office of the consumer grievances redressal forum … · 2018-04-13 · office complex (2nd floor),...

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 SH.G.D. SAINI MEMBER AND SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 505 Date of Institution - 30.10.2013 Date of Order - 18.08.2015 In the matter Shri Deepak Gupta, House No.958, Sector-10, Panchkula.

………………..Petitioner

Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8 UT, Chandigarh.

……………….Respondents

Order

1. Shri Deepak Gupta, resident of House No.958, Sector-10, Panchkula through his

representation dated 30.10.2013 submitted that he has an electric connection at

House No. 4013, Mauli Jagran Complex since 2005. Against this DS connection,

the sundry charges of approximately Rs.25000/- was charged to him. On his

contacting the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8, he was informed that this amount was

on account of past arrears of the same premises. He stated that though he was

paying current bills, yet the supply was disconnected from time to time due to non

payment of sundry charges. The supply disconnected on 20.11.20`13 was restored

on 23.12.2013 after he deposited Rs.20,000/- with the department. On further

enquiry he was told by the Sub Division that amount pertains to year 2000 when the

premises was being used for commercial purposes and domestic misuse

commercial (DMC) tariff was levied. Then occupant did not pay the charges and his

connection was disconnected and meter was removed. The Complainant’s main

plea is that he got new connection in the year 2005 and at the time of release of

connection no such defaulting amount against the premises was conveyed.

2. The para-wise comments along with consumption data were called from the Nodal

Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electricity Operation Division No.2 vide letter dated

1.11.2013 with a copy to the complainant.

2

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated

3.12.2013 intimated as under:-

a) The electricity connection stands in the name of Shri Lal Chand and Shri Deepak

Gupta is not the consumer of the electricity department.

b) That one No. Electricity connection at the same premises was disconnected and

the defaulting amount of Rs.29,878/- has been transferred to new connection

being the same premises.

c) The said amount had been reflected in the Ledger for the period June 2006 to

August 2006.

d) The electricity supply was disconnected from time to time to recover the

defaulting amount and on the request of the consumer part payment was

accepted and electricity supply was restored.

e) He also supplied the consumption data of the existing connection.

4. The complaint was formally registered as Complaint No.505 was notified for hearing

on 1.1.2014, but neither the consumer nor the SDO attended. Subsequent hearing

was conducted on 28.1.2014 and was attended by the SDO only. In the next date of

hearing was 5.6.2014, again the complainant did not attend.

5. On the next date of hearing on 24.7.2014, the complainant as well as SDO attended

the hearing. The complainant submitted that he purchased the said house from

`Shri Lal Chand on General Power Attorney and the electricity connection was

applied in the name of original allotee i.e. Shri Lal Chand. At the time of release of

connection he was not conveyed (by the Sub Division) that any defaulting amount is

pending against this premises and thus he is not liable to pay this amount. The

concerned SDO on the other hand submitted that it was a new connection and was

released on the request of the consumer. Subsequently, the outstanding defaulting

amount was charged through sundry item to the consumer. He submitted that since

the connection is in the same name as such they are permitted by the Supply Code

Regulations to recover the defaulting amount. The Forum observed that the details

of the defaulting amount were not intimated by the Sub Division. The Forum,

therefore, called for certain information along with defaulting amount, Date of PDCO

etc. from the Nodal Officer vide letter dated 16.9.2014 and 26.11.2014. The

3

concerned SDO supplied the requisite details vide letter dated 18.9.2014 and

11.5.2015. From the details provided by the Sub Division it was noted that last bill

including current energy charges were issued for the period June to August 2001 as

Rs.20,210/-. Thereafter yearly interest/surcharge @ 10% per annum was levied and

thus defaulting amount of Rs.20,210/- in August 2001 became R.29,878/- in 2006.

6. The Case was then listed for hearing on 16.7.2015. The complainant, Xen. ‘OP”

Division No.2, SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and RA were present. The complainant

as well as respondent Xen reiterated their earlier submissions. The complainant also

stated that he was issued no dues certificate at the time release of connection.

7. On Subsequent date of hearing on 18.8.2015, the Complainant only showed the

photo copy of Application Form submitted to the Sub Division for release of new

connection. The complainant submitted that he had already paid excess bill

through two instalments of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- which were deposited under

protest.

8. The Nodal Officer informed that the consumer had not been paying the current bill

charges for the last two years or so.

9. Observations and decision by the Forum:

The Forum observed that the Sub Division can recover the defaulting amount in the

name of same consumer as per Regulations 9.2(10) of the Supply Code. In the

present case the premises is also same. However, the Sub Division should have

disconnected the supply on the first/ second default and should have made efforts to

recover the defaulting amount. It appears from the documents placed before the

Forum that such action was not taken by the Sub Division. The Forum considering

the request of the consumer not to recover at least the surcharge decides that only

principle amount of default i.e. Rs.20,210/- be recovered from the consumer instead

of Rs.29,878/- which grew on account of levy of interest on the principle amount. No

surcharge on this amount of Rs.20,210/- is to be levied till date of payment of this

amount. The surcharge on the current bills issued but not paid would, however, be

levied as per instructions. The consumer is also directed to pay the current cycle

charges simultaneously. While overhauling the amount it may be ensured that the

surcharge is levied only on the outstanding payment and not on full amount of bill

4

when part payment was made by the consumer. Compliance be reported within

twenty one days.

10. The SE/Electricity is also directed to re-iterate the provision of Supply Code to be

followed by the Nodal Officers in letter and spirits particularly w.r.t. disconnection of

electricity supply on default in payment of Electricity bills.

11. With the above observations, the complaint stands disposed.

“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.”

12. 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) (G.D. SAINI) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF

mailto:[email protected]

5




Complaint No. - 575 Date of Institution - 08.01.2014 Date of Order - 16.09.2015 In the matter the Registrar, Panjab University, Sector-14, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. The Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh approached the Forum vide letter

dated 19/20th December 2013, sent under Registered cover, which was received by

the Forum on 8.1.2014. The applicant stated that the electricity distribution system

in Panjab University is with Chandigarh Electricity Department. All the Electricity

connections have been released on LT side. The department and hostels of the

campus face various problems relating to electricity such as extension of load, low

voltage, electricity failures, frequent tripping and voltage fluctuations etc. Moreover,

a few new buildings come up in Sector-14 are lying unused due to non release of

electricity connections by the Electricity Department with the plea that total load of

buildings in the campus is more than 5 MW and needs to be clubbed and obtained

on 66 KV supply as per Hon’ble JERC Tariff Order dated 20.5.2010. The applicant

submitted that the Panjab University is not in a position to get the Power Connection

at 66 KV supply as the requisite power infrastructure is not ready. He apprised

following to the Forum:-

i) The Panjab University Board of Finance in its meeting held on 27.7.2011 has

sanctioned Rupees Six Crores funds for creating power infrastructure in first

phase.

6

ii) 1500 Sq. Yard of land has been kept reserved for creating 66 KV Grid Sub

Station Sector-14, Panjab University Campus, as shown in the Master Plan.

Additional land can also be allotted as per the requirement.

iii) The locations of existing and proposed Sub Stations would be as per

proposal marked in the attached Master Plan. These Sub Stations would be

connected through 5 Nos. 11 KV overhead/underground feeders from newly

proposed 66 KV Grid Sub Station to be installed in Panjab University

Campus, Sector-14, Chandigarh, as per Site Plan attached.

The applicant also mentioned that in view of non availability of manpower and

technical knowhow, the Panjab University requested Power Grid Corporation of

India (PGCI) and Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) for executing the work

of 66 KV supply station on turnkey basis. In the meanwhile, following prayer was

made for utilizing the new buildings and one extended portion of the building that

urgently need power connections.

a) To release new connections to the newly constructed buildings on 440 Volts

supply to put the newly constructed buildings infrastructure in use immediately as

per existing practice. Panjab University, Chandigarh would pay the LT surcharge

till release of electricity connection on 66 KV lines.

b) To exclude the residences and shops from the load to be applied with

Chandigarh Electricity Department on 66 KV lines for an initial period of five

years as at present, Panjab University, Chandigarh does not have sufficient staff

strength and the infrastructure for same.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Additional Superintending

Engineer, Electricity Operation Division No.1 vide letter dated 5.2.2014 for

submitting parawise comments.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 through written submissions dated

24.2.2014 duly countersigned by the Additional Superintending Engineer, Elecy.

‘OP’ Division No.1 submitted that, the issue raised by the applicant does not fall

under the preview of the Forum as there is no provision in the notified Tariff

approved by the Hon’ble JERC for release of Electricity connection where the load is

more than 5 M.W and also the provision of LT surcharge. It was also advised that

7

applicant may seek the relief from the Hon’ble JERC by filing the petition before

them.

4. The complaint registered as Complaint No. 575 was listed for hearing on

5.11.2014, only SDO was present but the representative of the complainant did not

attend. The case was again notified for hearing on 23.12.2014 when the

representative of the complainant as well as SDO were present. The representative

of the complainant requested for release of connections at LT or at 11 KV but the

SDO objected stating that there is no such provision in the regulations. The

complainant was also requested to submit a definate time plan for getting the supply

at 66 KV as per the feedback from PGCIL.

5. On the next date of hearing on 16.9.2015, the representative of the complainant as

well as SDO along with his RA were present. The representative of the applicant

requested for release of connections of new buildings at LT or 11 KV. He also

agreed for laying a separate feeder from the Sub Station. To a query by the

Forum, the applicant stated that the present sanctioned load of Panjab University is

about 9 M.W and request for release of new/extended load has been made for

additional load of 3 M.W. With regard to setting up of 66 KV Substation it was

informed that applicant is already in contact with PGCIL for the same. The SDO

stated that present load of the Panjab University is being fed through two

independent feeders and three common feeder. As the total load is more than 5

M.W., as such the connection is required to be applied on 66 KV as per Tariff orders

issued by the Hon’ble JERC for the year 2014-15. The SDO also supplied a copy of

letter dated 27th Feb. 2015 written by the S.E. Electricity Operation U.T. to Panjab

University regarding installation of 66 KV Sub Station in Panjab University. In this

letter, the feeding arrangement of the proposed 66 KV sub station to be set up by

Panjab University was shared along with relevant details. The Panjab University

was also requested to submit drawings for the proposed 66 KV Sub Station along

with load flow study. SDO stated that drawings have not yet been submitted by the

applicant.

6. Observations and Decision by the Forum:

8

The Forum noted that the applicant was requesting for release of new

connection/extension of load to the existing connections at a lower voltage Than the

voltage level prescribed by the Hon’ble JERC. The Forum also observed that

release of connections at 400 Volt or even at 11 KV will attract higher losses. With

regard to complainant’s request for relaxing the voltage level for a period of 2 years

or so required for setting up of 66 KV Sub Station with payment of LT surcharge.

The Forum is of the view that it is beyond the Forum to allow such relaxations to the

regulation notified by the Hon’ble JERC. The applicant may approach the Hon’ble

JERC for the above relaxations.

7. With the above observations and decision, the complaint stands as disposed.








9

OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM

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


Complaint No. - 653 Date of Institution - 23.02.2015

Date of Order - 16.07.2015 In the matter Shri Ram Paul, House No.1636, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Shri Ram Paul, House No.1636, Mauli Jagran, Vikas Nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh

vide his complaint dated 23.2.2015 submitted that he received an inflated bill of his

domestic connection and requested for getting the same checked, stating that such

high consumption was not possible for his one room and kitchen set.

2. The representation was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer,

Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examine and submit parawise comment/action taken

report along with consumption data for the last three years vide letter dated

24.2.2015.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 11.5.2015

submitted parawise reply duly counter signed by Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2. He

submitted that the existing connection is under domestic category and on checking,

the load was found as 0.688 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.520 KW. The

working of the meter was also got checked and found O.K. He also supplied the

consumption data along with other relevant documents.

4. The case was formally registered as complaint No.653 and was listed for hearing on

16.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF-653-656-505-660-659/2015/1029 dated

08.07.2015, a copy of which was also sent to the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.8 and to the complainant.

10

On the date of hearing, the complainant did not attend. The Nodal Officer Xen

‘OP’ Division No.2, AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and RA of the Sub Division were

present.

During the hearing, the Nodal Officer stated that the consumption of 11341 units

during the period 8/2013 to 12/2013 could be possible on account of

accumulation of readings.

5. Observations of the Forum:

On critical analysis of the consumption details it was noted that current reading in

10/2013 was 17116 with previous reading in 8/2013 as 5802 thus recording the

consumption of 11314 units for 2 months. The bill was however prepared on

average considering the reading as inconsistent. The recorded reading in 12/13

was 17143 and 26266 on 5.2.2014 as per MCO dated 28.1.2014 with the meter

status as digit defective. The above details clearly established that the reading of

the meter had the tendency to jump. The Xen/AEE and RA also agreed with the

inference drawn by the Forum.

6. Decision:

The Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled from the period 8/13

to 2/14 on the basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding year in

2012-13. Compliance be reported within twenty one days after the receipt of the

order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty as per relevant rules

of Electricity Act 2003.

