Supply Code

Regulations notified by Hon’ble JERC as under:-

Regulation 3.6 (B):- LT Supply to Multi-Consumer Complex including Commercial Complexes:-

(9) In case of multi consumer complexes, such as Group Housing Societies and Commercial Complexes, the new connection sought, shall preferably be provided with single meter on LT if load is below 100 KW and on HT if load is 100 KW or more. However this shall not restrict the individual owner or occupier of any premises for applying for individual connection and the licensee shall sanction such connection on LT. In case the connected/contracted load of any connection is projected to be 100 KW or more, a separate transformer of adequate capacity shall be installed at consumer’s cost. The space/room required for housing the transformer, substation, switch gears, meters and panels shall be provided by the consumer, free of cost, which is easily accessible in the licensee.

The distribution licensee shall be responsible to develop, construct,

augment and maintain the entire infrastructure required for distribution system, including 33/11 KV or 11/0.4 KV substation, at his own cost. The cost of augmentation and extension of infrastructure/distribution system shall be allowed to be recovered in ARR through tariff approved by the Commission, after prudent check. However, the consumer shall be liable to pay service connection charges i.e. cost of service connection from distribution main to the point of supply, as approved by the Commission from time to time.

Note:- The developer/builder/society/consumer includes any agency whether Government, local body or private that constructs the Multi-Consumer Complex.

(12) Connections for common facilities like lift, water pumps etc., shall be given in the name of the builder/developer/society.

Regulation 3.6 (C):-Supply to Group Users:-

(18) The Group user shall be eligible to opt supply by a distribution licensee at a single point provided that the supply shall be used for residential purpose including the loads of common amenities for the group user like pumps for pumping water supply and lighting of common area. The consumption of energy for common services shall be separately metered with meters installed by the consumer and tested and sealed by licensee and billed at highest slab of domestic tariff.

The Group user shall inform the details of every non-domestic activity

along with the connected load to the licensee at the time of seeking connection or at the time of enhancement in contract demand & non-domestic activity shall be separately metered & billed under non-domestic tariff category. The consumption of energy for common services under such case shall be billed under non-domestic tariff category.

(20) The provisions of these regulations shall not in any way affect the right

of a person residing in the housing unit sold or leased by Cooperative Group Housing Society to demand supply of electricity directly from the distribution licensee of the area on the following terms and conditions:-

73

(i) The Cooperative Group Housing society must permit any person of

the society to avail supply of electricity from the Distribution licensee directly.

(ii) The Cooperative Group Housing Society shall have no objection in respect of the following:-

------------(a) to (d)----------

(e) The licensee shall recover the charges for the electricity

consumed by such person at the approved rate applicable to the domestic category.

Regulation 6.1;- Change of category:-

(7) Where a consumer has been classified and billed under a particular

category and subsequently, it is observed that the previous classification is not correct, the Licensee may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills accordingly.

7. In addition to above, the Forum observed that the Hon’ble Commission in the Tariff

Order for Financial Year-2014-15 has notified the tariff for various categories. The

relevant portion applicable to this case are at page No.184-185 as under:-

Keeping in view of above of above judgement by the Hon’ble High Court, the Commission hereby approves separate tariff for the single point delivery – JJ Clusters/Unauthorized colonies/ Slum Dwellers. However, the Commission is of view that there is no requirement of creation of separate category all together and therefore, approves separate sub-category in the domestic category as “SPD-JJ Clusters/Unauthorized Colonies/ Slum Dwellers”.

The Commission has approved the flat tariff for this slab a

equivalent to 0-150 kWh slab of the Domestic Category as the current consumption for 15247 consumers (projected for FY 2014-15) comes out to be 19.64 MU’s annually i.e. approx. 107 units per consumer per month which is well within the range of 0-150 kWh.

Further, as the projected revenue in FY 2014-15 from these

consumers is only 4.52 Crores, the Commission is of view that recovery because of FPPCA will be negligible from these consumers and thus exempts this slab from recovery of FPPCA.

However, if the monthly consumption of a consumer exceeds

150 kwh in any month in any months, then billing for that month shall be on applicable slab of the domestic category and FPPCA shall be applicable for that month.

The approved tariff schedule specified in Section 9 of this order is summarized in table 8.2.2 below:-

Sr.No

Category/Consumption Slab

FY 2014-15 @ Approved Tariff Demand Charges (Rs./KW/Month)

Variable Charges (Rs./Kwh)

A Domestic

1. SPD-JJ Clusters/ Unauthorized

2.30

74

Colonies/ Slum Dwellers.

2. 0-150 KWh 2.30

3. 151 kWh-400 kWh 4.20

4. Above 400 kWh 4.40

H Bulk Supply 70 4.50

8. The detail tariff schedule as approved by Hon’ble JERC in the Tariff Order for

Financial year 2014-15 at NP-206/207 for Domestic Supply (DS) and Bulk Supply

(BS) at NP-213/214 is also reproduced below:-

1. DOMESTIC SUPPLY DS)

APPLICABILITY This schedule shall apply for light, fan, domestic pumping sets and household appliances in the following premises:- ---------(a) to (d)------------

e) Housing colonies and multi storied flats/buildings as defined in

Electricity Supply Code Regulations notified by the JERC. ------- (f) to (j)---------

k) Single Point Delivery – JJ Clusters/Unauthorized Colonies/Slum

Dwellers. CHARACTER OF SERVICE:-

Ac, 50 cycle, Single phase 230 volts or three phase 400 volts or 11 Kilo volts.

For loads upto 5 KW supply shall be given on single phase 230 volts and above 5 KW upto 60 KW supply shall be given on three phase 400 volts. For loads above 60 KW, supply shall be given on 11 KV and a separate transformer of adequate capacity shall be installed at consumers cost as per Electricity Supply Code Regulations notified by JERC. In case of consumers where the metering is being done on low voltage side of the transformer instead of high voltage side, the consumption should be computed by adding 3% extra on account of transformation/losses. This arrangement shall be continued for a maximum of one year within which metering shall be shifted to HT(11 KV) side of the transformers. TARIFF

Consumption range Fixed Charge Rs. Per KW per month

Energy Charge Rs./KWh.

SPD-JJ, Clusters/UnauthorizedColonies/Slum Dwellers

0.00 2.30

0-150 KWh 0.00 2.30

151 kWh-400 kWh 0.00 4.20

Above 400 kWh 0.00 4.40

Note:- SPD- JJ Clusters/Unauthorized Colonies/Slum Dwellers sub-category shall be applicable limited to maximum 150 KWh/month and FPPCA shall be exempted for this category. If the monthly consumption under this sub-category exceeds 150 Kwh in any month, then billing for that month shall be done on applicable slab of the domestic category and FPPCA shall be applicable for that month.

75

(8) BULK SUPPLY (BS)

APPLICABILITY:- This tariff schedule shall apply to general or mixed loads exceeding 10 KW to MES, Defence establishments,- Railways, Central PWD, Institutions, Hospitals, Departmental Colonies and other similar establishments where further distribution is to be done by the consumer. Above schedule shall not be applicable, if 50 % or more of the total sanctioned load is motive/manufacturing load. CHARACTER OF SERVICE AC, 50 cycles, three phase, 400 volts or 11 Kv or higher voltage at the option of the department. Loads exceeding 60 KW shall be released on HT only. TARIFF

Fixed charge

EnergyCharge

Consumption range

Rs. Per KW per month

Rs./Kwh

All units 70.00 4.50

9. After carefully going through the provisions in the Supply Code Regulation 2010

and Tariff Order for Financial Year-2014-15, with regard to DS and BS categories,

and the prayer by the applicants in the petition, the Forum infers:-

a) Applicants prayer for individual connection:- The occupants of the

Group Housing Societies have the option for having one single connection

as well as individual connection as per Supply Code Regulations (Reg.3.6

(B)(9) and Reg.3.6 (C) 20). In the present case as HT connection is

already in existence, it may not be practically feasible for some of the

occupants to opt for individual connection at this stage. For an individual

connection, all the flat owners/occupants along with connection for common

services (Total 165 Nos.) will have to apply as per provisions contained in

the Supply Code Regulation No.3.6 (C) (20). The existing system from

licensees’ point of supply upto the individual meters will be required to be

handed over to licensee for maintenance in view of provision contained in

Para 2 of Reg. 3.6 (B) (9). The Licensee may retain the existing meters

after getting them tested at lab or install new meters. All formalities as

stipulated in the Supply Code Regulations will be required to be completed

by consumer as well as by licensee.

76

(b) Alternate prayer by the applicant to change the category of the existing

load from HT Bulk to domestic:- It is noted that Bulk Supply Connection

was sought by the builder in the first instant. Subsequently, on completion

of flats, the owners/occupants started using electricity for domestic use. As

per provisions in the Hon’ble JERC Tariff Order for FY-2013-2014 and FY-

2014-15, the present use of electricity by the consumer does not fall under

BS Tariff as per ‘Applicability’ as reproduced at page-7 of this order. The

connection is now covered under DS category and not under BS category

tariff. The DS supply ‘Applicability’ as per para ‘e’ (Page 6 of this order)

includes Housing Colonies and Multi Storied flats/buildings. The Demand

charges per KW per month being levied from the applicant is not applicable

for this category of the consumer.

The Sub Regulation (7) of Regulation 6.1- Change of Category provide:-

“Where a consumer has been classified and billed under

particular category and subsequently, it is observed that the previous

classification is not correct, the Licensee may alter the classification

and suitable revise the bill accordingly”.

From above regulations, it is seen that the Licensee has been

permitted to revise the bill on observing that the previous clarification is not

correct. In the event the existing connection is classified as DS, the levy of

Demand charges goes. Thus, redressal of one of the concern of the applicants.

Further, the Electricity Supply Code Regulations allows the Licensee to assess

the amount to be charged from the consumers for the entire period during which it

is established that amount charged was not correct (on account of defective

meter or unauthorised use of Electricity etc) by overhauling the account of the

consumer for the entire period under consideration. This is also applicable when

the consumer is entitled for refund.

After it is established that the tariff applicable in present case should be

DS instead of BS, the Forum takes the applicants player for charging on slab

basis.

10. At present, the entire consumption is being charged at Rs. 4.50 P.U. (as per BS

Tariff notified for FY-2013-2014 and FY-2014-2015) whereas for the consumption

77

above, 400 unit, the tariff chargeable for DS consumers is Rs.4.40 P.U. The

benefit of lower slab tariff of Rs.2.30 per unit for first 150 units and Rs.4.20 per

unit for next 250 units also becomes applicable.

The condition specified under Regulation 3.6(c)(18) of Supply Code that

the consumption towards common services shall be separately metered and

billed at highest slab of domestic tariff is also met with as the total consumption

against this single connection is much more than 400 units per month.

The Forum has also noted that the Hon’ble JERC in Tariff Order for

Financial Year 2014-2015 has allowed Single Point Delivery (SPD) JJ clusters/

Unauthorised Colonies/slum Dwellers the benefit of lower slabs per

connection/Dweller unit.