7. With the above directions, complaint stands disposed.






(RL MITTAL) (G.D. SAINI) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF


11





Date of Order - 16.07.2015 In the matter Shri Mehar Din, House No.1052, Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Mehar Din, House No.1052, Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his

representation dated 19.2.2015 submitted that after receipt of bill of Rs. 4 lacs he

represented to the ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 Manimajra that the high consumption

recorded by the meter was on account of reading jumping since his average

consumption was of the order of 500 to 600 units only.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 to examine and submit parawise comment/action taken


24.2.2015.



stated that the connection was domestic and on checking the load was found as

2.670 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.240 KW. The working of the meter

was also got checked and found in order. He also supplied the consumption

data along with other documents.

4. The case was formally registered as complaint No.656 and was listed for hearing

on 16.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF-653-656-505-660-659/2015/1029 dated



12

On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as Nodal Officer Xen ‘OP’

Division No.2, AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and RA of the Sub Division were

present.

From the Consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, it was

noted that against the normal consumption of around 500 units per cycle, the

meter recorded consumption of 85940 units during the period March to May

2014. The respondent Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 and AEE agreed that such high

consumption could be on account of meter jumping.

5. Decision:

The Nodal Officer is directed to get the meter replaced and overhaul the account

for the period March to May 2014 on the basis of consumption recorded during

the corresponding period (3/13 to 5/13) of the previous year. The surcharge is

also to be adjusted simultaneously. Compliance be reported within twenty one

days after the receipt of the order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose

penalty as per relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.



7. 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.



13



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON, SH.G.D. SAINI MEMBER AND SH.RL MITTAL (OMBUDSMAN) MEMBER.


Date of Order - 08.07.2015 In the matter Shri N.K. Gupta, House No.2211A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Additional Superintending Engineer, Elecy. Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Shri N.K. Gupta, resident of House No.2211, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh vide his

complaint received in the office of CGRF on 18.2.2015 submitted that he made a

complaint about the working of his meter as faulty on 18.12.2013. The complaint

was disposed off by CGRF vide order dated 28.7.2014 in complaint No.522 on the

basis of report by concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 about replacement of his

meter and overhauling of his account. He, however, came to know from the

electricity department that the meter of his neighbour was changed in February 2013

inadvertently and he was being billed on the basis of reading recorded by the

replaced meter which actually belonged to his neighbour House No.2210, Sector 42-

C, Chandigarh. The Sub Division after came to know of this mistake overhauled the

account and sent him a bill of Rs.36000/-.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending

Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.4 to submit parawise comments vide letter dated

24.2.2015.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No. 9 vide his reply dated 20.5.2015 submitted

the facts of the case as follows:-

a) As per order dated 28.7.2014 in Complaint No. 522 of the CGRF the

consumer account was overhauled for the period 10.5.2012 to 20.2.2013 on

14

the basis of consumption for the period 10.5.2011 to 10.5.2012 and

Rs.27117/- was refunded/adjusted vide sundry item dated 11.6.2014.

b) The MCO dated 18.2.2013 was issued to replace the defective energy meter

of the complainant.

c) Inadvertently energy meter of House No.2210A Sector 42-C was changed

and advice was sent to the Computer Centre in respect of account of the

complainant.

d) Subsequently when the fact of intermingling of reading of House No.2210A

and 2211A came to notice, the accounts of both the consumers were

overhauled on the basis of the readings recorded by their respective meters

and were settled through sundry charges/allowances.

e) On receiving the complaint from the complainant a check meter was installed

to check the working of the existing meter which was found to be 6.25% slow.

f) The disputed meter of the complainant was replaced on 24.3.2015.

He also supplied the consumption data of the meter for the last three years.

4. The case was formally registered as Complaint No.658 and was listed for hearing on

25.5.2015 vide letter dated 5.5.2015. A copy of the hearing notice was also sent to

the consumer as well as Nodal officer and SDO

5. The complainant as well as concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 along with his

RA were present on 25.5.2015. The SDO submitted that in response to

complainant’s, first complaint dated 18.12.2013 (registered as Complaint No.522)

the meter of his neighbour was replaced by mistake which came to notice in the 3rd

quarter of 2014 and accordingly both the accounts was overhauled. The SDO was

directed to submit the consumption details along with readings of both the

consumers of House No.2210A and 2211A (Complainant), Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.

6. The SDO supplied the requisite consumptions vide his letter dated 29.5.2015.

7. The case was re-notified for hearing on 21.7.2015 but the hearing was preponed to

8.7.2015 on the request of the complainant. The applicant, RA and UDC of the

Sub Division No.9 were present. The RA stated that account of the complainant

was overhauled after it came to notice about intermingling of readings of both the

meters from the period 10.9.2012 to 22.9.2014 up to reading 46121 as recorded on

15

the meter. The meter was subsequently replaced on 24.3.2015 at reading of 48595

after meter was found to be slow by 6.25% on the basis of report of check meter.

The complainant, however, insisted that the meter was declared dead by the

department and therefore previous decision made by the CGRF should be continued

till the installation of new meter on 24.3.2015.

8. The Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 14th July 2015 submitted the written

statement in confirmation of the oral submissions made by the RA during the

hearing, as under:-

(a) The MCO No. 120/686 dated 18.2.2013 was issued to replace the defective

meter No. CHSE54002 installed at House No.2211A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.

(b) Inadvertently energy meter of House No.2210A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh was

changed but advice was in respect of House No.2211A sent to the computer

centre.

(c) An amount of Rs.27117/- was refunded to the complainant (House No.2211A,

Sector 42-C, Chandigarh) after overhauling the account as per CGRF order in

complaint No.522.

(d) The fact of the wrong meter change came to notice when resident of House

No.2210A approached the Sub Division regarding inadequate billing. The Sub

Division Office again verified on 15.1.2015 and found that the energy meter

No.CHSE-54002 of the complainant was still existing at the site.

(e) The billing of the complainant was being done as per the consumption recorded

by the new installed meter of his neighbour.

(f) The consumer account of the complainant was again overhauled from the meter

readings 32000 to 47816 for Rs.8885 and Rs.27117/- which was earlier refunded

were again charged totalling to Rs.36002/-.

(g) The account of House No.2210A was also set right from the initial reading

amounting to Rs.50,020/- which was paid by the consumer.

(h) On the complainant of Shri N.K. Gupta a check meter was installed vide SJO

dated 23.2.2015 and the working of the disputed meter was found slow by

6.25%.

16

(i) Being a defective meter, the same was replaced on 24.3.2015 at meter reading

of 48595.

The SDO concluded the amount of Rs.36002/- charged to the consumer is

corrected and liable to be paid by him.

9. Views & Commentsof Nominated Member for CGRF of JERC 1. The whole story presented by the department is very confusing or may be it has been made very confusing.

Shri N.K. Gupta, resident of House No. 2211-A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh had filed a complaint on dated 18.12.2013 regarding heavy amount of bills starting from the month of May 2012 (i.e. 10.5.2012). CGRF lodged this as Complaint No.522 and started its proceedings accordingly. In this complaint the Forum found out that the Consumer’s Meter was “Dead Stop” and there was an abrupt increase in the consumption from 10.5.2012 onwards as compared to the consumption for the past one year. The concerned SDO himself had replied that the consumer’s account was required to be overhauled on the basis of previous consumption as the meter was dead stop and was not showing correct readings. So , the Forum ordered to change the defective meter and to overhaul the account of the consumer from the period 10.5.2012 to 20.2.2013 (i.e. Date of MCO) on the basis of consumption for the period 10.5.2011 to10.5.2012, and ordered to refund/adjust an amount of Rs. 27,113/- to the Consumer, which was calculated on the basis of overhauling of the account and disposed of this ComplaintNo.522 vide order dated 28.7.2014.

2. But instead of complying with the order of the CGRF the Electricity Department charged the consumer an amount of Rs.36,002/- in the bill of dated 8.2.2015.

Electricity Department contended that vide the Meter change order No. 120/686 of dated 18.2.2013 which was issued to replace the defective meter of Shri N.K. Gupta it mistakenly changed Sh. N.K. Gupta’s neighbour’s electricity meter and informed wrongly to the Computer Cell that the electricity meter of Shri N.K. Gupta had been correctly changed. Department said that due to this reason the billing of Shri N.K. Gupta was being calculated as per the consumption of new meter installed on Shri N.K. Gupta’s Neighbour’s House and the billing of the neighbour was being done according to the consumption recorded by the meter installed at the premises of Shri N.K. Gupta. Department said they came to know about this discrepancy on dated 15.01.2015 and overhauled the account of the consumer (Shri N.K. Gupta) according to his meter’s readings for the period 10.9.2012 to 15.1.2015 and charged an amount of Rs.36,002/-. Department also refused from the earlier statement (Letter of SDO Memo. No. 1486 of dated 21.3.2014) regarding dead stop meter and contended that it was pertained to House No.2210, Sector 42 (Neighbour of Shri N.K. Gupta) and not to the complainant.

3. So, whatever amount had been directed to refund in the final order of Complaint No.522, that all had been charged again by the department. On dated 27.1.2015, the consumer had sent a request letter to the CGRF and requested the Forum to ensure the compliance of its final order of Complaint No.522 as even after the passing of more than 6 months from the date of final order, no relief had been provided to him.

4. Directions to Comply: a) Consumer is being harassed form the month of May 2012.

Firstly from May 2012 (10.5.2012) to Feb. 2013 (20.2.2013) his meter readings showed a high inflation as compared to the consumption of previous years and after that he was informed that he was being charged on the basis of units consumed by his neighbour’s meter from 10.9.2012 to 15.1.2015 for period of almost 28 months. Consumer is suffering from the last more than 3 years.

17

b) The whole incident shows a huge carelessness on the part of electricity department. There are various things which look suspicious. I mean, the complaint of high bills were being made by the consumer (Shri N.K. Gupta) but the officials of the department were keep checking the Neighbour’s House. They firstly said that the meter of Shri Gupta was “Dead Stop” and later on they refused, and after that the meter change order was issued for changing the defective meter of Shri N.K. Gupta but the officials of the department changed the Neighbour’s meter and intimated to the Computer Cell that the meter of Shri N.K. Gupta has been correctly changed. And after that, on dated 15.1.2015 (almost after 28 months) the department awoke and came to know that Shri N.K. Gupta was being charged on the basis of Neighbour’s meter consumption and fined him an amount of Rs.36,002/-. The whole incident clearly shows that due to the miscalculations and Wrong workings of the department the consumer is suffering from the past 3 years and more.

c) Consumer had filed his original Complaint on 18.12.2013. His main grievance was high meter readings from May 2012 to Jan.2013 (i.e. 10.5.2012 to 10.1.2013). On 15.1.2015 the department overhauled the account of the consumer for the period 10.9.2012 to 15.1.2015 according to the consumption recorded by Shri N.K. Gupta’s meter. But this overhauling is also wrong because the meter of Shri N.K. Gupta (i.e. CHP-54002) was defective. Consumption pattern of Shri N.K. Gupta’s this meter clearly shows that the meter was not working properly. There are sudden high increases and decreases in the consumption pattern. Consumer had filed his complaint for high bills during the bill cycles of 10.5.2012 -10.7.2012, 10.7.2012 to 10.9.2012, 10.9.2012 to 10.11.2012, 10.11.2012 to 10.1.2013 ( i.e. Bill cycle from May/July 2012 to Nov./Dec. 2012).

Comparison of these above mentioned periods – consumption units with the previous year’s and future year’s consumption units clearly shows that the meter of the consumer was defective. For example InNov.2011, consumer’s consumption was only 664 units but for Nov. 2012 the meter of the consumer is showing consumption as of 2697 units and for Nov. 2013 it is showing consumption of just 393 units. So it is fluctuating-increasing and decreasing. This disorder is consumption pattern indicates that the meter was also defective. It was working sometimes slow and sometimes fast. The check meter Report of 23.2.2015 also says that the meter was not working accurately, it was working slow. But by this report we cannot rule out the possibility of it’s being running fast 3 years ago (i.e. 10.5.2012 – 10.1.2013) as there is a huge time gap between the disputed period and Check Meter Report. The maximum that we can take from check meter is that the meter was not working properly.

d) Firstly, it is to be noted that the consumer has not filed any new complaint. He has only sought the compliance of the order of CGRF in his earlier (himself filed) complaint No.522. The present complaint No.658 has not been filed by the consumer. CGRF cannot itself convert a request letter into a formal complaint without assent of the consumer. CGRF is not a Supreme Court or High Court, it is merely a quasi-Judicial body.

In Civil Cases, there has to be two parties (i.e. Petitioner and Respondent). Petitioner files the complaint and respondent replies. The case cannot go on if the petitioner withdraws the complaint and similarly the case does not become a formal complaint until someone (petitioner) files it. The present complaint 658 has been filed by no one. So, it is not proper, it does not has a proper base. The consumer had only sought the compliance of the order of CGRF is Complaint No.522 but the CGRF not only converted this request letter into a formal complaint but also has completely changed its earlier order in complaint No.522 which is completely against to the Principle of Laws.

18

In Indian Judicial System except the Supreme Court and

the High Courts no one has the power to review its earlier decisions. This is not only forbidden but also an offence of “Contempt of Court”.