The Hon’ble Commission Tariff Order/Regulations are silent about

allowing the benefit of lower slabs per house/flat when the society opts for a

single connection. On the other hand, the Regulations allow the individual

persons residing in the housing units to demand supply from the distribution

licensee of the area in which case the benefit of lower slabs of tariff would accrue

to all the connections of the Housing Society. In such a scenario, no Group

Housing Society may opt for one single connection.

11. On the basis of above inferences, the Forum concludes:-

(i) The category of the connection taken by M/s Uppal’s Marble Arch.

Manimajra, Chandigarh at present falls under Domestic Supply and not

under B.S.

(ii) As per provisions of Sub Regulations (7) of regulates 6.1 of Supply Code

Regulations the bill is required to be revised suitably by the licensee. The

applicants requested for change of category of connection from BS to DS

through their petition on 30.12.2013 and are therefore entitled for revision

of the bill from BS to DS category.

(iii) Allowing the benefit of lower slab per flat/ Housing unit is beyond the

perview of the Forum as this is neither covered in the Supply Code

Regulation nor in the Tariff Order. The Applicants/ M/s Uppal’s Marble

Arch. Manimajra, Chandigarh may file a petition with Hon’ble JERC in this

regard, to get the relief if they desires.

(iv) The applicants have the option to demand individual connection as per

provisions of Regulation 3.6(c)(20) in order to enjoy the benefits of lower

slab tariffs. As already mentioned above, in this scenario, all the

flat/Housing unit owners/occupants along with M/s Uppal Marble Arch

Housing Complex (for common facilities) will have to apply together

78

individually and also will be required to fulfil other conditions as stipulated

in the Supply Code Regulations.

12. In view of above, the Forum directs licensee to change the category of the

connection for BS to DS category in line with Sub Regulation (7) of Regulation 6.1

of Electricity Supply Code Regulation of Hon’ble JERC and revise the bills w.e.f.

date of first objection raised to the licensee the applicants i.e.20.04.2011.

13. The compliance to the above directions be reported to the Forum by 15.10.2014

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum

may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity

Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC

Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana),

Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-


order.”





15.



79




Complaint No. - 545


In the matter of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sood, H. No. 1217, Sector-18 C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sood, owner of H. No. 1217, Sector-18 C, Chandigarh and

resident of Shimla vide his letter dated 08.01.2014 stated that the Ground Floor of

his H. No. 1217, Sector 18C, Chandigarh is lying vacant since 02 July, 2011. He

received a bill in the month of December, 2013 with sundry charges equal to

Rs.11,540/- being the average charges on account of meter dead stop from the

period 02.07.11 to 08.03.13. He requested that the sundry charges may be

waived as no less electricity was being consumed as the premises was vacant

during the disputed period.

2. The representation was forwarded to Nodal Officer - Executive Engineer, Electy.

‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh for comments alongwith supply of consumption

data for the last three years vide letter dated 13.01.14.

3. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 30.01.14 submitted that the electricity

connection at the premises was disconnected vide PDCO dated 04.03.13 affected

on 08.03.13 due to change of name. At the time of PDCO, the meter was found

dead stop as per report by JE. The account of the consumer was overhauled and

a sum of Rs.11,540/- was charged on account of average for the period 02.07.11

to 08.03.13 @ 210 U.P.M. on the basis of previous 6 months consumption, as it

was observed that the consumption of the meter was very very less. The SDO

80

further submitted that the consumer failed to submit any evidence regarding the

premises remained locked during the disputed period. The consumption data of

the consumer for the last 3 years was also supplied by the SDO alongwith his

submissions.

4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.545 on 27.06.14. The first

hearing of the case conducted on 01.07.14 was attended by the SDO and the

complainant did not attend and sought further date of hearing on telephone after

expressing his inability to attend. The subsequent hearing conducted on 17.07.14

was attended by both the parties. The complainant reiterated for reversal of

sundry charges on account of premises being vacant/locked thereby consuming

NIL/very less consumption of electricity. The complainant stated that the premises

was occupied by Sh. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate since 2003 who vacated the

same in June, 2011. In support, he submitted an affidavit dated 10.03.14 in this

respect as well as the letter from his ex-tenant Sh. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate.

Subsequently, he also submitted photocopies of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High

Court- Directory for the year 2007-08 and 2011 indicating the details of his tenant

Sh. Yogesh Chaudhary. It was noted that the address in the year 2007 Directory

was H. No.1217 Sector 18-C, Chandigarh whereas the address of the Advocate in

the year 2011, Directory was indicated as H. No. 37, Sector 16A, Chandigarh.

5. In the next hearing conducted on 01.09.14, the SDO was present and the

complainant sought exemption from attending the proceedings expressing the

difficulty of travelling from Shimla to Chandigarh being a senior citizen. The SDO

was directed to ascertain the factual position of the occupancy of the premises

from the neighbours. The SDO confirmed that as per information gathered from

neighbours by the staff, the premises was lying vacant for the last 2-3 years.

6. The Forum while going through the consumption data observed that consumption

dropped significantly from July, 2011 onwards. The bills being prepared by the

Sub Division were showing meter status code as “Z” i.e. working of meter in order.

7. In view of the documents placed before the Forum, it is concluded that the

premises was lying vacant/locked as stated by the complainant for the period July,

2011 onwards. Thus, the charging on account of previous 6 months consumption

for this period is not chargeable.

81

8. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to reverse the sundry charges levied

on account of treating the meter as defective from July, 2011 onwards.

9. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days from receipt of this order.







12.



82




Complaint No. - 525


In the matter of Sh. Narinder Gill, H. No.46, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Narinder Gill, H. No.46, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh vide his letter dated

10.01.2014 stated that his Domestic Supply connection was checked by the

Enforcement Wing of the U.T. Electricity Department on 21.06.2013. As per the

ECR No. 15/536 and 16/536, the meter was stated to be running 26.9% slow with

the remarks about doubt of authenticity of all 4 No. M&P seals. He also stated that

the SDO has asked him to deposit the amount as assessed by the checking party.

He requested to withdraw the notice and issuance of electricity bill according to his

consumed units.

2. Before treating the representation as formal complaint, the para-wise

comments/action taken report on the representation of the consumer was called

from the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh by the

Forum vide letter dated 14.01.2014 with a copy to the complainant to supply the

details about electrical fittings and appliances and also proof of ownership.

3. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated

30.01.2014 informed that an amount of Rs.2,77,952/- has been charged to the

applicant on account of theft of energy as per commercial instruction No. 5 dated

13.04.2011. He further stated that the electricity connection was checked vide

ECR No.15/536 and 16/536 dated 21.06.2013 by AE (Enforcement ) and meter

83

was found to be slow. The M&P seals also appeared to be fake. Accordingly,

meter was subsequently sent to M&P Lab. for checking, in the presence of

consumer’s representative Sh. H.S. Gill. All the 4 No. M&P seals were found fake

and meter was also found to be slow due to fake seals. The case has been treated

as theft case and an amount of Rs.2,01,952/- as final assessment as per

Regulation No. 10.5 (3) of the Supply Code Regulation, 2010 has been charged.

4. The SDO also stated that since it is a theft case, the same is beyond the

jurisdiction of CGRF.

5. The representation was treated as formal complaint and registered vide No. 525 on

13.05.2014. The hearings of the case were held on 06.04.2014, 01.07.2014,

17.07.2014 and on 12.08.2014. Though parties attended the hearing on

04.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 17.07.2014, nobody attended the hearing on

12.08.2014.

6. From the facts of the case, the Forum observed that it is a clear case of theft and is

beyond the preview/jurisdiction of the Forum. The Forum also noted that the

Chandigarh Administration, Engineering Department (Electricity Wing) through

Notification No. 8/7/2-IH(8)-2-11/17800 dated 03.10.2011 has notified :-

“Conferred under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with

notification dated 22nd June, 2004 issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and in view of the concurrence of the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh conveyed vide letter No.

23260 Gaz.II(2), dated 21.07.2010 and all other powers enabling him in this

behalf, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to

designate the Courts of all the Additional Sessions Judges in Union Territory

of Chandigarh as Special Courts for Union Territory of Chandigarh for the

purpose of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Section 135 to

139 of Electricity, Act, 2003.”

7. From above, it is clear that the Forum has no jurisdiction to take up the case where

notices have been served under Section 135 of the Act. The complainant may

approach the Specials Courts for Union Territory of Chandigarh for redressal of his

grievance.

8. With these findings and directions, the case is treated as dismissed.

84





10.


85



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.),NOMINATED MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 520


In the matter of Sh. Harpal Singh, House.No.289, Near Banbhori Mata Mandir, PWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh .


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. A Complaint was made by Sh. Harpal Singh resident of House.No.289, Pipli Wala

Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh on 15.02.2014 that the licensee is issuing inflated

bills during the period June 2013 to February 2014. He stated that he is a Senior

Citizen and drawing pension @ Rs.1780/- per month. He stated that the bills

were issued in the range of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.20,000/- during the period referred

above.

2. Before treating the Complaint as formal, the Nodal Officer, XEN, Electy. (OP)

Division No.2,UT, Chd was called upon to submit para wise comments alongwith

consumption data for the last three years vide letter dated 19.12.2014.

3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 19.02.2014 the concerned SDO, Electy, (OP),

Sub Division No.8, UT, Chd submitted that the bills issued to the consumer were

as per consumption used by him and FPPCA charges/tariff levied to the

consumer were as per the Tariff Order issued by JERC. The consumption data

for the past three years of the consumer was also supplied vide his letter dated

20.05.2014.

4. The representation of Sh. Harpal Singh, was treated as formal Comp No.520 on

06.05.2014 and first hearing was conducted on 22.05.2014. The hearing on

86

22.05.2014 was attended by both the parties. The complainant raised the issue

of charging of ACD and FPPCA charges and other details such as reasons of ‘D’-

Code, in the bill. The issuance of MCO in the past were also called from the

SDO. SDO was also directed to install the check meter to check the behaviour

of the meter.

5. SDO vide letter dated 25.06.2014 submitted that the ACD is calculated by the

computer as per the data of the consumer. The FPPCA is calculated as per the

rates approved by the Hon’ble JERC from time to time. He also informed that the

Consumer got the load extended from 1.440 KW to 7.850 KW. With respect to

appearance of D-Code in the bill, the SDO submitted that the same appears

when the meter was found defective and the defective meter was replaced vide

MCO dated 08.03.2011, effected on 10.03.2011. Copy of SJO dated 23.05.2014

was also supplied as per which the consumer refused to install the check meter

as directed by the Forum during hearing on 22.05.2014. He recorded his refusal

on the SJO stating that he was satisfied with the working of meter and there is no

need for installation of check meter, so as to check the accuracy of the meter.

The consumption data was also supplied by the sub division along with the other

details.

6. The refusal by the complainant to get the check meter installed is not being

appreciated by the Forum as it creates doubt about the genuineness of the

consumer. The licensee has the right to check and confirm the accuracy of the

meters as per provisions contained in Sub Regulations(1) of Regulation 7.5 –

Defective meters, reproduced below:-

(1) “The Licensee shall have the right to test any meter and related apparatus if there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the meter, and the consumer shall provide the licensee necessary assistance in conducting of the test. The consumer shall also be present during the testing”.