In the complaint no. 658, both the parties to the complaint are

same, the subject matter of the complaint is also same as it was in Complaint No.522, just a new cover, “of The Name of Complaint No.658” has been put up as to purport it as a new complaint. But this will also amount to review/rectification in the original orders.

5. In the light of above mentioned Points. I recommend that as per Rules & Regulations of Electricity Act 2003 and Supply Code Regulations 2010, the ComplaintNo.658 is baseless, it is not maintainable. It should be dismissed. CGRF should not challenge the authority of Supreme Court/High Courts. “The order of the CGRF in Complaint No.522 should be implemented. The order of overhauling of the account of the consumer from the period 10.5.2012 to date of MCO on the basis of previous year’s consumption is correct and stands till today.” Department changed the meter of the consumer on dated 24.32015. So, now as per the order of the CGRF in Complaint No.522 the department shall have to do overhauling from 10.5.2012 to 24.3.2015 (i.e. up to the real MCO date of consumer) on the basis of previous year consumption.

(R L MITTAL)

MEMBER, CGRF

Observations of the Forum:

10. The Forum noted the facts of the case as under:-

i) Shri N.K. Gupta submitted a complaint to the Forum on 18.12.2013

submitting that his meter was not working properly and was giving higher

reading. As the main grievance was with regard to the consumption

recorded during the period May to July 2012, July to Sept. 2012 and from

September to Nov. 2012 as 2339, 2148 and 3604 units respectively. The

concerned SDO while submitting the comments stated that the meter of

the consumer was replaced on 26.2.2013 with the remarks that meter

dead stop. He suggested for overhauling the account of the consumer

from 10.5.2012 to 26.2.13 on the basis of previous period consumption

from 10.5.2011 to 10.5.2012 resulting into refund of Rs.27117/-.

ii) The Forum on the basis of written submissions of the SDO disposed off

the complaint after observing that the account of the consumer has been

overhauled for the disputed period vide order dated 28.7.2014 in

complaint No.522.

19

iii) Subsequently it came to the notice of the Sub Division that inadvertently

the meter of neighbour of Shri N.K. Gupta was replaced and the mistake

could not be detected as the readings of both the meters were in the

range of 32000. Thereafter the billing of both houses i.e. 2210A and

2211A were being done on the readings recorded by the meters of other

house. This continued till Jan. 2015 when the discrepancy was detected

and the account of both the consumers were overhauled. As amount of

Rs.36002/- was charged to the complainant through sundry charges. The

complainant then approached the Forum with the present complaint.

During the hearing and through written submissions, Sub Division

admitted their mistake and sated that the earlier report regarding dead

stop meter on the basis of which complaint No. 522 was disposed, was

pertaining to House No.2210 Sector 42 and not to the complainant.

iv) To ascertain the accuracy of the meter with regard to recording of higher

consumption, the Sub Division installed a check meter in series with the

disputed meter. It was, however, seen that meter was in fact found slow

by 6.25%.

v) The disputed meter has since been replaced on 24.3.2015 at the meter

reading of 48595.

vi) The Forum observed from the consumption data that the consumption

during winter season was in the range of 600 units where as the

consumption during the summer months was more than 2000 units per

billing cycle.

vii) The Sanctioned load of complainant is 10.340 KW inclusive 2 ACs of 1.5

ton capacity each which the complainant admitted were switched ‘ON’

only during the night hours.

11. Views & Decision by the Member & Chairman:

We do not agree with the views expressed by Shri R.L. Mittal at NP-6 of this

order that the present complaint No.658 is baseless and not maintainable and the

order of the CGRF in Complaint No.522 should be implemented.

20

As per the fact of the case and observions by the Forum the Complaint

No.522 was disposed off on the basis of facts placed before the Forum. The

orders of the Forum were implemented by the SDO and refund was allowed to the

complainant. However, subsequently new facts came to notice that the factual

position on the basis of which the decision in Complaint No.522 was taken were

totally different. Disputed meter of the complainant was not changed and was in

position till 24,3.2015 and was recording the consumption. On analysis of the

consumption data it was concluded that the consumption being recorded by the

meter was as per the connected load and as per its usage by the complainant.

The estimated consumption as per the connection load and usage of ACs during

night time as conveyed by the complainant was also found to be in the range of

consumption recorded by the meter. Subsequently on installation of check meter

it was established that in fact the meter was recording less consumption by 6.25%.

The above facts clearly support the registering of the present complaint as a

new complaint. The Ld. Member has given his decision in the last para at NP-6

that as per order of the CGRF in Complaint No.522 the department shall have to

do the overhauling from 10.5.12 to 24.3.2015 i.e. up to the real MCO date of

consumption on the basis of previous year consumption. The above decision

means review of the order in Complaint No.522 the representative of the Hon’ble

Commission who visited in June 2015 has strongly objected to the review of the

earlier orders by the Forum. Moreover the complainant in his Complaint submitted

on 18.2.2015 made a fresh complaint on the basis of new facts discovered

subsequently submitting that his meter which he contended were faulty was in

existence till March 2015 and thus the overhauling be done on the average worked

out till the period the meter was at his premises. However, on the basis of other

factors and analysis of the consumption the contention of the complainant that his

meter was faulty does not hold good and thus his prayer was not found to be

acceptable on merit.

12. Decision of the Forum:

i) On the basis of above facts it is seen that the consumption being recorded

by the meter of the complainant was certainly not on higher side. Ultimately

21

it was established in March 2015 after installation of check meter that in fact

the meter was recording less by 6.25% then the actual consumption.

ii) The estimated consumption taking the load factor of 30% and diversity factor

of 2 is 2233 units per billing cycle of 2 months. Otherwise also going by the

statement of the complainant that the ACs were switched ‘ON’ only during

slipping time, the estimated consumption by 2 ACs of 1.5 ton each (1.8 KW

each) taking conservatively as is 1512 units for a period of 2 months

assuming the ACs remains switched ‘ON’ for about 7 hours during night time

only. To this figures when the average consumption of 600 units is added

(when the ACs are not used) the estimated consumption is around 2100 units

for a period of 2 months.

iii) The Forum also noted that the consumption recorded during the summer

months was also 2000plus units and are matching with the estimated

consumption. Thus the apprehension of the complainant that the meter was

recording higher consumption does not stand on the basis of estimated

consumption as well as conclusion drawn about the working of the meter with

installation of check meter.

13. In view of above, the Forum agrees with the submissions made by the Sub Division

that the charging done by them on the basis of reading recorded by the meter is in

order. The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account on the basis of report of

check meter as per provisions laid down in the Supply Code if not done already.

Compliance be reported within a period of 21 days failing which the Hon’ble JERC

may impose the penalty as per the relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.





22



(G.D. SAINI) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF

23

OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM

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



Date of Order - 16.07.2015 In the matter Shri Kishore Bansal, House No.5414/1, Manimajra Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Kishore Bansal, resident of House No. 5414/1, Modern Housing Complex,

Manimajra, Chandigarh through his representation dated 16.2.2015 submitted

that he received an inflated bill for Rs.9,71,030/- for the period 31/5/14 to 31/7/14

which he attributed could be due to jumping of meter reading.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 to examine and submit parawise comment/action

taken report along with consumption data for the last three years vide letter dated

19. 2.2015.



submitted that the connection was domestic and on checking the load was found

as 14.660 KW against the sanctioned load of 14.990 KW. The working of the

meter was also got checked and found O.K.. He also supplied the consumption

data.

4. The case was formally registered as complaint No.659 and was listed for

hearing on 16.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF-653-656-505-660-659/2015/1029

dated 08.07.2015, a copy of which was also sent to the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.8 and to the complainant.

24

On the date of hearing, Shri Harjinder Singh was present on behalf of Shri

Kishore Bansal. The Nodal Officer Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2, AEE ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.8 and RA of the Sub Division were also present.

He submitted that the disputed bill was for very high consumption

and it could be due to reading jumping. The Nodal Officer Xen ‘OP’ Division

No.2 and AEE agreed that such a high consumption of 81289 units against the

normal consumption in the range of 300 to 600 units could be on account of

meter jumping.

It was also observed that the subsequent consumption from Sept.

2014 to Jan. 2015 was also on higher side as compared to previous year

consumption.

Decision:

5. The Nodal Officer is directed to get the meter replaced and get the account

overhauled from July 2014 to till date of MCO on the basis of consumption

recorded in the previous year for the corresponding period. Compliance be

reported within twenty one days after the receipt of the order failing which the

Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty as per relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.









25





Date of Order - 16.07.2015 In the matter Shri Mohan Ram, House No.265/3, Gali No.11, Shanti Nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Mohan Ram resident of House No.265/3, Gali No.11, Shanti Nagar,

Manimajra, Chandigarh through his representation dated 16.2.2014 submitted

that he received an inflated bill in the month of October 2014 with consumption

showing as 81968 units against his normal consumption. He challenged the bill

after depositing the requisite fee of Rs.10/- but he did not get any relief and

therefore approached the Forum.



report along with consumption data for the last three years vide letter dated 19.

2.2015.



submitted that the connection was domestic and on checking the load was found

as 2.955 KW against the sanctioned load of 3.000 KW. The working of the meter

was also got checked and found O.K.. He also supplied the consumption data.


on 16.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF-653-656-505-660-659/2015/1029 dated



26



present.

The complainant reiterated his written submission that such a high

consumption could be on account of meter jumping. The respondent Xen ‘OP’

Division No.2 and AEE agreed that it could be case of jumping of meter.

Decision:

5. The Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled of the complainant

for the disputed period on the basis of consumption recorded during the

corresponding period in the previous year. Compliance be reported within twenty

one days after the receipt of the order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may

impose penalty as per relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.









27



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH.G.D. SAINI , MEMBER AND

SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), NOMINATED MEMBER. Complaint No. - 691 Date of Institution - 23.03.2015 Date of Order - 28.07.2015 In the matter of the Assistant Landscaping Officer, Hort. Sub Division No.2, Chandigarh.


Versus

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


Order

1. The Complainant submitted his complaint regarding disconnection of electricity

meter installed at Sukhna Tower due to non payment. It is further submitted that he

was regularly paying the electricity bill up to 12.7.2013. The Electricity department

has shown the arrear amounting to Rs.1,53,218/- in the recently bill received to the

department and the same amount was not related to the Horticulture Department.

With the request that the electricity department be directed for rectify the bill of

Horticulture department so that the Nursery/flower beds and horticulture related

works might not be suffered and the bills of disputed amount was also attached with

the complaint.

2. The representation was sent to the Nodal Officer, the Addl. Superintending

Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 for submitting parawise comments/action

taken report and along with consumption data for the last three years on the

representation, vide Memo.No. CGRF/Comp.-Misc./2014/59 dated 20.01.2014.

3. In view of this, the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 submitted his reply

vide Endst.No.456 dated 3.2.2014, SDO concerned submitted that a sum of

Rs.1,14,472/- was transferred to the account of the applicant bearing A/c No.

0342/000003X from A/c No. 0342/600840P being the same consumer. The

electricity meter of A/c No. 0342/600840P was removed on dated 3.12.2008 due

to non payment of electricity dues. The SDO concerned further submitted that

28

after the transfer of the amount the consumer stopped making the payment of

dues against existing account. At this position, electricity department has taken

the action and supply to the electricity of Meter No.CHEP-36814 bearing A/c

No.0342/000003X is also disconnected on dated 15.1.2014 at reading 062099.

At present a sum of Rs. 1,72,560/- was outstanding against the applicant

against A/c No.0342/000003X, so the action taken by the electricity department

was as per rules of the department. The SDO concerned also make the request

to the Forum to direct the complainant to make the payment at the earliest. SDO

concerned also attached the consumption data for the last three years with his

reply.

4. (i) The reply of A.L.O. Hort. Sub Divn.No.2 submitted secondary reply and

requested regarding his complaint vide Endst.No.188 dated 5.2.2014. The

complainant further submitted that after disconnection of A/c No. 0342/600840X

due to non payment, because the pending amount under this account was

merged in form of arrear with the account of 0342/000003X.

ii) The issue of delay payment under A/c No.0342/000003X cannot be

blamed upon this office as the delay was due to the procedural mistake of

merging the payments of different accounts. The complainant further raised the

points in view of the above, that the bill of A/c No. 0342/000003X might be

corrected and the amount of the arrear pertaining to the other account to avoid

delay in making the payment of the same and the complainant also requested for

revived of connection of account immediately, because this office was facing

problem of watering of the flower beds and plants at Sukhna Lake, Sector-6,

Chandigarh and this office has no concerned with the amount of the arrear of

Rs.1,60,768/- to this account related to A/c No. 0342/600840X.

5. The representation of the complaint was treated as formally as Complaint No.691

and the notice was issued to the concerned Nodal Officer with a copy to the

complainant fixing the case for consideration on dated 7.4.2015 vide this office

Memo. No. CGRF/Comp.-686-694/2015/325 dated 23.3.2015 and the same was

heard by the Forum. SDO was present but the complainant did not appear.