The Forum expects the complainant to come forward to get the check meter

installed rather then waiting for the licensee to use his powers so as to clear the

doubts arising in the minds of licensee.

7. Subsequently, hearing conducted on 23.06.2014 was attended by the both

parties. The reply submit by the SDO was seen. Thereafter hearing was

conducted on 22.07.2014 and on 13.08.2014.

87

8. On the basis of the data submitted by SDO and the remarks recorded

complainant on the SJO that he is satisfied with the working of the meter, it is

clear that the complainant has no grievances about the bills issued to him for the

electricity consumed by him. His only grievances seems to be on charging of

ACD and FPPCA. These charges were being levied as per orders of Hon’ble

JERC and are in order, and no action is required to be taken by the Sub Division.

The complaint stands dismissed as no inflated charges were being recovered by

the licensee as alleged by the complainant.

9. With above findings the complaint stands disposed off.

“The Complainant, if still aggrieved, may make a representation/appeal against

this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and

UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-

V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333,

E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt

of this order.”





11.



88




Complaint No. - 501


In the matter of Sh. Gurmail Singh, H. No.89, Village–Dadu Majra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Gurmail Singh, H. No.89, Village–Dadu Majra, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 06.12.13 intimated that for the domestic connection, he was getting bill on

average basis for which he made requests to SDO concerned to issue bills on the

basis of consumption.

2. The representation received from Sh. Gurmail Singh was treated as formal

complaint No. 501 and was forwarded to the Nodal Officer/ Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh for taking further action. He was also

requested to give suitable directions to concerned SDO to attend the proceedings

of the Forum fixed for 11.12.2013 vide letter dated 09.12.13. The SDO vide his

letter dated 20.01.14 submitted that the consumer had been allowed electric

connection under domestic category only for “Mali Hut”. The meter of the

consumer was found defective and was replaced vide MCO dated 15.04.13. The

electric connection was also checked vide ECR dated 15.04.13 and it was found

that the domestic connection was being used for commercial purpose. It was

observed that after the incoming service line from LT to meter equipment (about

500 meter), the consumer extended connection from meter to Dharam Kanda by

89

underground wire and to other structure through overhead wire to supply power to

some kabaris. One DG set was also placed near the compressor motor. On

account of misuse of the connection, Provisional Assessment Report for

Rs.82,036/- + Rs.191/- was given to the consumer for which the consumer never

represented. As per directions of the Forum, a check meter was also installed to

check the accuracy of the installed meter. However, reading of check meter/main

meter could not be taken as the consumer was not using electricity from the

electric meter as stated by the SDO. Subsequently, the SDO vide letter dated

14.03.14 submitted that the display of the existing meter was found defective. The

defective meter was replaced on 08.03.14. The consumption data from

18.10.2009 to 18.12.2013 was also supplied by the SDO.

3. The case was listed before the Forum on 11.12.13, 19.12,13, 13.01.14, 19.02.14,

13.03.14, 25.03.14, 17.04.14, 13.05.14, 22.05.14, 02.06.14, 12.06.14, 30.06.14,

04.07.14, 16.07.14, 07.08.14 and 19.08.14.

4. Most of the hearings were attended by the complainant as well as the respondent.

5. On the basis of submissions (oral/written) submitted by the complainant as well as

the respondent SDO, the facts of the case emerged as under :-

9. Sh. Gurmail Singh has taken a domestic connection for “Mali Hut” in the year

2009 with a long service line of around 500 Meter. The consumer’s main

grievance in the initial complaint was receipt of bills on average basis instead of

actual reading. In between the cable from the LT to his meter was removed in the

year 2009 and which was re-laid again after he made number of requests to the

Sub Division as well as higher offices. On 19.12.12, he again noted that his

meter was removed and the supply was disconnected. On contacting the Sub

Division, he was asked to clear his pending bills. He deposited Rs.13,000/- and

requested for issuance of bills on the basis of reading so that he could deposit the

balance amount. Thereafter on 20.05.14, a bill amounting to Rs.1,49,749/- was

handed over to him on account of use of his domestic connection for commercial

purpose and extension of Unauthorized Use of load as detected by Enforcement

Wing on 15.04.2013.

10. As per the written submissions by the SDO, the electric connection of the

consumer was checked vide ECR dated 15.04.13 and the consumer was booked

90

under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as Unauthorised use of supply for

commercial purpose was found. The checking party also reported that –

a) “Meter checked and found Dead Stop.

b) The electric connection is used for commercial purposes (Kabari shops 4 Nos.)

but the supply is mis-used for commercial purpose under Section 126 of Act

2003 for unauthorized electric supply for other purpose.

c) There is one number Dharam Kanda is used at site.

d) One No. Compressor machine running through generator at the time of

checking”.

6. The consumer was issued Provisional Assessment Notice dated 15.04.13 under

Regulation, 10.3 of the Supply Code Regulation for Rs.82,036/- clearly stating

that the domestic connection was being used for commercial purpose and 4 Nos.

Kabari shops were running. The Provisional Assessment Notice could not be

delivered by hand as nobody was at the premises to receive and the same was

sent by post on 29.04.13. The defective meter was replaced immediately on

16.04.2013.

7. During hearings the complainant denied receipt of the Provisional Assessment

Notice and stated that he was handed over the same on 19.12.13. The

complainant during hearing on 19.02.14, raised the objection regarding the ECR

and the load/appliance shown by the department. He stated that the kabaris were

using electricity for lighting purpose through the generator and also showed receipt

of petrol for use by the generator.

8. On perusal of the ECR, it has been noted that the checking was got done as per

written requests of the consumer. The connected load was found to be 2.760 KW

against sanctioned load of 0.486 KW thereby declaring extra load as 2.280 KW.

The load shown in the ECR mainly consisted of 1.5 KW rating welding set, it was

clearly mentioned in the ECR that the domestic connection was being used for

commercial purpose as supply was extended to 4 No. Kabaris.

9. From the above submissions made by the complainant, the concerned SDO and

the provisions in the Supply Code Regulations, the position emerged as under :-

12. That in the Tariff Order for the FY 2013-14, issued and effective from 15.04.2013

announced by Hon’ble JERC, Domestic Supply Category consumers have been

91

exempted for treating them under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in case,

the load in excess of the sanctioned load is found at the premises of the consumer.

13. The checking was done on 15.04.2013, the date on which the Hon’ble JERC

through tariff order for Financial Year-2013-14 exempted DS consumer for treating

under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on detection of excess load.

10. So far as the overhauling of account for the period the bill was issued on average

basis either on account of meter being defective or on locked or inconsistent

reading, the SDO concerned submitted that the account of consumer has been

overhauled on the basis of current consumption charges for the period 18.04.13 to

18.02.14 to which the consumer expressed his satisfaction.

11. On the basis of above facts, the Forum concludes that treating the present case

under section 126 of Act is not in order. The action is to be taken as per

instructions of the Hon’ble Commission as continued in the Tariff order for FY

2013-14 issued on 15.04.2013. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer-Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT Chandigarh is directed to take further action in the

matter and also to get the account overhauled on the basis of charging for the

period the bill was issued on average basis. The surcharge amount should also be

adjusted.


With above directions, the complaint is treated as disposed off.








92




Complaint No. - 511


In the matter of Sh. Hans Raj Sharma on behalf of Sh. Kaka Ram, House.No.416/1, Sector-40/A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. A complaint was made by Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, resident of House.No.416/1,

Sector-40/A, Chandigarh on 07.10.2013 that his electricity meter was found

removed on 12.09.2013. He brought to this notice of SDO concerned and

also lodged the complaint with the Police Station, Sector-39, Chandigarh. He

requested the Forum for restoration of his electric supply.

2. Before this complaint was treated as formal complaint the parawise comments

were called from XEN, Electricity (OP) Division No.4, Chandigarh along with

consumption data vide Forum letter dated 09.10.2013. The complainant was

also asked to supply the Proof of ownership/GPA or valid tenancy in respect

of premises.

3. In response to letter of Forum referred to any Para-2, the SDO, Electy.(OP)

Sub Division No.10, Chandigarh vide his reply dated 22.10.2013 informed that

the complainant (Sh. Hans Raj Sharma) is not the consumer of the Electricity

Department. The electric supply in the premises was got disconnected vide

his application dated 10.09.2013 by Sh. Kaka Ram, the person is in whose

name the electricity connection was released. The PDCO was affected and

93

the meter was removed. The SDO also stated that Sh. Hans Raj Sharma,

(the complainant) was told this fact when he visited the Sub Division. It was

also made clear to him that the department cannot re-install the meter unless

the request from the consumer is received. SDO also stated that Sh. Hans

Raj Sharma, was also informed about the removal of meter vide his office

Endst. Dated 04.10.2013. The consumption pattern of three years was also

supplied along with the request regarding removal of electricity meter dated

10.09.2013 by the owner, and the PDCO dated 10.09.2013.

4. The representation of Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, was registered as formal

Complaint.No.511, and was fixed for consideration/hearing by the Forum on

08.01.14.

5. The Consumer did not turn up on 08.01.2014. Thereafter number of

opportunities were afforded to the consumer to attend the hearing of the

Forum on 26.02.2014, 29.04.2014, 30.05.2014, 08.07.2014 and 20.08.2014,

but the consumer did not turn up. The first notice regarding hearing on

08.01.2014, which was sent to the complainant by Speed-post, was returned

by the post office on 21.12.2013 with the remarks that the addressee had ‘left’.

6. In between SDO vide his letter dated 15.01.2014 submitted that the owner of

the house applied for reconnection of the Electric supply of said premises and

prayed for dismissed of the case by the Forum in view of the request of re-

connection. The subsequent notice of hearing sent through speed-Mail were

also returned back with the same remarks that the consumer had left the

place.

7. During hearing on 20.08.2014, the SDO concerned informed that the

connection has been restored, long back when the differences between tenant

and the owner were resolved and the tenant thereafter vacated the premises

and shifted to some other premises.

8. In view of the above position, Forum do not see any merit in the

representation/complaint by the complainant and dismiss the same.

94




Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,

Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:

09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month

from the date of receipt of this order.”

9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent

to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for

compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after

having it properly numbered and indexed.

12.



95




Complaint No. - 524


In the matter of Smt. Savitri Sihag, House.No.933, Sector-7/B, Chandigarh .


Versus

1. Additional Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. An application was received from Sh. O.P. Sihag on behalf of Mrs. Savitri Sihag,

resident of House.No.933, Sector-7/B, Chandigarh on 21.01.2014 stating that he

received a notice from AEE, Electy.(OP) Sub Division No.2, Sector-10,

Chandigarh to pay Rs. 18142/- vide No.5762, dated 17.12.2013 on account of

charging of average for the period his meter remained defective (05.10.2012 to

20.10.2013). He stated that the average and the period taken for charging was

not correct as the meter was found to be defective only on 10.09.2013 and

intimation of the same was given to SDO immediately for replacement of the

meter.