29

One more opportunity was given to the complainant to explain his position and

case was listed for hearing on 28.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF/Comp-

746/747/748/691/023 dated 8.7.2015. On the date of hearing on 28.7.2015,

the complainant did not attend. The Xen ‘OP’ Division No.1 and SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.2 were however, present.


After hearing the Xen ’OP’ Divn. No.1 and watching the complaint of the

consumer, Forum reached on the final decision that the amount pending in the

shape of arrear of Rs.1.60,768/- was related to A/c No/. 0342.600840X and the

same was merged in A/c No. 0342/000003X as both connections were in the

same nature.

7. Decision:

The Sub Regulation 10 of the Regulation 9.2 of Supply Code provides

disconnect ion of supply where any consumer having more than one connection

defaults in payment of dues relating to one of the connections.

Thus the action of Nodal Officer in transferring the defaulting amount of the

account of the same consumer and subsequently attending PDCO is as per

regulations.

8. With the above observations and directions, the case is dismissed.






(R.L. MITTAL) (G.D. SAINI) (R.K. ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF


30



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH.G.D. SAINI MEMBER


Date of Order - 09.07.2015 In the matter Shri H.S. Mejie, House No.55, Sector-2, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri H.S. Mejie, resident of House No.55, Sector-2, Chandigarh vide e-mail

received on 15 Jan. 2015 forwarded a copy of letter dated 17.9.2014 /4.12.2014

addressed to the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 regarding high consumption being

recorded by the meter. It was stated that the meter is recording more

consumption then being actually used by them.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 for comments/action taken report along with

consumption data vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2015/79 dated

09.02.2015. A copy of the letter was also forwarded to the complainant vide

Endst. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc/2015/80 dated 09.02.2015.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Xen ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide Memo. No. 2767 dated

11.3.2015 forwarded the reply submitted by AEE’OP’ Sub Division No.2 wherein

he submitted that in response to application by the consumer regarding the

excess bills, the electricity meter of the consumer was got checked from the JE

of his office. As per his report dated 5.12.2014, the meter working was found in

order and the above position was conveyed to the consumer on 29.12.2014.

Thereafter on another representation of the consumer, the check meter was

installed by the office itself and the result of the meter were found within

permissible limits. The complainant however, vide his letter dated 17.1.2015 to

31

the report of check meter and insisted that the meter be got tested in the Lab.

The consumption data was also enclosed.


on 14.5.2015. On the date of hearing both the consumer as well as SDO were

present. The consumer, however, showed his dis-satisfaction and insisted that

the meter got tested in the M&P Lab. The SDO stated that meter could not be

tested in the lab as the testing equipment was under re-caliberation.

5. Subsequently SDO vide his letter dated 15.6.2015 submitted that the electricity

meter was tested on 10.6.2015 in M&P Lab of the department in the presence of

the consumer and the working of the meter was found within permissible limits.

6. The case was again listed for hearing on 9.7.2015 vide letter dated 25.6.2015.

The representative of the complainant who attending the hearing was informed

by the SDO (during the hearing) that the report of check meter as well as testing

in M&P Lab established that the working of the meter is O.K. and therefore, bills

raised on the consumption recorded by the meter is in order. The representative

showed his satisfaction to the lab report. He, however, conveyed that the bills

were not being delivered in time. The SDO stated that the delivery of the bill was

assigned to the postal department and he will pull them in this regard.

7. With above observations that working of the meter is in order, the complaint

stands disposed. The Licensee is, however, directed to ensure that the bills are

delivered to the consumers by the postal department in time and give sufficient

time before the due date of the bill enabling them to make payment.



32





(G.D. SAINI) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF

33





Date of Order - 10.08.2015 In the matter M/s B4 Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Bharti Airtel), C-127, Phase 8, Industrial Area, Mohali


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 1 UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. M/s B4 Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Bharti Airtel) vide letter dated 13.2.2015 submitted that

during the period their meter remained defective w.e.f. May 2013 to July 2014, they

were charged consumption higher than the past average consumption. They

requested the concerned SDO for charging on the basis of average consumption but

SDO vide his letter dated 30.1.2015 stated that their meter was burning every year

and no proper reading record could be maintained. He also indicated the 2 months

readings recorded by the replaced meter to justify the consumption charged during

the meter remained defective.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electricity Operation

Division No.1 were called vide this office Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc./2015/136

dated 18.2.2015 along with consumption data for the last three years.

3. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 vide his letter dated 3.3.2015 addressed to Xen of

Division No.1 submitted that since the meter of the complainant was burning every

year and the higher consumption was charged which whould be adjusted on the

basis of consumption recorded by the replaced meter by taking approval from the

competent authority. He supplied the consumption data for the last three years

along with MCOs..

34

4. The complaint was formally registered as Complaint No.708 and notice was issued

to the concerned Xen (Nodal Officer) with copy to the complainant fixing the case for

consideration on dated 23.4.2015 vide Memo. No. 549 dated 16.6.2014 with the

copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as Nodal

Officer i.e. Xen ‘OP’ Divn. No.1, SDO ‘OP Sub Divn. No.1 along with his RA were

present.

During the hearing, the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1 desired to get the

load of the complainant checked to identify the reason of frequent burning of the

meter. The Forum gave permission and to submit the report in this regard.

The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 vide his letter dated 20.5.2015 supplied up to date

consumption of account along with ECR and also stated that the meter was found

Dead Stop as per ECR.

5. The case was renotified for hearing on 10.8.2015 vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-

708/709/712 to 714/2015/1137 dated 24.7.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On

the date of hearing, the Complainant as well as SDO along with his RA were

present. The Forum observed that as per ECR report dated 12.5.2015 the meter

was found to be in working order.

6. Observations and Decision of the Forum:

On the basis of consumption data it was observed that the consumption recorded

by the meter prior to getting defective, is available for more than 6 months. The

Nodal Officer is therefore directed to overhaul the consumption during the disputed

period with the corresponding consumption recorded in the year 2013, for which the

meter was in working order. As the meter of the complainant is getting

burnt/becoming dead stop frequently, the Nodal Officer is also directed to shift the

meter outside the premises. The refund should be allowed to the complainant only

after the meter is shifted outside or complainant gives an undertaking in this regard.

As Per SDO & RA says that the consumer used the Electricity meter on

First/Second Floor for domestic use, if anything is found wrong the same may be

intimated to the Forum.

35

The penalty for excess load, if any, found during checking may also be imposed.

Compliance be reported within 21 days of issue of order failing which the Hon’ble

JERC may impose penalty as per relevant sections of Electricity Act 2003.

7. With the above observations and decision, the complaint stands disposed.








36





Date of Order - 10.08.2015 In the matter Shri Kuldip Singh Sabharwal, House No.704, First Floor, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Kuldip Singh Sabharwal, resident of House No.704, First Floor, Sector 22-A,

Chandigarh through his representation dated 19.2.2015 stated that he received a

bill dated 8.2.2015 for a consumption of 3509 units. He also stated that he is not

residing regularly in the house and live with his aged and ailing in-laws. He

apprehended that it is a case of technical defect/fault in the meter/wiring or an

irregularity committed by the ground floor resident to transfer his electricity

consumption to his account by manipulation as he is an employee of the electricity

department.




3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 31.3.2015 forwarded the reply submitted by

the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 that the electricity meter was got checked

through JE-II on 26.2.2015 and was found to be in working order. The connected

load was also found to be more than the sanctioned load. He contended that the bill

prepared for the period 10.11.2014 to 10.1.2015 was as per reading recorded by the

meter. He also supplied the consumption data long with report of J.E.



37




present.

In view of the submissions by the complaint as well as by the SDO it was felt that the

consumption for the last three years in respect of other two connections existing in

the premises be also analysed in view of the allegations by the complainant.

Accordingly SDO was directed to furnish the requisite data.

The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 vide his letter 24.4.2015 supplied the consumption

data for the other two connections. It was observed that the consumption pattern of

other two connections was similar in the three years and further no appreciable

decrease in the consumption was observed during the disputed period. The

complainant subsequently through his letter dated 29.4.2015 reiterated his earlier

submissions.

The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 in response to this office letter dated 30.4.2015

also submitted that the in view of the make of the meter installed at the premises of

complaint there is possibility of meter jumping as the complainant is not residing in

the house regularly.

5. The case was renotified for hearing on 10.8.2015 vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-



present. Shri V.B. Khaana also attending the hearing along with complainant after

producing an authorised letter from the complainant. After observing the

consumption pattern of the complainant as well as of other two connections existing

in the house and the submissions made by the SDO , the Forum observed that this

could be a case of meter jumping. The Forum also noted that in some other cases

the meter jumping has come to notice of this particular make of the meter.


In view of the report given by the SDO that there is possibility of meter jumping,

the Forum agreed with the SDO’s submissions that it would be a case of meter

jumping. The Nodal Officer is, therefore, directed to overhaul the consumption of

38

the disputed period from 10.11.2014 to 10.1.2015 on the basis of average

consumption recorded during the period Nov. 2011 to Jan.2012, Nov. 2012 to Jan.

2013 and Jan. 2013 to Nov. 2014 in view of the fact that the disputed period is only

two months, the average on the basis of 6 month consumption is being worked out.

The disputed meter be also got replaced with a good quality meter. Compliance be

reported within 21 days of issue of order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may

impose penalty as per relevant section of Electricity Act 2003.









39




Complaint No. - 713 Date of Institution - 13.02.2015 Date of Order - 10.08.2015 In the matter M/s Indus Tower (House No.1509, Sector 22-B), Chandigarh


Versus



Order

1. M/s Indus Tower (House No.1509, Sector 22-B) Chandigarh vide letter dated

26.12.2014, submitted in the CGRF on 13.2.201, submitted that they received one

energy bill for the consumption from 14.6.2014 to 14.10.2014 for 33628 units. It

was also stated that from 14.8.2013 to 14.4.2014 they have paid high consumption

based bill of 86752 units i.e. 21688 units per bill for 4 cycles which was on higher

side as per the consumption recorded during the period December 2011 to

December 2013.




3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Xen ‘OP’ Divn. No.1 vide his letter dated 31.3.2015

forwarded the reply submitted by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1. The SDO

submitted that meter of the complainant was replaced on 13.5.2014 as the meter

was found burnt. He stated that the bills were issued for higher consumption (to be

adjusted subsequently) as it was apprehended that the connected load was more

than the sanctioned load. The consumption data was also supplied.



40




present.

During the hearing, the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Divn. No.1 desired to get the

load of the complainant checked to identify the reason of frequent burning of the

meter. The Forum gave permission and to submit the report in this regard.

The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 vide his letter dated 20.5.2015 supplied up to date

consumption of account along with ECR and also stated that the meter was found

defective as per ECR.

5. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2015 vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-



present. The Forum observed that as per ECR report dated 12.5.2015 the meter

was found Dead Stop. Accordingly MCO dated 14.5.2015 was issued. The total

load was found to be 10.440 KW.


On the basis of consumption data it was observed that the consumption recorded

by the meter prior to getting defective, is available for more than 6 months. The

Nodal Officer is therefore directed to overhaul the consumption during the disputed

period with the corresponding consumption recorded in the year 2013, for which the

meter was in working order. As the meter of the complainant is getting

burnt/becoming dead stop frequently, the Nodal Officer is also directed to shift the

meter outside the preemies. The refund should be allowed to the complainant only

after the meter is shifted outside or complainant gives an undertaking in this regard.

As Per SDO & RA says that the consumer used the Electricity meter on

First/Second Floor for domestic use, if anything is found wrong the same may be

intimated to the Forum.

The penalty for excess load, if any, found during checking may also be imposed.


JERC may impose penalty as per relevant Sections of Electricity Act 2003.

41









42





Date of Order - 23.07.2015 In the matter Shri Chaman Lal, House No.242 PWT, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Chaman Lal, resident of House No.242, PWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh vide his

representation dated 4.3.2015 submitted that though his average consumption is in

the range of 120 to 150 units per month, he received an abnormal bill for 30177

units during the period 18.10.2013 to 18.2.2014. He submitted an application for

challenging the bill and deposited the requisite fee. The Sub Division, however,

informed him that meter is working properly forcing him to approach the Forum.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division

No.2 were called vide letter dated 11.3.2015 along with the consumption data for

the last three years.



submitted that the existing connection is under domestic category and the load

was found as 0.980 KW. The working of the meter was also checked and found

in order. He also supplied the consumption data of the complainant for the last

three years.

4. The case registered as complaint No.737, was listed for hearing on 23.7.2015

vide letter No. CGRF-737-738-740/2015/1035 dated 08.07.2015, a copy of

which was also sent to the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and to the

complainant.

43

5. On the date of hearing, both the complainant as well as concerned SDO ‘OP’

Sub Division No.8 along with his RA were present. The complainant submitted

that high consumption could be on account of meter reading jumping. The

Forum from the consumption data concluded that against the normal

consumption in the range of 200 units, the consumption of 30177 with connected

load of less than is 1 KW was not possible and it could be a case of meter

reading jumping. The SDO along with his RA agreed.

6. The Forum therefore, directs the Nod

7. al Officer to overhaul the account of the disputed period on the basis of

corresponding consumption recorded in the previous year. Compliance be

reported within twenty one days after the receipt of the order failing which the

Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty as per relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.