2. Before the application was taken as formal complaint, para wise comments of

Addl. S.E., Electy.(OP), Division No.1, were called vide letter dated 22.01.2014

alongwith consumption data for last three years.

3. In response to Forum later, SDO, Electy. (OP) Sub Divn. No.2, informed that the

amount of Rs.18,142/- has been charged by Internal Audit of the Sub division on

account of average for the period 05.10.2012 to 20.10.2013 (13 months) on the

basis of previous consumption during the period 05.10.2011 to 05.10.2012.

Further, that the dead stop meter was replaced vide MCO.No. 32/481, dated

27.09.2013 effected on 28.10.2013. The consumption data for the last three

years was also supplied.

96

4. The representation was treated as formal complaint on 15.05.2014 and registered

as Complaint no.524.

5. The hearing of the case was conducted on 03.06.2014, 13.06.2014 and

21.08.2014. During hearing on 03.06.2014 and 13.06.2014, the consumption

data was analysed. It was noted that for the period 05.02.2011 to 05.08.2013,

the bill was issued on the basis of reading recorded by meter with meter status

code ‘Z’ and only for the period 05.08.2013 to 05.10.2013, bill on average basis

was issued with meter status code as ‘D’(defective). The consumer attributed the

reason for low consumption during the period October, 2012 to July 2013 that

they remained out for most of the time to pursue the case of suspension of his

wife. The SDO was directed to review the charging already done by them, in

view of submissions made by the consumer.

6. The SDO vide letter dated 01.08.2014 submitted that the account was overhauled

again and necessary adjusted was made in the consumer account after getting

the same audited from the Internal Auditor.

7. During hearing on 21.08.2014, both parties were present. The consumer showed

his satisfaction to the revised charging done by the SDO.

8. As the consumer has no grievances now, the complaint stands disposed.






of this order.”





9.



97




Complaint No. - 500


In the matter of Sh. Harinder Jain on behalf of Sh. Mela Ram , H. No.1557, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. Harinder Jain on behalf of Sh. Mela Ram , H. No.1557, Sector 7-C,

Chandigarh vide his letter dated 8.10.2013 addressed to SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-

Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh with a copy to CGRF stated that excess billing was

being done by the Electricity Department. The meter installed at his residence

was not connected and defective. The house was under construction and no-one

was living in the house thus no electricity was being consumed. He was being

issued the electricity bills on average basis which was also being deposited by

him inadvertantly. He requested for refund of the amount already raised and paid

by him for the period 18.6.12 to 18.6.13.

2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer i.e.


called upon to submit the para-wise comments/facts of the case on the

representation of the complainant and also the consumption data for the last

three years was called for vide Forum’s letter dated 09.10.2013.

3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 09.10.2013, the concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’

Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 31.10.2013 submitted the

facts of the case to the Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1

with a copy to the Forum. It was stated that the complainant was being issued a

98

bill for the period 18.6.12 to 18.6.13 on the basis of average @ 210 U.P.M. as the

meter was dead stop. The premises of the consumer was checked on 27.5.13

and it was found that the complainant was using electricity for construction

purpose through another connection (Account No. 0745/155702U), the meter of

this connection was also found to be defective whereas the meter of the

connection bearing Account No. 0745/155701T (main Account) was lying idle in

bad condition without cover and M&P seals. A sum of Rs.26913/- was charged to

2nd Account No. 0745/155702U on account of Unauthorized Use of Electricity and

same was deposited by the consumer. It was also stated that keeping in view the

ECR and representation of the consumer, the average charged on D-Code

against main Account No. 0745/155701T was revised and entry for refund of

Rs.6460/- was passed in sundry charges and allowance register but the same

was held back by the I.A. stating that the case is pending with CGRF. It was also

stated that the consumer requested for change of name of both the connections

as the same were in the name of original owner of the house from whom they had

purchased the house. Further the meters were replaced with healthy meter. The

consumption data of the consumer was also supplied while submitting the facts.

4. The representation of Sh. Harinder Jain was treated as formal complaint No. 500

on 09.12.13.

5. The hearings of the case were held on 23.12.2013, 22.01.2014, 25.03.2014,

12.05.2014, 25.06.2014, 16.07.2014 and 2.09.2014. Last three hearings on

25.06.14, 16.07.14 and 02.09.14 were not attended by any of the party. As

sufficient opportunity was given to both the parties to make submissions, the

Forum decided to dispose the case on the basis of facts.

6. From the facts of the case, submitted by SDO, Electy. OP Sub Divn. No. 2, it is

seen that the complainant was using electricity from his second connection

(Account No. 0745/155702U) whereas the meter against his main connection was

found defective and disconnected as per ECR dated 27.5.13. The complainant

was charged a sum of Rs.26,913/- on account of Unauthorized Use of Electricity

from his second connection and the same was paid by him. On going through the

calculation of this amount, it is noted that the same has been charged for the

period 27.9.12 to 27.5.13.

99

7. The facts of the case clearly brings out following:-

(a) The meter of the complainant was found idle and disconnected.

(b) In response to ECR checking dated 27.05.2013, penalty was

imposed for misuse of second connection from 27.09.2012 to

27.05.2013.

8. About facts clearly indicates that as the main meter was found disconnected

whatever the consumption could have been consumed, the same should be from

second connection and as such the consumer cannot be charged twice as the

charging for 2nd connection had already been done by the department.

9. Moreover, it has also been noted that the Hon’ble JERC through Tariff Order for

the FY-2013-14 had exempted the DS consumers from treating under section 126

on detection of excess load. The ECR report in the present case is dated

27.05.2013. Thus, the penal amount already recovered is to be revised as per

latest instructions of the Hon’ble JERC.

10. In view of above, the Forum is of the view that the account of the consumer

bearing Account No. 0745/155701T be overhauled from the period 18.6.12 upto

18.6.13. For the period upto 27.9.12, the charging may be done on the basis of

average to be calculated on the basis of past consumption of the consumer and

for the period 27.9.12 to 27.5.13 charges be levied only in case the same has not

already been charged against his second connection bearing Account No.

0745/155702U on A/c of ECR report. The penalty already charged also needs to

be revised in view of Para-9 above.

11. In view of above, the Forum directs the Nodal officer to get the account of the

complainant overhauled as per para-10 above.

12. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of this

order. With above, the complaint is treated as disposed off.








100





\


101




Complaint No. - 513


In the matter of Smt. Satya Kaur, House.No.1124, Sector-28/B, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Smt. Satya Kaur, resident of House.No.1124, Sector-28/B, Chandigarh made a

complaint about excess bill for the period 13.08.2013 to 13.10.2013 against a

domestic connection vide letter dated 18.10.2013.

2. Before the complaint was formally registered the Nodal Officer, XEN, Electy (OP)

Divn. No.3, Chandigarh was called upon to submit comments/action taken report

on the representation of the consumer also to apply the consumption data for last

three years was called for vide letter dated 19.11.2013.

3. In response to Forum letter, the concern SDO, Electy. (OP) S/Divn. No.3, Chd

vide his letter dated 29.11.2013 stated that the bill of the consumer was prepared

as per reading recorded by the meter. He also supplied the consumption data for

last three years.

4. The Complaint was registered vide Comp.No.513 and was fixed for hearing on

29.01.2014 when both the parties were present. Further, hearing of the Forum

was conducted on 11.03.2014 and 30.04.2014. The subsequent hearing fixed for

29.05.14, 17.07.2014 and 02.09.2014 were neither attended by the complainant

nor the respondent. As sufficient opportunity has been given to both the parties,

the Forum decided to dispose off the case on the basis of facts/merit.

102

5. From the consumption data, it has been seen that the consumption in the past

has been in the range of 100 to 180 unit per billing cycle. The meter was

changed in the month of 8/2013 whereafter the meter recorded consumption of

1893 units for the period 8/2013 to 10/2013. Looking at the past consumption of

the consumer commensurate with the connected load of 0.640 KW the recorded

consumption during the dispute period appears to be very much on higher side. It

is also been noted that the meter in question as already been replaced with a new

meter on 07.12.2013, as per copy of MCO

dated 29.11.2013, supplied by SDO.

6. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account of the consumer

overhauled for the period 13.08.2013 to 13.10.2013 on the basis of consumption

recorded by the new meter.

7. The compliance of the order be submitted to the Forum by 31.10.2014 with above

directions, the complaint is disposed off.




Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,

Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:

09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month

from the date of receipt of this order.”

8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent

to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for

compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after

having it properly numbered and indexed.

10.



103




Complaint No. - 516


In the matter of Sh. Narinder Paul Mehta, SCO. No.323-324, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Narinder Paul Mehta, SCO. No. 323-324, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

vide his e-mail dated 18.11.2013 stated that he alongwith Vishavdeep Singh

Sandhu are the joint owners of second floor of Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. The new

connection applied by them was in the month of February, 2013 is not being

released by the office of SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh.

2. Before treating the representation as formal complaint, the para-wise

comments/action taken report on the representation of the consumer was called

from the Nodal Officer/Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT,

Chandigarh by the Forum vide letter dated 19.11.2013.

3. In response to Forum’s letter, the Nodal Officer submitted the reply through SDO,

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh wherein it was stated that already 3

connections with total connected load of 97.890 KW are existing for SCO. No.323-

324, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. The complainant has applied for new

connection with connected load of 41.440KW for second floor. He stated that as

per instructions issued by the Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Circle, U.T.

Chandigarh and Tariff Order for FY 2012-13 for load above 30 KW, the connection

shall be given on 11KV in case of multi-consumers complexes.

104

4. The complaint was registered vide No. 516 on 10.12.2014 and was fixed for

hearing on 18.2.2014. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 12.03.2014,

15.04.2014, 27.5.2014, 11.6.2014, 9.7.2014 and on 03.09.2014.

5. During these hearings, the issue of release of new connection was deliberated and

SDO after getting convinced released the new connection on 18.03.2014. The

Nodal Officer also supplied copy of the written submissions made by SDO to the

Forum.

6. With the release of the connection, the grievance of consumer has been redressed

and thus complaint stands disposed off.





8.


105




Complaint No. - 523


In the matter of Sh. Nirmal Singh, House.No.596, Sector-8/B, Chandigarh .


Versus

1. Additional Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. Nirmal Singh resident of House.No. 596, Sector-8/B, Chandigarh vide his

letter dated 10.03.2014 submitted that he purchased 5 marla House.No.596,

Sector-8/B, Chandigarh on 9/10 July 2012. The house was lying vacant there

after upto 01.06.2013. In between some of the Electricity bills were not paid and

the electricity connection was disconnected for 3/4 months. In March 2013 he

decided to shift and approach the Electricity department for re-connection after

paying all the dues. Minor repairs were undertaking before they shifted on

02.06.2013. In October, 2013 he received a bill for Rs.3,67 Lac for more than

80,000 units. He requested for getting the bill corrected stating that this much

electricity cannot be consumed in 2 months.