44




Complaint No. - 738 Date of Institution - 10.03.2014 Date of Order - 18.08.2015 In the matter Smt. Sunita Verma, House No. 556, Sector-8, Panchkula.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Sunita Verma resident of House No.556, Sector-8, Panchkula vide her

representation dated 7.3.2014, received in the office on 10.3.2014, submitted that

she is owner of Shop No. 156/30, Rama Market, Manimajra along with other shop

in the vicinity which are let out to various tenants. A sum of Rs.2,14,087/- was

added in the bill issued against Shop No.156/30, Rama Market in the month of

Nov. 2013 . On enquiry from the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 office it was revealed

that amount was pending for the Bill of Shop No.2366/1, Mariwala Town, Manimajra

which was let out to Shri Yogesh Soni with Registered Lease Deed from 1.1.2010

onwards. It was further sub let to Shri Pulkit . Complainant submitting that imposing

the sundry charges of Rs.2,14,087/- is illegal, arbitrary and against the law as the

disputed amount relates to the tenant and that the person cannot be punished for

the fault of another person. She also supplied the Power of Attorney that Shri Ashok

Kumar would represent her case before the Forum.


Division No.2 were called vide letter dated 10.3.2014 along with consumption data

with a copy to the complainant.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated

5.6.2014 duly counter signed by the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen ‘OP’ Divn. No.2 submitted

parawise reply as under:-

45

a) That one of the connection in the name of the complainant was disconnected on

payment defaulter and the pending amount of Rs.2,14,087/- has been transferred

to another account of the same consumer.

b) Both these accounts stand in the name of Smt. Sunita Verma, the complainant.

c) The Electricity connection of the premises was disconnected on default and the

meter removed before transferring the defaulting amount.

The consumption data for the last three years was also supplied.

4. The complaint formally registered as Complaint No.738, was notified for hearing on

23.7.2015. The representative of the complainant submitted that transferring of

defaulting amount of the tenant to the owner against another account is not in order.

The SDO submitted that amount was transferred as per Regulations of the Supply

Code. The quoting the references/ regulations in support, the complainant as well

as SDO sought more time. It was decided to hold one more hearing on 18.8.2015 at

3.00 P.M.

5. On 18.8.2015, the representative of the complainant, Nodal Officer and the SDO OP’

Sub Division No.8 along with his RA were present. The representative of the

complainant again submitted that the defaulting amount of one connection can not

be transferred to another connection of the consumer. The Nodal Officer submitted

that as per Regulations 9.2(10) of the Supply Code the defaulting amount of one

connection can be transferred to another connection of the same consumer and thus

the levy of sundry charges are in order. The representative of the complainant

submitted that the sub division also failed to disconnect the electricity connection

immediately on default as per provisions and allowed the defaulting amount to grow

further.

6. The Forum observed that the provision in this regard existed in the Supply Code

Regulations and thus the action of the sub division in transferring the defaulting

amount is in order. The Forum, however, noted that the amount was allowed to be

accumulated and the connection was not disconnected immediately on first or

second default in payment. The Nodal Officer is directed to follow the

regulations/instructions meticulously in future. The S.E. Elecy. ‘OP’ Circle is also

46

directed to reiterate the instructions in this regard that the connection should be

disconnected on payment default strictly as per provisions of the Supply Code.









47





Date of Order - 23.07.2015 In the matter Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta, Principal, D.C Montessori School, Pocket No.2 & 3, Gobindpura, Near Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta, Principl, D.C.Montessori School, Manimajra vide his

representation dated 21.11.2013 submitted that his load was checked by the

department and excess load of 23.209 KW was detected in the ECR dated

12.7.2013. He submitted that as per guidelines issued by the Hon’ble JERC no

penalty can be levied to the domestic category of consumer, if additional load is

detected. He prayed that the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 be directed to exclude the

amount of sundry charges of his bill.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy.

‘OP’ Division No.2 for submitting parawise comments vide letter dated

21.11.2013.


submitted that during the checking made vide ECR dated 12.7.2013, the excess

load was detected and thus the case was treated as unauthorised use of

electricity as per Electricity Supply Code Regulations 2010. Accordingly the

Assessment Notice on 7.8.2013 was issued for Rs.50,584/-. He also supplied

the consumption data for the last two years.

4. The case registered as complaint No.739 was listed for hearing on 23.7.2015


48


complainant.

5. On the date of hearing, the representative of the complainant as well as

concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 along with his RA were present. The

SDO submitted that amount raised by Sub Division on account of unauthorized

excess load was paid by the consumer and no amount is pending against them.

The complainant also confirmed that they have already made the payment of the

amount raised and have no grievances now with the department. It was also

conveyed that the load of the consumer had already been extended and released

at 11 K.V.

6. With the above observations, complaint stands disposed.








49





Date of Order - 23.07.2015 In the matter Shri Sahai Jyoti, House No. 2026, Mauli Complex, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Sahai Jyoti, resident of House No. 2026, Mauli Complex, Chandigarh through e-

mail dated 23.1.2015 submitted that he had received last 2 bills with inflated amount.

“ The several reminder sent but no action was taken by the Sub Division. In spite of

his repeated oral complaints and Sub Division oral assurances gaveno concrete

action was taken yet to solve this problem. It is needed sad that Sub Division was

turned a deaf fear to his representation complaints followed by several reminders.

He has required for its efficiency should be taking so much time in doing the needful”

2. The e-mail was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy.

‘OP’ Division No.2 for submitting action taken report on the same day.

Subsequently vide letter dated 9.2.2015 the same was confirmed with a copy to

the consumer.



submitted that the existing connection is under domestic category and load

when checked was found as 0.720 KW. The working of the meter was found

O.K. He also supplied the consumption data of the complainant. .

4. The case registered as complaint No.740 was listed for hearing on 23.7.2015


50


complainant.

5. On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.8 along with his RA were present. From the consumption data it

was noted that there was consumption of more than 1.5 lac units during the

period 10.2.2013 to 10.2.2014. This clearly pointed out that this much

consumption is not possible with the connected load of 0.7 KW. It was thus

concluded that it could be a case of reading jumping. The SDO and RA agreed.

6. The Nodal Officer is, therefore, directed to overhaul the account of the consumer

on the basis of past consumption of corresponding period for the period meter

remained defective. Compliance be reported within twenty one days after the

receipt of the order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty as per

relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.









51





Date of Order - 02.07.2015 In the matter Shri Harpal Sigh, House No.2689, Phase XI, Sector 65, Mohali.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Harpal Singh vide his letter dated 5.3.2015 received in the office of CGRF on

9.3.2015 submitted that he paid electricity bills of House No. 639 and shop No.640 in

Village Kishangarh on due date through separate cheques both dated 24.12.2014

amounting to Rs.7476/- and Rs.12688/- respectively. Though the cheques were

accepted by E-Sampark centre, he received subsequent bills with arrear of the

payment already made through cheques along with surcharge amount of Rs.341/-

and Rs.704/- respectively. He requested for refund of the surcharge amount.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for comments/action taken report vide Memo. No.

CGRF/Comp-Misc/2015/272 dated 11.03.2015. A copy of the letter was also

forwarded to the complainant vide Endst. No. CGRF/Comp-Misc,/2015/273-274

dated 11.03.2015.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his Memo. No. 2399 dated

11.05.2015 submitted his reply duly countersigned by the Nodal Officer that the 2

Nos. Cheques through which payment of electricity charges were made i n the E-

Sampark Centre by the complainant were dishonoured as per copy of the

information received through concerned Xen. He attached the copy of the

same. Due to cheques getting dishonoured the arrears and surcharge were

levied in the subsequent bill.

52

4. The complaint was treated as a formal Complaint No.741 and was listed for

hearing on 2.7.2015 in CGRF Office vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-

620/763/764/765/2015/947 dated 26.6.2015 a copy which was also sent to the

complainant and SDO.

5. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear. The Nodal Officer, AEE

of ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8 and RA were present. The AEE submitted that the arrear

and surcharge was added in the subsequent bill due to reason that both the

cheques were dishonoured. The Forum observing that action by the Sub

Division was correct in levying surcharge/arrear on account of cheques getting

dishonoured, dismiss the complaint.






` (G.D. SAINI) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF


53





Date of Order - 04.08.2015 In the matter Air Mshl. P.S. Brar, House No.178/2 , Panchkula.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8 UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Air Mshl. P.S. Brar, resident of House No. 178/2, Panchkula submitted a complaint

received on 31.12.2014 stating that he had paid an amount of Rs.3,65,466/- for the

period Jan. 2013 to Jan 2014 for SCO No.45, Manimajra, Pocket 1, Chandigarh.

Despite the fact that the tenant vacated the premises in June 2013 without paying

any further dues after 21st Jan.2013. He admitted that no intimation was conveyed

to the department about the vacation of the premises of the tenant. The SCO was

again rented out on 19th April 2014, the billing during the entire period of SCO

remained vacant was issued on the basis of ‘N’ Code @ 7756 units per bill. He

requested for reviewing the rate of charge for the period SCO remained vacant. He

supplied the copy of Rent Agreement with the Ex-tenant and present tenant along

with copy of termination notice.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. . Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division

No.2 were called upon vide letter No.CGRF/Comp-Misc/2015/93 dated 9.2.2015 with

a copy to the complainant along with consumption data.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8 submitted the reply duly counter signed

by the Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide his letter No.2389 dated 11.5.2015. He stated

that the bills to the consumer with sanctioned load of 44.000 KW were issued on ‘D’

Code being meter defective w.e.f. 2/14 onward. He also confirmed that the

54

complainant had made all the payments up to December 2014. He also supplied the

consumption data for the last three years.

4. The Complaint registered as 742 was notified for hearing on 2.7.2015, the

complainant did not attend. To give one more opportunity the case was renotified

for hearing on 4.8.2015 vide letter No. CGRF/Comp-

620/742/743/744/745/2015/1101 dated 20.7.2015 .

5. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not attend nor sent any intimation. The

Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 , SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 along with his RA were present.

The Xen stated that the consumer was being served bill on average as the mater

was defective. But the complainant did not approach the Sub Division and was

making the payment. At this belated stage it is not possible to check the factual

position. The complainant in his complaint had also admitted that he was making

payment and the fact of SCO lying vacant was not conveyed to the electricity

department. SDO also stated that the defective meter of the complainant has since

been replaced. It has also been noted that from the consumption data that upto April

2014 the bills were issued @ 4756 units per bill which was reduced to 3880 units per

cycle w.e.f. April 2014 till Feb. 2015.

6. With the above observations that the consumer had been paying the bills as served

to him and did not being the position of vacancy of SCO to the notice of Sub

Division, the complaint is dimissed.








55





Date of Order - 04.08.2015 In the matter Shri Sanjay Nagpal, 148/A, Village Mauli Jagran, U.T. Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Sanjay Nagpal, vide his letter 17.4.2015 submitted that the bill for his house

148/A, Mauli Jagan, Chandigarh for the month of July 2013 was quite on high side

for which he challenged the bill by depositing R.250/- on 19.7.2013. The meter was

checked on 23.8.2013 with a report that the meter is jumping/digit defective. The

meter was subsequently replaced and thereafter the bills started to be issued on

consumption basis. On 9.2.2015 he received a letter from the Sub Division that

meter is working properly and showing the correct reading and no jumping of the

reading was found at the time of checking and demanding the amount raised for the

disputed period.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. . Executive Engineer, Elecy.

‘OP’ Division No.2 to submit parawise comments vide letter No.CGRF/Comp-

Misc/2015/480 dated 27.04.2015 with a copy to the complainant along with

consumption data for the last three years.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8 vide his letter No.2386 dated 11.5.2015

duly counter signed by the Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 submitted the fact of the case.

a) The connected load was found to be 9.190 KW against the sanctioned load of

9.950 KW under domestic category though being used for commercial purpose .

b) The working of the meter found O.K.

c) He also supplied the consumption data of the consumer.

56

4. The Complaint registered as Complaint No.743 was notified for hearing on 2.7.2015.

The complainant did not attend. To give one more opportunity the case was re-

notified for hearing on 4.8.2015 vide letter No. CGRF/Comp-

620/742/743/744/745/2015/1101 dated 20.7.2015 .

5. On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as the Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 , SDO

‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 along with his RA were present. The complainant submitted that

consumption from April to June 2014 was quite on higher side as per two past bills

which he attributed could be due to meter jumping. He also stated that the report by

the J.E on 24.9.2013 also pointed out that display of digit defective/seems to be

jumped.

6. The Xen stated that the working of meter was rechecked and found to be in order.

He also submitted that premises has 3 Spilt Air Conditioners of 1.5 Ton and as such

the consumption recorded during the summer months of May-June appears to be in

order. The SDO also supplied up to date consumption data and also that the meter

has since been replaced during the period 8/14 to 10/14.


From the consumption data it was observed that for the period 4/13 to 6/13 the bill

was issued for a consumption of 3234 units on the basis of meter reading. The bills

in the past period were found to be in the range of 1000 to 1360 units. The report

dated 24.9.2013 regarding checking of meter was not found to be clear, as it has

been recorded: “Meter checked and working found”. Display of digit defective/seems

to be jump. Report already submitted vide verification Register No.355 dated

23.8.2013”.

The Forum observed that the premises has 3 ACs of 1.5 T i.e. 1.8 KW each. The

estimated consumption per Annum of the Supply Code works out as follows:-

Consumption per month= 1.8x3x40% x720 = 1555 Units per Month.

Thus estimated consumption of 3 ACs only for a billing cycle of 2 months is

1555x2=3110 units.

Further, from the analysis of the consumption data, it is noted that consumption

recorded during 4/15 to 6/15 with the replaced meter is 3432 units which is even

more than consumption recorded during the disputed period of 4/13 to 6/13. It was,

57

thus concluded that this much consumption during the summer months with 3 ACs

(at different floors of the house) is possible and thus the Forum did not find any merit

in the plea by the complainant that the consumption recorded during 4/13 to 6/13

was on account of meter jumping.









58





Date of Order - 04.08.2015 In the matter Shri Shiv Sharan Dass Sharma, SCO No.833, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Shiv Sharan Dass Sharma vide his complaint dated 27.2.2015 submitted that

though the second floor of SCO No.833 was lying vacant and there was no

consumption from 1.4.2013 onward, they received inflated bill. Prior to this meter

was dead and replaced by the department. He requested for getting the bill

corrected.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. . Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division

No.2 were called upon vide letter No.CGRF/Comp-Misc/2015/236 dated 4.3.2015

along with consumption data with a copy to the complainant

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8 submitted the reply duly counter signed

by the Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide his letter No.2396 dated 11.5.2015. He

submitted that the electricity bills to the consumer have been issued on ‘D’ Code as

the meter was defective. Shri Shiv Dass Sharan Sharma submitted a request to his

office along with supporting documents regarding portion of SCO lying vacant. The

site was got verified by the concerned official on 11.3.2014 and account was

overhauled. He also supplied the consumption data along with supporting

documents.

4. The Complaint registered as 744 was notified for hearing on 2.7.2015, the

complainant did not attend. To give one more opportunity the case was re-notified

59

for hearing on 4.8.2015 vide letter No. CGRF/Comp-

620/742/743/744/745/2015/1101 dated 20.7.2015 .

5. On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as the Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 , SDO

‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 along with his RA were present. The complainant reiterated his

written submission and stated that the average charged for the period floor remained

vacant was on higher side. He also intimated that the premises were again rented

w.e.f. Feb. 2014. The complainant also raised the issue that he had made part

payment but the surcharge has been levied on full amount of the bill rather than on

the arrear.

The SDO stated that earlier overhauling of the account was done on the basis of

documents submitted by the complainant after due verification. However, IA revised

the charges and accordingly same have been charged. He submitted that

complainant be asked to make the payment.

6. On the basis of above facts and the written submissions by the SDO that the

consumer had submitted requisite documents regarding vacancy of the premises to

the Sub Division which was also got verified and found to be correct, the Nodal

Officer is directed to overhaul the account on the basis of documents submitted by

the complainant to the Sub Division/verification by the Sub Division. The charging

done on the basis of internal audit is set aside. Further the surcharge should be

levied only on the arrear amount of the bill rather than full amount of the bill.


JERC may impose penalty as per relevant sections of Electricity Act 2003.




60






61





Date of Order - 28.07.2015 In the matter Shri Prem Shanker, House No.3645, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh


Versus



Order

1. Shri Prem Shanker, House No.3645, Mauli Jagran Complex Chandigarh through his

representation dated 13.4.2015 submitted that after receipt of inflated bill, he

represented to the ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 Manimajra but no action was taken

forcing him to file an appeal with CGRF.




16.4.2015.




0.852 KW. The working of the meter was also got checked and found in order.

He also supplied the consumption data along with other documents.

4. The case formally registered as complaint No.746 was listed for hearing on

28.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF-746/747/748/691/2015/1023 dated 08.07.2015,

a copy of which was also sent to the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and to

the complainant.

62



present.


noted that against the normal consumption of around 150-500 units per cycle, the

meter recorded consumption of 8720 units during the period July to Sept. 2014.

The respondent Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 and AEE agreed that such high

consumption could be on account of meter jumping. It was also submitted that

meter was of TG make and in no. of other cases, the cases of reading jumping,

have been reported of this Make of Meter.

5. Decision:


for the period July to Sept. 2014 on the basis of consumption recorded during

the corresponding period of the previous year from 7/13 to 9/13. The surcharge

is also to be adjusted simultaneously. Compliance be reported within twenty one

days after the receipt of the order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose

penalty as per relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.









63





Date of Order - 28.07.2015 In the matter Shri Rajbir Singh, House No. 45/3. Shanti Nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Rajbir Singh, House No.45/3, Shanti Nagar, Manimajra Chandigarh through his

representation dated 17.3.2015 received on 23.3.2015 submitted that after receipt

of inflated bill for the period 8/14 to 10/14, he represented to the ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.8 Manimajra for checking of the meter/connection of his bill but no action was

taken forcing him to file an appeal with CGRF.




25.3.2015



stated that the connection was domestic and on checking, the working of the

meter was also got checked and found in order. He also supplied the

consumption data along with connected documents.




the complainant.

64



present.

The Executive Engineer ‘Op’ Division No.2 submitted that the

working of meter was found O.K. and further that on comparison of 6 months

consumption including the disputed period with corresponding period

consumption of previous year, no appreciable increase noticed. He attributed it

to the case of accumulation probably due to wrong (less) recording of reading in

Aug. 2013. The complainant on the other hand contended that the high

consumption was on account of meter reading jumping. He also raised the issue

of charging of higher slab charge and payment in lump sum with regard to the

submissions made by Xen that it could be a case of accumulation due to less

recording/punching of the reading.

5. Observations:

The Forum observed that the consumption during the period Feb.2013 to

Feb.2014 was 4906 units and for Feb. 2014 to Feb.2015 was 5513 units i.e.

upward variation of around 12%. It was also noted that meter was of “Saraf”

make which is considered to be good quality meter. The complaint also stated

that the same meter is in place today and the consumption is generally in order

after December 2014.

6. Decision:

On the basis of above observations that it could be a case of accumulation of

meter (not deliberate), the complaint is dismissed. However, the Nodal Officer is

directed to consider this consumption for the period from April to Oct. 2014 for

applying tariff slab. The complainant is also allowed to make the payment in two

instalments without levy of surcharge.




65






66





Date of Order - 28.07.2015 In the matter Shri R.C. Goswai, House No.78, Bank Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri R.C. Goswami, House No.78, Bank Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his

representation dated 9.2.2015 submitted that after receipt of bill for the period 8/14

to 12/14 he represented to the ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 Manimajra that the high

consumption recorded by the meter was on account of reading jumping or fast

running of the meter.




16.2.2015.




2.770 KW against the sanctioned load of 3.920 KW. The working of the meter

was also got checked and found in order. He also supplied the consumption

data along with other documents.




the complainant.

67



present.


noted that against the normal consumption of around 300-900 units per cycle, the

meter recorded consumption of 81334 units during the period August to

December 2014. The respondent Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 and AEE agreed that

such high consumption could be on account of meter jumping.

5. Decision:


for the period August to December 2014 on the basis of consumption recorded

during the corresponding period of the previous year from 8/13 to 12/13. The

surcharge is also to be adjusted simultaneously. Compliance be reported within

twenty one days after the receipt of the order failing which the Hon’ble JERC

may impose penalty as per relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.









68



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON, SH.G.D. SAINI MEMBER

SH. R. L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER Complaint No. - 749 Date of Institution - 05.5.2015

Date of Order - 16.06.2015 In the matter of Mrs. Sonika Kapoor, House No.1690, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Mrs. Sonika Kapoor, resident of House No.1690, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh vide her

applicant in dated 5.5.2015 submitted that she bought Flat No. 3326, Sector 50,

Chandigarh in 2012 and same was laying vacant till September 2013. In Jan. 2013,

she decided to sell off it, but the deal did not mature due to malafide intentions of

buyer. The case went to the court and after pursuance for one year, the final

decision was received in March 2014. Thereafter the flat was rented out in

September 2014. She also noted that the meter was found burnt and brought same

to the notice of SDO vide Mem. No. LK/2013/7358 dated 17.12.2014, the SDO

charged a sum of Rs.59,758/- on account of meter remaining burnt from 25.1.2012

to 25.9.2014. She met the concerned SDO but did not get the relief and thereafter

approached CGRF for settlement of the case. She attached transfer of allotment

letter, Agreement to sell, Legal Notice, the decision of the Court and the Notice

issued by the SDO.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy.

‘OP’ Division No.4 were called vide CGRF Memo. No. CGRF/Temp-

T 15/2015/577 dated 5.5.2015 along with consumption data with the directions to

freeze the sundry charges and accept the current amount of the bill w.e.f.

September 2014 onwards.

3. In response the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide Memo. No.2883

dated 21.5.2015 submitted that on receipt of information from the Consumer the

69

meter was got checked by the J.E. and was found burnt. The burnt meter was

replaced on 8.9.2014. Thereafter the consumer account was overhauled as per

Clause 8/.1(16) of Electricity Supply Code Regulation 2010 amended on

7.8.2013. As the available nominal consumption data was not sufficient and

commensurate with sanctioned load of 9.560 KW, the account was overhauled

from Jan.2012 to September 2014 on the basis of order dated 16.2.2000 by

taking 50 units Per KVA per month i.e. 500 units per month for 10 KW load. A

notice dated 17.12.2014 was served to the consumer for Rs.59,758/-. He also

submitted that consumer representation dated 13.01.2015 was examined by his

office and submitted that plea taken by the applicant could not be correct

regarding vacant house. He also attached 3 years consumption data of the

consumer.

4. The complaint was formally registered as Complaint No.749 and was notified for

hearing on 16.06.2015 vide Memo. No. CGRF/600/749/2015/821 dated 8.6.2015

a copy of which was also sent to the SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 and to

the complainant.

On the date of hearing, both the complainant and SDO along with his RA were

present. The complainant reiterated her written submission that the flat was

vacant from Jan.2012 to Sept. 2014 and charging on the basis of average

consumption or per KW consumption is not justified. The SDO, however,

submitted that in absence of unreliable consumption data charging has been

done at fixed units Per KW basis. He desired the complainant to submit the proof

regarding non-occupation of the flat. He suggested for submission of letter from

the water department in the support of the submission made by the complainant

in this regard.

5. Observation of the Forum:

From the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, the Forum observed

that there was some consumption ranging from 2 units to 28 units in some of the

cycles during the period Jan.2012 to Sept. 2014 with the meter status Code Z i.e.

the working of the meter was being recorded as O.K. by the meter reader. The

MCO was affected on 8.9.2014 with the status of the meter as burnt and at

70

reading of 5460. The next 2 bills were issued on average basis (in consistent

reading.) The consumption of 2008 units was recorded from 8.9.21014 to

25.3.2015 . From the consumption data it is evident that the meter was recording

some consumption (ranging from 2 units to 28 units per cycle) with recording of

status Code as Z ( O.K.). From the documents attached with the representation,

it appears that the flat was vacant and thus the consumption was very less.

Conclusion:

The Forum on the basis of above observations, the Forum conclude that

charging @ 50 Units Per Month Per KW on the basis of instructions dated

16.2.2000 is not in order. The charging if any to be done has to be as per the

Supply Code Regulations. In the present case it appears that the flat was vacant

and meter was recording some consumption with Status Code as O.K. The

Forum does not considered the necessity of producing any proof such as letter

from the Water Department. The Forum therefore directs to the Nodal Officer to

overhaul the account from Jan.2012 to 8.9.2014 (Date of MCO with initiating

reading as 5056 and final reading as 5460 (as recorded on the MCO). The

amount of Rs.59,758/- already charged be reversed, the compliance be reported

within twenty days of issue of order failing which Penalty may be imposed by the

Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Supply Act, 2003.

6. With above directions, the complaint is considered as disposed.






(R.L. MITTAL) (G.D. SAINI) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF


71



BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SH.G.D. SAINI MEMBER AND

Complaint No. - 758 Date of Institution - 26.3.2014 Date of Order - 11.09.2015 In the matter Shri Surinder Singh Saini on behalf of M/s Surinder Builders, SCO No.2, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

……………..Petitioner

Versus



Order

1. Shri Surinder Singh Saini on behalf of M/s Surinder Builders, SCO No.2, Sector 34-

C, Chandigarh vide his representation, received in the office of CGRF on 26.3.2014

under Registered cover, stated that they have received a notice from SDO ‘Elecy.

‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 for depositing a sum of Rs.1, 78,694/- on account of

defaulting amount of electricity connection in the year 1995. Further it was

submitted that no bill or letter has been received by them between the periods

1995 to 2014. The connection was released in 1995 and disconnected on

27.6.1997 and payments were made accordingly. The bill of Rs.38,448/-stated to

be issued by the Sub Division was not given to them at that time. It was also

mentioned that as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act no amount due from any

consumer shall be recoverable after a period of 2 years and thus Sub Division

cannot raise the claim after 19 years. It was prayed that notice for claim of

Rs.1,78,694/- be withdrawn.