2. The Complainant was forwarded to the Nodal Officer, Additional Superintending

Engineer, Electy,(OP) Division No.1, UT, Chandigarh for comments and also

three year consumption data was called for vide letter dated 10.03.2014.

3. In response to Forum’s letter dated 10.03.2014, the concerned SDO submitted

the facts of the case to the nodal officer vide his letter dated 15.04.2014 with a

copy to the Forum. As per comments given by SDO, the complainant applied for

change of name vide A & A dated 05.09.2013. While effecting the PDCO and

106

SCO the reading was recorded as 90603 on 09.09.2013 with meter working

status OK. The bill of the consumer was being prepared on L-Code in the past on

average basis as the reading could not be recorded due to premises remained

locked. The bill for the period 27.05.2012 to 09.09.2013 was prepared on the

basis of recorded readings on the respective dates for Rs.3,67,940/-. The

working of the meter was got checked on 05.03.2014 and again on 01.04.2014

and the same was found in order. The consumption data for last three years was

also supplied alongwith the checking report. It was noted that there were three

connections for the three floors of the 5 marla house and the issue of receipt of

excess consumption bill was relating to First floor.

4. The representative of Sh. Nirmal Singh was registered as formal Complaint

No.523 and was listed for hearing before the Forum on 02.06.2014. Subsequent,

the hearing was conducted on 28.07.2014 and 03.09.2014. The complainant

submitted that house was purchased in July, 2012 and it was lying vacant and

locked upto 1st June, 2013. In between some repair work were carried out during

end March, 2013 to May 2013, before they shifted on 02.06.2013. He submitted

that the factual position regarding premises/house lying vacant from July, 2012,

May, 2013 can be verified from the neighbours. The SDO was directed to verify

the factual position regarding vacancy of the house from neighbours/Meter

Reader during hearing on 28.07.2014. During the next hearing on 03.09.2014,

the SDO submitted that the position was got verified through official of the Sub

Division and he confirmed that the house was not occupied during the period upto

May,2013. Further, It was seen from the consumption data that from 27.05.2012

onwards, the bill was being issued on premises locked basis with Average

consumption of 791 units per billing cycle. The bill issued in November, 2013

was for 80,061 units for the period 27.05.2012 to 27.11.2013.

5. The complainant also enclosed the bank statement showing the amount paid by

cheque to Col. Sanmukh Singh from 02.04.2011 to 01.05.2013, in support of his

submissions that he was not residing at the purchased house, but was living in

rented accommodation for which he was paying rent on regular basis.

107

6. The SDO during hearing on 03.09.2014 confirmed that the house was not

occupied upto May 2013, which is also clear from the fact that from 27.05.2012

onwards, the bill was being issued on Average basis with premises shown locked.

The Consumer has also enclosed Bank statement that he was paying rent to Col.

Sanmukh Singh upto 01.05.2013 for the rented accommodation taken by him.

Moreover, the Consumption of 80,061 units for 16 months period for one floor of a

5 marla house is not possible, with Sanctioned load of 0.640 KW. Considering

the load factor for DS consumer as 35% for estimating the consumption, this

consumption of 80,061 units for 16 months period is possible with sanctioned

load of around 20 KW. The Forum, therefore is of the view that use of Electricity

to the extent of 80,000 plus units in the locked premises is not possible.

7. In view of the above, the Forum directs, the Nodal Officer to get the account

of the consumer overhauled by the charging minimum consumption for the period

27.05.2012 to 01.06.2013, where after the charging should be done on the basis

of the consumption recorded by the meter from 27.09.2013 onwards.

8. The compliance be reported within one month. With above directions, the

complaint stands disposed.






of this order.”







108




Complaint No. - 509


In the matter of Sh. Ramesh Kumar on behalf of Sh. Viney Kumar, H. No.3317, Sector-32D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of H. No.3317, Sector-32D, Chandigarh submitted a

representation on 11.10.2013 that he received an electricity bill for Rs.25,508/- in

September, 2012 on the basis of consumption for the month of May, 2012 and

July, 2012. He stated that the reading recorded by the meter is very much on

higher side and may be due to meter developing some defects and recording high

consumption. On his request, a check meter was installed on 25th September,

2012 and it was observed that the meter was fast by 148%. He was allowed to

make part payment. Subsequently, the meter was changed on 07.11.2012 and

was got tested in Laboratory on 09.10.2013 in his presence and he was told that

the working of meter is OK and to pay the balance amount of the bill and he

submitted the complaint.

2. Before the representation was treated as formal complaint, the comments on the

representation and past consumption data of the consumer for the last three years

was called from the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3,

UT, Chandigarh vide Forum letter dated 14.10.13.

3. The Nodal Officer vide letter dated 06.11.2013 forwarded the reports submitted by

concerned SDO alongwith consumption data for the last three years. The SDO,

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh stated that on receipt of complaint

from the consumer, for high bill of Rs.25,508/- for the period May, 2012 to July,

109

2012, the meter was got checked on 17.09.2012. Thereafter, on depositing the

challenge fee, a check meter was installed and the meter was found fast by 148%.

The meter was replaced vide MCO dated 07.11.12. Thereafter, the removed meter

was got tested in the lab. on 19.10.2012 and the error was found within permissible

limits.

4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.509 on 18.12.2013. The

hearings were conducted on 06.01.14, 03.02.14, 19.03.14, 16.04.14, 22.04.14,

19.05.14, 18.07.14 and 04.09.2014.

5. From the reply submitted by SDO, it has been noted that the meter was found fast

by 148% in October, 2012 whereas when tested in the Laboratory on 09.10.13

(after one year), the error was found to be within permissible limits. The results of

2 reports i.e. the check meter report and testing of M&P Lab. report, make the

issue complicated. In order to draw some influence, the consumption data

supplied by the SDO was analysed. The consumption data as supplied by SDO for

the three years is reproduced below :-

Period Consumption recorded by meter

During 2010 During 2011 During 2012 During

2013

January-

March

-- 842 571 461

March-May -- P.L

} 3960

1964 1170

May-July -- 5828 2208

July-September

1808 1748 3174

September-November

163 1517

} 1680

1008 853

} 1961

1045

November-January

371 +

(MCO) (New Meter consumption)

consumption (MCO) for old meter

6. From the above data, it is noted that the consumption for the 4 month period

March-July during 2011 almost matches with the consumption recorded for the

same period during 2013. For other billing cycles, the consumption during 2010,

110

2011 and 2012 was also found to be comparable. The consumption during the 2

month period July-September, 2012 is also quite on higher side as compared to

consumption recorded for the same period during 2010 and during 2011. Thus

from above, it is noted that consumption recorded by the meter during the period

March- September, 2012 is on higher side when compared with the consumption

recorded during the corresponding period in other two years for which the data has

been supplied.

7. The above analysis of the consumption data and the check meter report, in

October-2012 and subsequently Lab. Report in October-2013 indicate that the

working of the meter was eratic. The consumption data clearly indicates that the

recording during the period under consideration was on higher side as compared to

consumption during other two years by around 50% which was matching with the

check meter report whereas subsequently on testing after one year, the working

of the meter was found to be O.K. The consumption during 4 month period from

September to January for the three years also appears to be comparable suggests

that it may not be a case of accumulation of the reading.

8. From above record, it is established that the meter recorded abnormally high

consumption during the disputed period as raised by the complainants. The check

meter report established the same but on the other hand, the subsequent testing in

the M&P Lab. declared that the errors at different settings were within permissible

limits and further no creeping was observed. The Forum considered these two

contradictory reports and do not find any reason to conclude any one of the report

is false/wrong. After giving deep thought and consideration to the matter, to our

mind, the only reason which can be attributed to the abnormal high recording of the

consumption is that the reading of the meter jumps. This fact can be checked only

when the meter is kept under observation continuously for a sufficiently long period

of 10-15 days as in the case of checking the working with installation of a check

meter. This case of reading jumping may not be detected during the Lab. testing

as the meter is tested for a short duration with main focus on the detection of errors

at various loads/voltage and creeping.

In number of other complaints (complaint No. 509, 513, 514, 521, 536 & 539 etc.)

analysis of the consumption data indicated the erratic behaviour of the meter

111

though subsequently meter working was found to be in order when tested in lab. In

all such cases, the decisions were taken on the basis of merit after analysis of

past/present consumption.

9. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account of the

consumer for the period March, 2012 to September, 2012 on the basis of the

consumption for the corresponding period during the year 2011. Further it has also

been noted that during the period November-January, 2012, the bill was issued on

the basis of reading recorded by new meter only but for the period old meter

remained in operation, no charging was done. The charging for this period may

also be done by the Sub Division simultaneously alongwith surcharge adjustment.

10. The SDO to report compliance within 30 days with regard to amount to be charged

on this account towards cost of burnt meter. In the event, the amount charged is

found to be in excess, the same may be refunded alongwith amount of surcharge.














112



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.),NOMINATED MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 504


In the matter of Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu on behalf of Smt. Gobind Kaur, House.No.3335, Sector-21/D, Chandigarh .


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No.3, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu resident of House.No.3335, Sector-21/D, Chandigarh

vide his representation dated 21.10.2013 stated that he has been receiving wrong

bills prepared by the electricity department from time to time during last 4 to 5

years. The bills were corrected but the surcharge amount continue to be levied.

He requested for waiver of the late payment surcharge. He cited some of the

instances such as levy of his tenant bills to his account in the year June, 2009.

Another instance relates to raising of bill of Rs. 36,394/- along with late payment

of surcharge of Rs. 2,238/- on 05.08.2011. He stated that his bill should have

been for Rs.25, 309/- only. He also alleged that in the bill issued on 05.02.2012,

an amount of Rs.30,535/- towards arrears of 2009 and Rs. 21,051/- towards

arrear of 2011 were added, while raising a total amount of Rs. 75,528/-. Sundry

charges of Rs.47,144/- for which no details were provided were also added. He

requested for correction of his bills on account of above three instances along

with waiver of late payment surcharge levied.

2. Before complaint was treated as formal complaint the Nodal Officer, (Executive

Engineer, Electy, (OP) Division No.3, UT, Chd) was called upon to examine and

submit para wise comments of the representation of the consumer vide Forum

letter dated 23.10.2013. The consumption data for the last three years was also

called for.

113

3. In response to Forum letter dated 23.03.2013 concerned SDO, Electy (OP) Sub

Division No.3, submitted the comments stating that the bill was wrongly prepared

by the Computer Center from May,2012 to August, 2013. The complete detail

report of the bill/ledger from March 2009 to September, 2013 was also enclosed

alongwith consumption data.

4. The representation of Sh. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu was taken as formal complaint

No.504 and listed for hearing before the Forum 30.12.2013. Neither party

attended the hearing on 30.12.2013 and on their request the case was adjourned

for 27.01.2014. During the hearing on 27.01.2014, both the parties were present.

The complainant raised the objection regarding the payment made in billing cycle

2008 to 2013. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 17.02.2014, 01.05.2014,

23.05.2014, 19.06.2014, 10.07.2014, 20.08.2014 and 09.09.14. Last five

hearings have been attended by SDO only and the complainant did not attend,

despite issuance of proper notice by the Forum.

5. During hearings the concerned SDO stated that due to wrong bills prepared by

the Computer Centre (RCC), the consumer was not required to pay any amount

as the bills were issued for minus. Subsequently, Computer Centre detected the

mistake and corrected the bills of the consumer there by raising the accumulated

heavy amount in one single bill. The consumer represented that due to mistake

by the Computer Centre, he could not arrange the amount and made part

payment but the surcharge continue to be levied in the next cycle bills on the full

amount of the bill. SDO also confirmed that now the consumer has cleared the

pending amount of the bills, but the amount of surcharge has not paid by the

consumer, which has been increasing with issuance of every bill.

6. From the facts of the case, it has been noted that the consumer was issued

wrong bills by the Computer Centre with the remarks that no amount is to be paid,

in some of the bills for number of cycles. Correct bill with huge amount for the

previous cycles as arrears was prepared by the Computer Centre in April, 2013.

The complainant argued that it is easy to pay regular payments monthly, but

difficult to arrange huge amounts relating to past cycle bills. He, therefore, made

part payments but the surcharge continued to be levied on the full amount of the

bill and added to the amount of bill of the next cycle as arrears. The Forum finds

114

merit in the submissions made by the complainant and therefore, consider that

levy of full surcharge to the consumer for the wrong prepared bills by Computer

Centre is not justified. On the other hand, licensee/Computer Centre continued to

levy surcharge as per the instructions after rectification of the mistake.

7. With regard to complainants request for waiver of the surcharge, the Forum

observed from the date supplied by the SDO from May,2009 onwards that the

complainant was not regular in making the payments of bills. He is in habit of

making payments after defaulting for one/two cycles. Up till wrong preparation of

bills by RCC in May 2012, only once the bill was prepared without any arrear

amount for the paid 9/2010 to 11/-2010, considering that the complainant is

habitual defaulter in making regular payments, the Forum is not including to his

request to waive off fall surcharge.

8. In the above circumstances, the Forum considers appropriate to give relief in

respect of surcharge:-

a) Not to levy surcharge for the part payments mode.

b) Waiver off 50% total surcharge as worked out after taking (a) into

account.

9. The Forum directs the Nodal officer to get the account overhauled by calculating

the surcharge on the arrears of the bills rather than on the full amount of the bill.

In other words, surcharge should not be levied on the part payments made by

the complainant. Further, the surcharge is to be calculated upto the date, the

consumer cleared all his pending bills for the principle amount. The amount of

surcharge worked out at this juncture be waived off to the extent of 50%.

Hereafter the normal instructions with regard to calculation of surcharge would be

applicable.

10. The compliance be reported within one month of issue of orders. The complaint

stands disposed off.






of this order.”


115





12.


116




Complaint No. - 514


In the matter of Sh. Suba Singh, H. No. 2140, Sector-27C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Suba Singh resident of H. No. 2140, Sector-27C, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 15.01.14, represented that he received electricity bills during the period

8/12 to 10/12 which were very much on higher side as compared to his average

consumption. The complainant also submitted that his family resides at Patiala

(Punjab) and he lives alone in the house and that too only for 2-3 days in a week.

He observed the behaviour of the meter for no. of days to note that it was

consuming 60-70 units daily. He then approached the Sub Division for getting the

meter checked and deposited the requisite meter challenge fee. The check meter

installed during the period 25.01.13 to 07.02.13 clearly established that the meter

installed at his residence was almost 16 times faster than the consumption

recorded by the check meter. Thereafter, the meter was replaced with a new

meter. Despite his pursuance and the check meter report, his account was not

overhauled. He was told that the case has been referred to the Division, before

the overhauling is done. In the meantime, he made part payment and continued

to deposit the current bill charges but his supply was disconnected on 23.12.12.

He has, therefore, approached the Forum for issuance of suitable instructions for

overhauling his account.

2. Before the complaint was registered, the comments of the Nodal Officer -

Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh were called. The

117

SDO concerned vide his letter dated 28.01.14 submitted that the meter installed

at the consumer premises was found fast by 1472.63% after installation of the

check meter. Subsequently the disputed meter was replaced vide MCO dated

11.02.13. With regard to overhauling, the SDO submitted that the case was

referred to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3 who advised him to

get the meter tested from M&P Lab. He further stated that the meter was not

packed at the time of replacement of the meter, as there was no practice to check

the meter from M&P Lab. The meter could not be sent as the M&P Lab. does not

accept unpacked/unsealed meters. The consumer was asked vide letter dated

21.06.13 to deposit the pending bills to avoid disconnection. The consumption

data for the last three years was also supplied by the SDO.


fixed for hearing on 28.01.14. Both the parties attended the hearing on 28.01.14.

Subsequent hearings were held on 18.02.14, 23.05.14, 19.06.14, 10.07.14,

20.08.14 and 09.09.14.

4. On the basis of details submitted by the complainant as well as by the SDO, it has

been noted that there was abrupt increase in the consumption during the period

August, 2012 to October- 2012 and in the subsequent cycle from October, 2012 to

December, 2012. The meter was got checked by installation of check meter from

25.01.13 to 07.02.2013. On comparison of the reading, the meter was declared

fast by 1472.63 times. However, despite this report, the account of the consumer

was not overhauled and the case was referred to the Division who advised for

getting the meter checked at the M&P Lab.

5. The Supply Code Regulations issued by the Hon’ble JERC under Sub-Regulation

2 of Regulation 7.5 provides as under –

“ 7.5 Defective Meters

(2) A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter, if he doubts its

accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his consumption,

stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the licensee along

with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the meter within 30

days of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards of Performance of

Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary testing of meters can be

carried out at the premises of the consumers through electronic testing

equipments.

(i) In case the meter is found OK, no further action shall be taken.

118

(ii) In case the meter is found fast/slow by the licensee, and the consumer

agrees to the report, the meter shall be replaced by a new meter within

15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to the month in which

the dispute has arisen shall be revised in the subsequent bill as per the

test results. In case meter is found to be slow, the additional charges may

be recovered in instalments not exceeding three, if the consumer shows his

inability to pay at a time.

(iii) If the consumer disputes the results of testing, or testing at consumer’s

premises is difficult, the defective meter shall be replaced by a new

tested meter by the Licensee, and the defective meter after sealing in

presence of consumer, shall be tested at licensee’s lab. / Independent

lab./ Electrical Inspector, as agreed by consumer in presence of the

representative of both Licensee and the consumer. The option once

exercised by consumer shall not be changed. The decision on the basis of

reports of the test lab. shall be final on the Licensee as well as the consumer.”

6. Above regulations clearly provides under para (ii) that Licensee to revise the bills

as per test results. Moreover, the consumer has been given the right to dispute the

results of testing and not the licensee as per para (iii) above.

7. The consumption data also established that the recorded consumption increased

during the disputed period than the consumption recorded during the same period

in past or recorded by the replaced meter.

8. So far as directions by the Nodal Officer to get the meter tested at M&P Lab. are

concerned, the Forum has observed in some other cases (complaint No. 509, 513,

521, 536, 539 & 544) that the analysis of the consumption established that the

meter recorded abnormally high consumption during the disputed period as raised

by the complainant. The check meter report also established the same but on the

other hand, the subsequent testing in the M&P Lab. declared that the errors at

different settings were within permissible limits and further no creeping was

observed. The Forum do not find any reason to doubt the findings of any of the

contradictory repors is false/wrong. After giving deep consideration to the matter,

the only reason which could be attributed to the abnormal high recording of the

consumption may be that the reading of the meter jumps. This fact can only be

checked when the meter is kept under observation for number of days continuously

as in the case of checking the working with installation of a check meter. This case

of reading jumping may not be detected during the Lab. testing as the meter is

tested for a short duration with main focus on the detection of the error at various

loads/voltage and creeping. In the present case, the complainant in his complaint

119

has categorically mentioned that he watched the behaviour of the meter daily after

receipt of abnormally high bill and found that the meter was showing quite high

reading as compared to his load or normal consumption. As already mentioned

above, in other complaints namely 509, 513, 521, 536, 539 and 544, the Forum on

the basis of analysis of the consumption concluded the erratic behaviour of the

meter although the lab. Report was O.K.

9. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is requested to get the bill revised for the period

25.04.2012 to the date of MCO with consumption recorded by the meter of the

previous corresponding period and report compliance within one month of receipt

of this order.







12.



120




Complaint No. - 544


In the matter of Sh. Raj Krishan on behalf of Sh. M.L. Sehgal, H.No.21, Sector-28A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Raj Krishan on behalf of Sh. M.L. Sehgal, resident of H.No.21, Sector-28A,

Chandigarh vide his letter dated 27.12.2013 stated that for the period 23.01.13 to

23.03.13, he received a bill amounting to Rs.13,658/- which was on excessive

side as per his average bills. The meter was challenged and a check meter was

installed for 15 days after he deposited the requisite fee. It was observed that the

meter installed at his residence was recording higher consumption by 997% than

the check meter. In between another bill for the period 23.03.13 to 23.05.13

amounting to Rs.53,303/- was received by him. The meter was replaced with

another meter for getting the same tested at M&P Lab. The meter was checked

in the Lab. On 26.11.13 and working was declared OK by the Lab. after testing.

The complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the Lab. Report.

2. The Nodal Officer was called upon to submit para-wise comments and also to

supply the consumption data of the consumer for last three years.

3. In response to Forum’s letter to the Nodal Officer, the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-

Divn. No. 3 vide his letter dated 17.01.14 submitted the facts of the case. He

stated that the meter was checked with check meter on 06.05.13 and was found

121

fast. As per directions given by the Divisional office, the consumer was charged

on the basis of reading shown by the meter, which was to be tested at M&P Lab.

for ascertaining the accuracy. The M&P Lab. tested the meter in the presence of

consumer on 26.11.13 and found that the results of energy meter were within

permissible limits and declared the working of the meter OK. The consumer was

billed on the basis of reading. The consumption data in the past 3 years was also

supplied.

4. The complaint was registered as formal complaint No.544 on 27.06.14 and

hearings were conducted on 01.07.14, 17.07.14 and 10.09.14. In the meanwhile,

the Nodal Officer - Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3 vide his letter

dated 09.06.14, supplied copies of the MCO dated 13.06.13 affected on 17.06.13,

the ECR No. 01/1061 dated 27.05.14 and M&P Lab. Report dated 26.11.13.

5. On the basis of the documents submitted by the Nodal Officer and the past

consumption data, it has been inferred as under :-

a) The analysis of the consumption is as under :-

Period Year consumption

March to February

2010-11 5154 units

2011-12 5451 units

2012-13 8257 units

March, 2013 to May, 2013 – 2 Month 8107 units

6. From above, it has been seen that the consumption during the year 2010-11 and

2011-12 has been consistent and comparable. However, during the period 2012-

13, for the same 12 months, the recorded consumption by the meter is about 1.5

times the average consumption during past 2 years for the same 12 month

duration. Further, the recorded consumption for the 2 month period from March

2013 to May, 2013 is 8107 units which is equal to the recorded consumption for the

full one year period from March, 2012 to February, 2013 (which also includes the

inflated consumption for 2 month as alleged by the complainant).