2. In response to the Forum letter dated 11.4.2014, the Nodal Officer Xen. ‘OP’

Division No.3 vide letter dated 30.4.2014 forwarded the reply submitted by the

concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 along with consumption data and other

related documents such as MCO, PDCO and A&A Form etc.s

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 in his submissions stated that M/s

Surinder Builders was allotted the work of construction of 32 Nos. Government

72

Employees Houses in Sector 19-B, Chandigarh by the Executive Engineer, C.P.

Division No.4, Chandigarh. M/s Surinder Builders took a temporary electricity

connection on 4.10.1995. The electricity connection was disconnected vide PDCO

dated 27.6.1997. The SDO also supplied the details of bills raised to the consumer

and payment made as under:-

Period Old reading New reading

Units Bill amount Amount paid

4.10.1995 to 15.11.95

4 760 756 2082.00 Rs.2082/- R.No.251/1201 dt.31.3.96/

15.11.95 to 4.3.96

780 1517 757 2293/- Rs.2293/- R.No.237/1201 dt.6.5.1996

4.3.96 to 3.6.96 and 3.5.96 to 10.6.96

1517

5

4654

2464

3137

2459

15437/- Rs.15437/- R.No.274/1201 dt.11.8.96

10.6.96 to 3.5.97and 3.5.97 to 27.6.97

2464

1

4760

10000

2296

10000

42278/- Final bill Rs.42278/- not paid by the consumer which was prepared as per reading recorded on the meter.

The final bill of Rs.42,278/- not paid by the consumer has become

Rs.1,78,494/- with levy of annual surcharge @ 10%. The number of letters were

written to the consumer but no payment was made by them.

4. The case registered as complaint No. 758 was notified for hearing on 17.6.2015

vide letter No. 829-836 dated 9.6.2015. The consumer did not attend the hearing.

The Nodal Officer and concerned SDO were present. It was decided to give one

more opportunity. The case was again listing for hearing on 6.8.2015 vide letter

No.1110-13 dated 20.7.2015, the complainant again did not attend the hearing.

One more opportunity was given to the complainant and the case was listing for

hearing on 11.9.2015 vide letter dated 1381-86 dated 26.8.2015. Shri R.L. Mittal,

Member CGRF was on leave and did not attend the hearing on 11.9.2015. Only

SDO was present but the consumer neither attended the hearing nor sent any

message. The SDO submitted that complainant was also informed of the hearing

on telephone and was requested to attend the same.

73

5. The Forum observed that sufficient opportunities have been given to the

complainant but he failed to attend the hearing. He did not even care to inform the

Forum and the Forum, therefore, decide to proceed ex-parte.

6. The Forum noted that the disputed amount was on account of a temporary

connection taken by the complainant in the year 1995 which was disconnected as

the consumer failed to make payment towards the last bill issued for the period

from 10.6.1996 to date of PDCO i.e. 27.6.1997. The defaulting amount as on

27.6.1997 attracted the surcharge @ 10% Per annum as per Supply Code

Regulations. Further the Licensee action of transferring the defaulting amount to

consumer’s other connection is also as per provision of the Supply Code

Regulations. With regard to submissions by the consumer that the amount cannot

be recovered after 2 years as per Electricity Act 2003, the Forum is of the view that

the disputed amount is a defaulting amount of the temporary connection taken by

the complainant and the same has now been transferred to his other account. The

provision of 2 years are applicable from the date of transferring of the amount.

There are number of judgements of the High Courts or Appellate Tribunal where it

has been concluded that limitation of 2 years would apply from the date when the

amount was first shown in the bill.

The limitation period of 2 years as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 are

applicable from the date of Notice in case the Electricity Department did not pursue

raise claim for this amount for a period of 2 years. The Notice was issued on

11.2.2014 and the complainant approached the Forum on 26.3.2014.

7. Decision by the Forum:

In view of above observations, Forum is of the view that the notice issued by the

Sub Division is in order and the consumer is liable to pay the amount demanded by

the Sub Division failing which the Nodal Officer may take further action as per

provisions of the Supply Code. Compliance be reported within 21 days failing which

the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the

Electricity Act 2003.

74

8. With the above observations and directions, considers the complaint as disposed.








75





Date of Order - 09.07.2015 In the matter Shri Amrit Lal Jain, House No.83, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Amrit Lal Jain, House No.83, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh made a representation

dated 15.4.2015, received in the office of CGRF on 16.4.2015. In his complaint he

submitted that for the meter installed at his premises he was receiving two bills, one

in the name of Smt. Padmawati and another bill in the name of Shir Himmat Singh.

The name of the consumer was got changed from Padmawati to Shri Himmat Singh

but the generation of the bill in the name of new name the bill in respect of old

name was also being issued simultaneously. The generation of two bills for the

same meter and for the same period of consumption has led to confusion. He

requested CGRF to look into the matter to clear the confusion.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 for comments/action taken report along with

submission of consumption data vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-T-5/2015/448

dated 21.04.2015. A copy of the letter was also forwarded to the complainant

vide Endst. No. CGRF/Comp-T-5/2015/449-450 dated 21.04.2015..

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Xen ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide Memo. No. 9705 dated

19.5.2015 forwarded the reply submitted by AEE’OP’ Sub Division No.2. The

AEE submitted the details of three electricity connections in the premises, all in

the name of Shri Himmat Singh. He clarified that the electricity bill in the name of

Smt. Padamawati bearing A/c No. 102/1041/008304H for the period 12.7.2014 to

12.9.14, billing cycle/group 05/01 was issued as per actual consumption

76

recorded by the Meter No.CHSE-141124 i.e. 4533 units and the same was paid

by the consumer. As the owner of the premises, Sh.Himmat Singh applied for

change of name of the electricity connections vide A&A No. 73746, 73747 and

73748 dated 21.8.2014 which was effected on 9.9.2014, 19.9.2014 and

19.9.2014. Due to change of name two bills of the same Meter No.CHSE-

141124 were issued during cycle 06/01, 01/01 & 02/01 with different readings.

The new account allotted against old A/c No.1041/008304H is A/c

No.1041/008307Q. The wrong bills prepared against these accounts have been

revised and entry for adjustment of Rs.7106/- in the electricity bill bearing new

A/c No.1041/008307Q has been passed in the sundry charges and allowance

register. The advice for the same will be sent to computer and adjustment of

Rs.7106/- will appear in the next bill to be issued on 10.6.2015. The

consumption data for the last three years was also supplied .


on 9.7.2015 vide Memo. NO. 986 dated 25.6.2015. The complainant did not

attend the hearing on 9.7.2015. The SDO reiterated his written submissions that

the grievance of the complainant had already been redressed.

5. The Forum observing that the action has already been taken by the Sub Division

with regard to grievance of the consumer, complaint stands disposed.








77





Date of Order - 02.07.2015 In the matter Sh. Pardeep Mishra, Atta Chakki, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Pradeep Mishra owner of Atta Chakki, Mauli Jagra, Manimajra, Chandigarh

through his representation dated 21.5.2015, received in CGRF Office on 25.5.2015

submitted that his electricity meter was burnt on 11.2.2015. Despite lodging of

complaint, the meter has not been replaced though a period of 3 months have

passed. He submitted that as per his understanding the meter is to be replaced

within 3 days.



CGRF/Comp-T-29/2015/717 dated 28.05.2015. A copy of the letter was also

forwarded to the complainant vide Endst. No. CGRF/Comp-T-29/2015/718-719

dated 28.05.2015


30.6.2015 submitted his reply ,duly countersigned by the Nodal Officer, that the

Atta Chakki connection having sanctioned load of 39.978 KW falls under Medium

Supply Category. The burnt meter of the complainant was replaced on

25.5.2015. With regard to issuance of the bills on average basis during the

period the meter remained burnt, he submitted that consumer’s account will be

overhauled accordingly subsequently.

78





5. On the date of hearing, the consumer did not appear. The Nodal Officer, AEE

‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and his RA were present. The AEE stated that the meter

has already been replaced on 25.5.2015 and thus grievances of the consumer

have been redressed. He attributed the delay in replacement of the meter due to

non available of LT CT meter in the Central Store.

6. The Forum observing that the grievances of the complainant had already been

redressed with replacement of meter, considers the complaint as disposed.








79





Date of Order - 02.07.2015 In the matter Shri Pankesh Kumar on behalf of Shri Muni Ram, House No. 1252, Deep Complex, Hallomajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Pankesh Kumar on behalf of Shri Muni Ram, House No.3242, Mauli Complex,

Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his complaint dated 11.5.2015

received in the CGRF Office on 13.5.2015 submitted that he was being charged in

excess on account of arrear which were already paid by him. He also raised that

ACD charges shown in the bill were more. He requested for rectification of his

accounts and to refund of excess charges for the period 20.12.2014 to 20.01.2015.



CGRF/Comp-T-26/2015/658 dated 20.05.2015. A copy of the letter was also

forwarded to the complainant vide Endst. No. CGRF/Comp-T-26/2015/659-60

dated 20.05.2015


01.6.2015 submitted his reply duly countersigned by the Nodal Officer that the

Electricity bill of the D.S. Consumer were issued on “ I “ Code- ‘Inconsistent

Reading’ and in the next bill issued from 20.9.14 to 20.1.2015 on consumption

basis, average bill issued on account of “ I “ Code was adjusted. With regard of

ACD charges, he stated that the same will be adjusted in the next bill.



80



5. On the date of hearing, the complainant submitted that his previous bill was on

higher side. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 clarified that bill were issued on

average basis due to inconsistent reading. This average had already been

adjusted in the subsequent bills when the bill on reading were issued. The

complainant submitted that he had not received any such bill. The Xen ‘OP’

Division No.2 downloaded his bill from the internet and handed over the latest bill

with due date of July 2015. The amount of bill was around Rs.700/- including

arrear of Rs.300/- for the last bill. The complainant showed his satisfaction.

With regard to ACD charges the AEE assured him that the same will be worked

out on the basis of actual consumption.

6. The Forum observing that the grievances of the complainant had already been

redressed, considers the case as closed. The Nodal officer is however, directed

to recalculate the ACD as per actual consumption and report compliance within

21 days failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose the penalty as per the

relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.






` (G.D. SAINI) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF


81





Date of Order - 02.07.2015 In the matter of Ms Nutan Jain, House No.1813, Mohalla Arrorian, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Ms. Nutan Jain resident of House No.1813, Mohalla Arrorian, Manimajra,

Chandigarh through her complaint dated 7.5.2015. (sent on e-mail) submitted

that the reading show in the Bill No.028248 does not coincide with the meter

reading. The bill shows reading from 12637 to 13791 with consumption as 1154

units where as the actual reading on 3.5.2015 stood as 12671. She requested

for correction of the bill.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for comments/action taken report after getting the

reading verified vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-T-19/2015/633 dated 18.05.2015.

A copy of the letter was also forwarded to the complainant vide Endst. No.

CGRF/Comp-T-19/2015/634-35 dated 18.05.2015


1.6.2015 duly countersigned by Nodal Officer submitted that the bill of the

complainant was corrected after the official of his Sub Division verified the meter

reading on 13.5.2015 as 12811.


hearing on 2.7.2015 vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-620/763/764/765/2015/947

dated 26.6.2015 a copy which was also sent to the complainant and AEE.

82

5. The complainant through her e-mail dated June 24, 2015 while acknowledging

letter dated 9.6.2015 of CGRF informed that her grievance has already been

resolved with the rectification of the disputed electricity bill. She expressed that

she will not be able to attend the hearing.

6. On the date of hearing, Nodal Officer Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 and the AEE with

his RA were present but the complainant did not appear. The Forum observing

that the grievances of the consumer has already been redressed by the

concerned SDO for which the consumer has also conveyed her satisfaction,

considers the complaint as disposed.








83





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Anil Jain on behalf of M/s Anil Steel Industries, Site No.741, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Anil Jain on behalf of M/s Anil Steel Industries, 741, Industrial Area Phase-II

Chandigarh vide his representation 4.12.2013 received in the office of CGRF on

09.12.2013 submitted that :-

a) The electricity department conducted a checking on his premises on

10.9.2011 and declared total load as 29.451 KW against the sanctioned

capacity of 15.833 KW. Thus 14 KW was found running unauthorised.

b) The electricity department issued a notice to deposit a sum of Rs.10,500/-

which was deposited by him on 27.9.2011. Subsequently inadvertently the

same amount of Rs.10500/- was again deposited on 1.12.2011.

c) He had already applied for extension of load of said premises from 16 KW to

49 KW vide application dated 10.11.2008 but the same was not sanctioned

due to non availability of suitable transformer.

d) After a gap of two years, the department again issued a notice on 25.10.2013

directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.47,776/- on account of same checking.

He raised the question of again asking him to deposit additional sum inspite

of the fact that the he had already applied for extension of load in the year

2008.