122

7. (a) Meter Reading and consumption -

Consumption

17.05.13 Installation of Check Meter- 65276 From 17.05.13 to 30.05.13 2475

30.05.13 Removal of check meter - 67751 From 30.05.13 to 17.06.13 3020

17.06.13 Date of MCO - 70771 From 17.05.13 to 30.05.13 5495

Above table shows that the consumption for the one month period from 17.05.13

(start of check meter) upto 17.06.13 (date of MCO) is 5495 units. This much

consumption of one month, has not been observed for any of 2 months cycles

during past 36 months. Thus it cannot fall in the category of accumulation of

reading.

8. This analysis clearly points out the eratic behaviour of the meter which at the time

of check meter recorded higher consumption by 980% and subsequently found

working within limits when tested at M&P Lab. after 5 months. The subsequent

testing of the meter at the M&P Lab. also reflects that the licensee is not believing

the accuracy of its own check meters while ordering to get the meter tested at the

lab. The contradictory results also create confusion, the licensee must avoid the

duplicacy of testing. In this content, the Supply Code Regulations, 2010 under

Sub-Regulation 2 of Regulation 7.5 provides as under –

9. “ 7.5 Defective Meters

(2) A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter, if he doubts its

accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his consumption,

stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the licensee along

with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the meter within 30 days

of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards of Performance of

Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary testing of meters can be

carried out at the premises of the consumers through electronic testing

equipments.

(i) In case the meter is found OK, no further action shall be taken.

(ii) In case the meter is found fast/slow by the licensee, and the consumer

agrees to the report, the meter shall be replaced by a new meter within

15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to the month in which

the dispute has arisen shall be revised in the subsequent bill as per the

test results. In case meter is found to be slow, the additional charges may be

recovered in instalments not exceeding three, if the consumer shows his

inability to pay at a time.

(iii) If the consumer disputes the results of testing, or testing at consumer’s

premises is difficult, the defective meter shall be replaced by a new

123

tested meter by the Licensee, and the defective meter after sealing in

presence of consumer, shall be tested at licensee’s lab. / Independent lab./

Electrical Inspector, as agreed by consumer in presence of the representative

of both Licensee and the consumer. The option once exercised by consumer

shall not be changed. The decision on the basis of reports of the test lab.

shall be final on the Licensee as well as the consumer.”

10. Above regulations clearly provides under (ii) that the Licensee to revise the bills as

per test results. Moreover, the consumer has been given the right to dispute the

results of testing and not the licensee as per (iii) above.

11. The analysis of consumption data also established that the recorded consumption

increased during the disputed period than the consumption recorded during the

same period in past or recorded by the replaced period.

12. From above analysis, it is established that the meter recorded abnormally high

consumption during the disputed period as raised by the complainants. The check

meter report established the same but on the other hand, the subsequent testing in

the M&P Lab. declared that the errors at different settings were within permissible

limits and further no creeping was observed. The Forum considered these two

contradictory reports and do not find any reason to conclude any one of the report

is false/wrong. After giving deep thought and consideration to the matter, to our

mind, the only reason which can be attributed to the abnormal high recording of the

consumption is that the reading of the meter jumps. This fact can be checked only

when the meter is kept under observation continuously for a sufficiently long period

of 10-15 days as in the case of checking the working with installation of a check

meter. This case of reading jumping may not be detected during the Lab. testing

as the meter is tested for a short duration with main focus on the detection of errors

at various loads/voltage and creeping.

In number of other complaints (complaint No. 509, 513, 514, 521, 536 & 539 etc.)

analysis of the consumption data indicated the erratic behaviour of the meter

though subsequently meter working was found to be in order when tested in lab. In

all such cases, the decisions were taken on the basis of merit after

analysis/comparison of past/present consumption.

13. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the bill revised for the period

23.11.2012 to the date of MCO on the basis of consumption recorded during the

124

corresponding period in 2011/12. The compliance be reported within one month of

receipt of this order.









125




Complaint No. - 528


In the matter of Sh. Bikramjeet Singh, H.No.702, Sector-33B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Bikramjeet Singh, resident of H.No.702, Sector-33B, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 20.12.13 represented that ACD as per JERC Regulations may not be

charged from him being Govt. Employees residing in Govt. Accommodation. The

arguments submitted by him are enforceable inbuilt checks at the time of vacation

of the accommodation which would safeguard the dues of the Electricity

Department from the Govt. Employees.

2. Before registering the complaint as formal complaint, the comments of the Nodal

Officer - Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh were called

for vide letter dated 27.12.13. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 15.01.14

submitted the comments given by the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT,

Chandigarh. The SDO stated that the ACD has been charged as per JERC

directions under Regulations 6.10(3) of Supply Code Regulations 2010 in which no

relaxation regarding exemption from the occupants of Govt. accommodation has

been allowed. The ACD is being calculated on the basis of consumption charges

for 12 months of FY 2012-13. The complaint of Sh. Bikramjeet Singh was

registered as formal complaint No. 528 on 04.06.14 and was fixed for hearing on

16.06.14. The Nodal Officer through submissions dated 20.06.14 supplemented

his earlier comments that the ACD shall be adjusted/refunded at the time of issue

of final bill on vacation of the Govt. House by the occupants.

126

3. The first hearing on 16.06.14 was attended by the concerned SDO. The

complainant could not attend the hearing, so another opportunity was afforded for

making oral submissions on 20.06.14. Subsequent hearings were conducted on

21.07.14, 07.08.14, 27.08.14 and on 17.09.14. The complainant attended the

hearing on 17.09.14 but SDO was not present. The complainant requested for

exemption of charging of ACD from the Govt. Officers living in Govt.

Accommodation considering the inbuilt checks and other provisions applicable to

Govt. Officers.

4. The Forum though appreciated the concerns raised by the complainant, yet found

that there is no provision in the Supply Code Regulations to exempt a particular

category from deposit of ACD. The complainant was further informed that the ACD

is equal to the amount of 2 months of his average consumption during the year and

will carry interest at the bank rate notified by RBI from time to time as per Sub-

Regulation 8 of Regulation 6.10 –‘Security Deposit’ of Supply Code Regulations,

2010 notified by Hon’ble JERC. The Sub-Regulation 2 read with Sub-Regulation 9

of this main Regulation 6.10 also provides that the security deposit alongwith

interest will be refunded to the consumer after adjustment of dues, if any,

remaining payable by him. Further in case of delay beyond 60 days, additional

interest shall be payable to the consumer as approved by the Hon’ble Commission.

5. The complainant though still requested for taking up the matter with the licensee/

Commission showed his satisfaction to the provisions in Supply Code Regulations.

It was also confirmed that the complainant had already deposited the ACD.

6. With above, the complaint is considered disposed off.

(R.L. MITTAL) (R.K. ARORA)

NOMINATED MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF

127




Complaint No. - 532


In the matter of Smt. Raj Rani, SCO. No. 2421-22, Sector-22, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Raj Rani, resident of H. No. 694, Sector-6, Panchkula made a representation

vide letter dated 04.04.2014 that she is owner of SCO. No. 2421-22, Sector-22C,

Chandigarh. She stated that the tenant of 2nd floor namely Mr. Ajay Patel entered

into a Rent Deed for a period of 5 years but after giving rent for 2-3 months, he

disappeared without vacating the property. He also did not cleared the electricity

dues before leaving. She got possession of the 2nd floor through an ex-parte order

dated 14.10.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh. She further stated that

she received a notice from the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh

for payment of Rs.1,22,290/- in respect of the un-paid amount of Electricity bills for

the second floor. She requested for raising of actual amount of bill without any

interest or any other charges.

2. Before the representation was registered as formal complaint, the Nodal Officer,


called upon to comment upon the representation and also to supply the

consumption data for the last three years vide Forum’s letter dated 09.04.2014.


fixed for consideration by the Forum on 30.06.2014 when both the complainant and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO concerned was directed to overhaul the

disputed period of the consumer and to supply the consumption data and status of

128

payment of the disputed connection. Further hearings were conducted on

10.07.14, 27.08.14 and 18.09.14.

4. From the submissions made by the complainant and the concerned SDO, the facts

of the case emerged as under :-

i) Smt. Raj Rani entered into a lease deed for leasing out second floor of SCO.

No. 2421-22, Sector-22C, Chandigarh for 5 years.

ii) As per decision dated 14.10.2011 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the

lessee did not pay the agreed amount of rent from 01.06.2009 onwards as per

lease deed. As per ex-parte decision announced on 14.10.2011, the

possession of the premises was handed over to the owner i.e. Smt. Raj Rani.

iii) An electricity connection bearing account No.2255/740209 existed on the

second floor with connected load of 39.2 KW in the name of Smt. Raj Rani,

the owner.

iv) From the consumption data supplied by the concerned SDO, it is noted that

the tenant was not regular in payment of the electricity bills, though as per

lease deed, the licensee was to pay the electricity, water and sewerage

charges during the period of tenancy.

v) The lessee though was in habit of defaulting the electricity dues, yet he

cleared his dues upto the period 22.10.2009. Thereafter the subsequent 2

bills for the period 22.12.2009 to 22.02.2010 and 22.02.2010 to 22.04.2010

were not paid and the defaulting amount as it stood on 22.04.2010 was

Rs.31,530/- including the arrear for the previous 2 cycle bills. After

22.04.2010, there was no consumption of electricity in the said premises but

the electricity bills continued to be issued for NIL consumption for more than 2

years upto 22.06.2012 which also included the arrear amount of the last bill

with late payment surcharge. With levy of late payment surcharge, the unpaid

amount upto period 22.06.2012 grew upto 1,10,679/-. The Sub Divn. due to

non-payment of the bill issued PDCO, which was affected by the Sub Divn. on

30.04.2012.

vi) The Sub Division transferred the defaulting amount (against 2nd floor –

Rs.1,11,179/-) to electricity connection for the Ist Floor, as both the

129

connections were in the same name i.e. name of land lady, after giving a

notice dated 04.03.2013.

vii) When the defaulting amount was transferred to First Floor, electricity

connection bearing A/c No. 2255/740904, the occupant of the First Floor

approached CGRF with a representation that the defaulting amount of the

Second Floor should not be added to his bill and may be recovered from the

landlady namely Mrs. Raj Rani as the connection was in her name.

viii) The Forum considered the facts of the case in the matter of Sh. Rajat Sarin,

SCO No.2421, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh Vs. Addl. Superintending

Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chandigarh in complaint No.439 dated

02.09.2013 and decided –

“ the sundry charges amount to Rs.1,11,179/- imposed on the complainant Sh. Rajat Sarin, the use of electricity account of the first floor of the premises in set aside. The officials responsible for serious lapse in performance of duty be identified and suitable departmental action be taken against them. The compliance of this order be made within one month from receipt of the order.”

ix) The Forum also observed that the unpaid electricity bill kept piling up and rose

to Rs.1,11,179/- upto October, 2012 due to levy of late payment surcharge as

the consumption was ‘NIL’ after 22.4.2010.

x) After the Forum’s order dated 02.09.2013 as referred to above, the concerned

Sub Division sent notice dated 03.06.2013 to Smt. Raj Rani to clear the

defaulting amount of Rs.1,11,179/-.

xi) The Forum noted that as per Supply Code Regulation 9.1, when a person

neglect to pay any charge of electricity by due date mentioned in the bill, the

licensee may, after giving 15 clear days notice, cut off supply of electricity.

Considering practical approach, the PDCO should have been issued and

affected when it was noted that there was NIL consumption during the period

22.04.2010 to 22.06.2010 and the last bills issued for the period 22.10.2009 to

22.12.2009, 22.12.2009 to 22.02.2010 and 22.02.2010 to 22.04.2010 were

un-paid. The amount shown in the bill for the period 22.04.2010 to

22.06.2010 was Rs.31,530/-. Thereafter the amount continued to grow upto

Rs.1,11,179/- till issuance of PDCO/notice to the complainant. The Forum is

of the view that the amount should have been frozen on that date by issuance

130

of the PDCO which was only done after more than 2 years. The Forum in its

earlier order dated 02.09.2013 also made similar observations.

xii) In view of above facts, the Forum concludes that levying of surcharge after

NIL consumption was observed, is not in order, as already stated above in line

with Supply Code Regulations. The licensee was supposed to issue for notice

of PDCO on account of default in payment of bills in June, 2010. The

recoverable amount from the complainant is Rs.31,530/- and not

Rs.1,11,179/- for which the notice has been served to the complainant.

5. In view of above, the Forum directs Nodal Officer to issue a revised notice for

recovering amount of Rs.31,530/- from Smt. Raj Rani in whose name connection

exists.

6. The complaint stands disposed off, with these observations.








131




Complaint No. - 530


In the matter of Sh. Davinder Gupta, S/o. Sh. Kulbhushan Gupta, SCF No. 10, Sector-21, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Davinder Gupta, S/o. Sh. Kulbhushan Gupta, SCF No. 10, Sector-21,

Chandigarh vide his letter dated 12.03.2014 stated that against the NRS electric

connection in SCF No. 10, Sector-21, Chandigarh, a bill on account of load

surcharge amounting to Rs.85,126/- was raised in the month of May, 2013 as a

result of ECR report dated 24.05.2013. As per ECR report, the connected load

was found to be 20.965 KW against sanctioned load of 7.840 KW. The

complainant requested that the charges for the Unauthorized load be levied @

Rs.250/- per KW as notified by the Hon’ble JERC.

2. Before the complaint was formally registered, the Nodal Officer - Executive

Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh was asked to examine and

submit para wise comments on the representation of the Forum and also to supply

the consumption data of the consumer for the last 3 years vide Forum letter dated

14.03.2014.

3. In response to Forum’s letter, the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT,

Chandigarh vide his letter dated 07.04.2014 forwarded the comments of SDO,

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh alongwith consumption data of the

132

consumer. As per submissions made by the concerned SDO, the NRS connection

was checked on 24.05.2013, when connected load of 29.569 KW against

sanctioned load of 7.840 KW was found. The amount of Rs.85,126/- was charged

on account of Unauthorized load as per Tariff Order issued by Hon’ble JERC for

the year 2011-12. With regard to complainant’s plea for charging @ Rs.250/- per

KW, the SDO submitted that the notification in this respect was issued by Hon’ble

JERC on 07.08.2013 and same is not applicable as the checking was conducted

on 24.05.13.

4. The complaint was formally registered as complaint No. 530 on 13.06.2014. The

first hearing was conducted on 26.06.14, followed by 08.07.2014, 06.08.14 and on

25.09.14.

5. On the basis of documents, the Forum observed that

a) As a result of ECR checking, the notice of assessment issued by the SDO

concerned vide Memo. No. 1945 dated 30.05.13, only included the amount on

account of compensation charges as per Provisional Assessment report. The

notice was not issued under Section 126 and thus the case can be taken up by

the Forum.

b) The Forum observed that the checking was conducted on 24.05.13 whereas the

notification specifying the amount to be charged @ Rs.250/- per KW were notified

on a subsequent date i.e. 07.08.13. The Forum agrees with the submission made

by SDO that the assessment is to be done as per the instructions applicable at the

time of checking.

c) The Forum while going through the assessment report observed that the amount

has been assessed correctly as per instructions applicable at the time of checking.

6. With above observations, the complaint stands dismissed.



133





8.


134




Complaint No. - 537


In the matter of Sh. Hari Charan Thapa, LIG Flat No. 494/1, Sector-41A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Hari Charan Thapa, resident of LIG Flat No. 494/1, Sector-41A, Chandigarh

vide his letter dated 06.05.14 represented that his electricity bill for the month of

March, 2014 was very much on higher side amounting to Rs. 46,576/-. He

requested the SDO for checking of the meter reading which was found to be in

order. Through his representation he requested the Forum for review of the bill on

the basis of his past consumption.

2. The representation of the consumer was forwarded to the Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 06.05.14 for para-wise

comments and for supply of consumption data for the past 3 years.

3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 20.05.14 submitted that the meter reading and the working of the meter was

got checked by J.E. of his Sub Division on the request of the complainant. The

reading on 07.03.14 was found to be 17653 units. Subsequently on 19.05.14, the

reading was again checked and found to be 18460 units. The working of meter

was found to be OK. He also supplied the consumption data of the consumer for

the last 3 years.

4. The representation of the consumer was treated as formal complaint No.537 on

17.06.14. The first hearing was conducted on 03.07.14 which was attended by

135

both the parties. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 06.08.14 and on

25.09.14.

5. During the hearings the complainant argued that his average consumption for the

last 3 years was in the range of 500 units whereas for the period 25.11.13 to

25.01.14, the meter recorded consumption of 10418 units. He stated that this

much consumption particularly in the winter period for his LIG flat of 2 room set

with connected load of 6.29 KW is not possible and the meter recorded erroneous

reading. The SDO stated that the working of the meter was got checked and found

in order. Even a check meter was installed during the period 03.07.14 to 04.08.14

and the results of both the meters were found within permissible limits. Vide his

letter dated 24.09.14, he also supplied the details of meter readings taken on

subsequent dates as per directions of the Forum on 08.09.14, 17.09.14 and

23.09.14 as 20180, 20320 and 20419 units respectively.

6. The Forum observed that the working of the meter after March, 2014 was kept

under observation for a sufficiently long time and found no abnormality with the

meter either with regard to reading jumping or accuracy. While analysing the

consumption record of the consumer, the Forum observed that the consumption

during the period March, 2011 to November, 2011 was in the range of 400-500

units per cycle which dropped significantly during the period November, 2011 to

July, 2012. The consumption during the period May, 2012 to July, 2012 was only

02 units. However, for the subsequent period of July, 2012 to September, 2012,

the recorded consumption was 2542 units indicating that the reading might have

been accumulated during first half of 2012. The meter was changed during the

period September, 2012 November, 2012 and the recorded consumption of the

new meter was again in the range of 500 units per cycle except for the summer

cycle when the consumption was in the range of 800-900 units per cycle upto

November, 2013. Thereafter, during the 2 month disputed period from November,

2013 to January, 2014, the meter recorded 10418 units. After January, 2014, the

consumption uptil September, 2014 (9 months period) has been found to be 3232

units i.e. around 720 units per cycle of 2 months. The Forum also estimated the

consumption as per formula prescribed in the Supply Code Regulations for

sanctioned connected load of 6.29 KW. Even after taking a higher load factor of

136

50%, the estimated consumption for 2 month period is 4536 units which is less

than half of the recorded consumption of 10418 units during the disputed period.

7. From the above analysis, it is seen that the electricity consumption recorded by the

meter is comparable except for the consumption recorded during the 2 months

disputed period of 25.11.13 to 25.01.14. The working of meter was got checked

by JE and subsequently with check meter and was found to be in order. With the

comparable recorded consumption prior and after the disputed period also rules

out the case of accumulation of the reading. The Forum could not attribute any

reason to the recording of high consumption during the disputed period. The

working of meter has been watched for sufficiently long time (6 months) but no

reading jump was observed.

8. On the basis of documents placed before the Forum, the Forum concludes that the

working of the meter is OK and the bill has been prepared on the basis of reading

of the meter.

9. With above observation, the complaint stands dismissed.






14.



137

MISCELLANEOUS COMPLAINT - MEMO. NO. CGRF/COMP-MISC/2013/644-645 DATED 15.07.2014

IN THE MATTER OF SH. LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF H. NO. 2282-A, SECTOR 19-C,

CHANDIGARH.


Versus

1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTY. ‘OP’ DIVN. NO.3, UT CHANDIGARH. 2. SDO, ELECTY. ‘OP’ SUB-DIVN. NO. 3, UT, CHANDIGARH.


Subject : Rectification in Electricity bills in respect of Govt. Accommodation Sh. Lal Singh, S/o. Sh. Sant Ram, H. No. 2282-A, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.

1. Sh. Lal Singh, S/o. Sh. Sant Ram, H. No. 2282-A, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh made

a complaint about receipt of heavy bills against his domestic connection.


the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh asking him to

supply issue-wise reply alongwith consumption data for the last three years by

29.07.2013 to the Forum vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2013/644-645 dated

15.07.2013 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was also directed to

supply list of fittings and appliances provided in his house.

3. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh through his written

submissions dated 26.07.2014 provided the details of new/old reading alongwith

units for the period 22.11.2012 to 22. 01.13, 22.01.13 to 22.3.13 and 22.3.13 to

22.5.13. It was observed that the consumption for the period 22.1.13 to 22.3.13

was shown as 3906 units against the consumption of 359 units and 327 units for

the other two cycles. It was further submitted by the SDO that the electricity meter

was checked by Sh. Kesar Singh, JE-II and it was reported that meter is digit

defective. Through subsequent submissions dated 28.10.2013, the SDO conveyed

that the connection was released in the month of November, 2012 and as such, the

consumption data for the period (three years) as desired by the Forum, was not

supplied in the first instance. From the consumption data for the period beyond

22.5.13, it was noted that the meter was replaced vide MCO No. 09/686 dated

01.08.2013.

138

4. It has been noted that the consumption of the consumer during one year was in the

range of 300-400 units from the date of release of connection whereas the

consumption during March, 2013 was recorded as 3906 units for which the meter

was reported to be digit defective.

5. Now the consumption of the new meter installed on 16.08.2013 is available for 3

billing cycles, the SDO is directed to charge the amount on the basis of average for

the period 22.1.13 to 22.3.13. The SDO is also directed to allow surcharge for the

wrong billing issued in the month of March, 2013 as the applicant was being

allowed to make part payment for the current bill.

6. The SDO to report compliance within one month from the date of receipt of this

order.






9.


office of the consumer grievances …chdengineering.gov.in/pages/cgrf_order_sep2014.pdf1 office of...

Documents