84


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide letter dated 10.12.2013 for submit para-wise

comments.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 10.1.2014

submitted parawise reply as under:-

a) Premises was checked on 10.9.2011 and load was detected as 29.451 KW

against the sanctioned load of 15.833 KW.

b) As per prevailing rules a notice was issued for depositing a sum of Rs.10500/-

c) He also informed that the consumer had applied for extension of load on

10.11.2008 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.34800/- but the load could

not be released due to non availability of transformer.

d) The revised amount was charged on the basis of half margin by the Audit

Section as per Supply Code Regulations which was based on unauthorized

extension.

4. The concerned SDO subsequently through his submissions dated 14.4.2014 duly

countersigned by the Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2 submitted that the present case

was covered under unauthorized use of electricity as per Section 126 of

Electricity Act and Instruction No.10.3 of Supply Code Regulations 2010. The

remedy for filing the appeal available under Section 127 in terms of notification

issued by the Chandigarh Administration on 11.7.2013 and the appeal is

therefore not maintainable before the Forum.

5. The reply received from the SDO was forwarded to the complainant for his

information and record.


on 14.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF-633/766 to 776/2015/934-46 dated


No.5 and to the complainant. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter

dated 13.7.2015 informed that the complainant has preferred to file a complaint

before the Permanant Lok Adalat, Sector 17 and the matter is pending till date.

7. The complainant did not attend the hearing. The Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 stated

during the hearing that the complainant had moved the Permanent Lok Adalat.

85

8. The Forum observing that since the complainant had already filed an appeal with

the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Forum cannot take up the complaint. With the

above observations, the complaint stands disposed.








86





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Rajesh Saini, House No. 3872, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Rajesh Saini resident of House No.3872, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh through his

e-mail dated 17.1.2014 submitted that he was receiving bill on average basis though

his meter was in absolute working condition. He had approached concerned SDO in

this regard and J.E. of the Sub Division who visited in Jan.2014 informed that the

meter was in working condition. However, on 17.1.2014 the meter was changed in

his absence. He requested for overhauling of the account on the basis of actual

reading considering the meter working as O.K.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide letter dated 21.01.2014 for examining and

submission of para-wise comments along with consumption data for the last

three years.

3. The complainant through his e-mail dated April 27, 2014 informed that after the

special hearing of the complaint by the Forum on 14.4.2014, he contacted the

concerned SDO on 23.4.2014 who assured that the amount of Rs.1989/- excess

paid by him will be adjusted in the subsequent bill.





87

5. The Complainant’s brother came to the office in the Forenoon on the date of

hearing and showed his inability to attend the hearing scheduled for Afternoon.

He, however, showed his satisfaction to the action taken by the SDO in

redressing his grievance and submitted a letter in this regard. The Xen ‘OP’

Division No.2 and RA of the Sub Division No.5 attended the hearing in the

afternoon. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 duly countersigned by

Xen through his written submissions stated that the working of the meter was

found O.K. and the premises was found lying vacant and thus the electricity was

being rarely used. Due to this fact the bills were issued on average considering

the meter as defective. He confirmed that the average bill raised under dispute

period were adjusted on the basis of final reading as on that date. He also

confirmed that the consumer is making the payment for the bills have served to

him on time to time and there is no dispute in any shape lying of the complainant.

6. With these observations that the complaint disputes had already been redressed

to his satisfaction, the complaint is considered as disposed.








88





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Anand Mohan Jagati, House No.199, Sector 48-A,Chandigarh


Versus



Order

1. Shri Anand Mohan Jagati, resident of Flat No.199, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 9.1.2014 request for replacement of the existing fault

meter and also to get reviewed the abnormally high electricity bill for the period

June 2013 to January 2014. He stated that after his meter became faulty on

16.65.2014, average is being charged which he contended was on higher side.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examine and for taking further action in the matter

vide letter dated 14.1. 2014 followed by reminder dated 19.6.2014.





4. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not attend. The Nodal Officer Xen

‘OP’ Division No.2 and RA of the concerned ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 were

present. The RA stated that the issue raised by the complainant for charging

average during the dispute period was examined and was found be in order as

the same was charged on the basis of consumption of previous thre cycles. H

also informed that the meter was replaced during the period December 2013 to

Feb.2014 and the consumption being recorded by the new meter is in the same

89

range. It was also stated by him that the consumer is making payment of the bill

regularly. On the instance of consumer challenging the replaced meter. The

check meter was installed but the result showed that working of the meter was in

order. The written submissions duly signed by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5

and counter signed by the Xen were also submitted along with consumption data

for the last three year.

From the consumption, it was observed that the range of units consumed

during the two months billing cycle was in the range of 1600 to 3300 units and

was matching with the consumption recorded by the previous meter which

became defective during the period June 2013 to August 2013.

5. With the above observations that defective meter has been replaced and

average charging (during the period the meter was defective) was in order, the

complaint is considered as disposed.








90





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Rajive Lochan Sharma, House No.1028, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh


Versus



Order

1. Shri Rajiv Lochan Sharma resident of House No.1028, Sector 48-B, Popular

Society, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 9.9.2013 submitted that his bill

dated 6.9.2013 showed the consumption of 1720 units which was very much on

higher side as compared to average consumption of 400 to 500 units. He also

submitted that reading on the electronic meter also appeared to be blurred and

was disappearing from the meter screen from time to time. He requested for

checking of the meter as well as review of the bill.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for calling parawise comments/action taken report

along with consumption data vide letter dated 10.9.2013 followed by reminder

dated 19.6.2014.







present. The RA explained that the bill for the period 6/13 to 8/13 was issued on

wrong reading which was revised after verification. The meter was also got

91

checked and was replaced during the period 8/13 to 10/13 as display was found

defective. Thereafter the bill is being issued on reading and the consumer is

making the payment regularly.. The written submissions duly signed by the AEE

‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 and counter signed by the Xen were also submitted

wherein it was mentioned that display of the meter became defective and

accordingly the same was replaced. The period during which meter was

defective was revised on the basis of consumption recorded during the

corresponding period of previous year i.e. 6/12 to 8/12. The consumption data

for the two years were also supplied. The consistency between the consumption

of old and replaced meter was noted.

4. With the above observations that the action taken by the Sub Division and

charging was in order, the complaint is considered as disposed.








92





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Col S.V.Patil, ESSCOT GREF, 507 SS & TC C/O 56 APO, Near Air Port Chowk, Behlana Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Col S.V.Patil, ESSCOT GREF, 507 SS & TC C/O 56 APO, Near Air Port Chowk,

Behlana Chandigarh through his representation dated 3rd July 2014 submitted

that electricity bill for the month of June 2014 showed an amount of Rs.1,06,890/-

He stated that this amount was on higher side as compared with the bill amount

in the month of April and May 2014. He requested for reconciliation/verification

the correctness and issuance of fresh bill.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for calling parawise comments/action taken report

along with consumption data vide letter dated 03.04.2014 followed by reminder

dated 28.10.2014.







present. The RA informed that the Sub Division could not find any

inconsistency/deficiency in the bill with regard to high consumption when

93

compared with the past bill(s). He stated that due to charging of ACD the

amount of bill during the period in dispute was higher than that of their average

amount which could have prompted the complainant to submit the Complaint.

The written submissions duly signed by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 and

counter signed by the Xen were also submitted giving the consumption for the

period July 2012 to March 2015. It was stated that the except for ACD charges

the sub division has not charged any amount in the bill and same was charged

as per provision contained in the JERC Supply Code Regulations and was in

order..

4. With the above observations the complaint is considered as disposed.








94





Date of Order - 13.07.2015 In the matter Shri Virender Kumar on behalf of Shri Rakesh Sharma, Floor No.181/32, Industrial Area, Phase –I, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Virender Kumar, Floor No.181/32, Industrial Area, Phase-I through his e-mail

dated 30th May 2014 enclosed the scaned copy of the bill with the request to get

the same checked and rectify.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide letter dated 9.6.2014 for examine and submit para-

wise comments. A reminder was also sent on 28.10.2014.




No.5 and to the complainant. The hearing notice was, however, returned back.

The complainant was contacted by the Chairman on his Mobile Number to

inform the date of hearing. The complainant informed that his concern was

regarding ACD charges. He was explained the method of levy of ACD charges

on the basis of 12 months consumption and also that same is adjusted on annual

basis and carries interest. He showed his satisfaction.

4. The Nodal Officer Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide his letter dated 13.7.2015

supplied the reply mentioning that the ACD amount worked out was correct and

was restrictly as per Supply Code Regulations. He also supplied the

consumption data for two years in support.

95

5. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not attend. The Xen ‘OP’ Division

No.2 of the Sub Division was present. The RA explained that the ACD charged

in the bill was in order.

6. The Forum observing that the ACD charged was in order, considers the

complaint as disposed.








96





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Raju Thakur, House No.3269, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Raju Thakur, resident of House No.3269, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh though

his e-mail dated 25th October 2013 submitted that he received an electricity bill

amounting to Rs. 5000/- against his average monthly bill of Rs.600/-. He

requested for getting the matter looked into and refund of the extra amount.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide letter dated 29.10.2013 for examining and submit

para-wise comments. A reminder was also sent vide letter dated 19.6.2014 and

28.10.2014.

3. The case was formally registered as complaint No.772 and was listed for

hearing 14.7.2015 vide letter No. CGRF-633/766 to 776/2015/934-46 dated



4. The consumer did not attend the hearing. The SDO through his written

submissions supplied the consumption data and submitted that during the period

5/13 to 9/13 the bill for 4 months was sent to the consumer for 1703 units. An

allowance of Rs. 963/- for the bill issued on N Code during the period 5/13 to

7/13 was allowed in the bill. He also submitted that the consumer meter is till

date continuing and giving units. in normal manner and the consumer is making

97

payment for the bill rendered to him in time to time. The Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2

and RA present in the hearing reiterated the written submissions.

5. The Forum observing that disputed bill was issued for 4 months period due to

previous bill issued N Code on average basis which was also adjusted in the

disputed bill. The bill was found to be issued on reading and in order. With these

observations, the complaint stands dismissed.








98





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Smt. Suman Devi, Shop No.1955, Rehri Market, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Suman Devi resident of House No.1448, Phase-I, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh

through her representation dated 16.5.2014 submitted that she was over charged

in the electricity bill for the period December 2013 to February 2014. The

consumption was less as the family was out for more than a month and shop was

locked. She requested for adjustment of the amount charged after verification.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examine and for taking further action in the matter

vide letter dated 27.05. 2014 followed by reminder dated 28.10.2014.







present. The RA explained that the meter became defective and the same was

replaced during the period June 2014 to August 2014. The written submissions

duly signed by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 and counter signed by the Xen

were also supplied. From the consumption data from 8/13 to 6/15 it was noted

that the meter became defective during the period December 2013 to Feb.2014

99

and average of 100 units was being charged during the period meter remained

defective till the replacement of the meter during the period June 2014 to August

2014. The Nodal Officer in the written submissions proposed that as the average

charged was quite on higher side as compared to the consumption recorded by

the replaced meter. It was proposed that the bill be revised on the basis of

consumption recorded by the replaced meter of one year of future consumption.

4. The Forum observed that the shop is in Rehri Market and may not use much

electricity and agrees with the proposal by the Nodal Officer that the account be

overhauled on the basis of one year consumption of the replaced meter. The

Nodal Officer to report compliance within 21 days of issue of order failing which

the Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty as per relevant rules of Electricity Act

2003.









100





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Harjinder Dua, House No.2310 A, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Harjinder Dua, resident of House No.2310-A, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 16.5.2014 pointed out that his electricity bill was always

surpassing the figures of four digits inspite of carrying out all measures to utilize

minimum consumption. He stated that most of the time he remains out of station

duty and no appliances except for the AC in the peak of summer is being used.

He contended that the bill in the month of Feb. 2014 to March 2014 was on

higher side and requested for inspection of the meter/cables to check whether

any theft was being carried out.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examine and submit para wise comments/action


19.05. 2014 followed by reminder dated 28.10.2014.







present. The RA during the hearing informed that the bill under dispute was

101

issued for 4 months period as the bill for previous cycle was issued on average

basis. The amount of average charged during previous bill were also adjusted in

the disputed bill. He also submitted that the consumer is now making the

payment of the bill regularly and there is no dispute. The written submissions

duly signed by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 and counter signed by the Xen

were also supplied. In the written submissions by the Sub Division. It was noted

from the consumption data that the consumption of the consumer was consistent

for the period of June 2013 to April 2014.

4. With the above observations and that the consumer is making the payment of

the bill regularly, the complaint stands disposed.








102





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Amit Kumar, House No.2433, Pushpac Society, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Amit Kumar, resident of House Npo.2433, Pushpac Society, Sector 48-C,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 29.1.2015 submitted that he had not

received the bill for the month of November to December 2014. On visiting E-

Sampark Centre he came to know that amount of his electricity bill was Nil.

Again for the month of Jan. & Feb. 2015 the amount of the bill was Nil. He stated

that he paid Rs.1269/- on 24.4.2014 and completed all the formalities for change

of name of the electricity bill in his name which was not upgraded till date.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examine and to submit para wise comments/action


09.02.2015.







present. The RA during the hearing informed that the consumer had earlier made

a complaint which was disposed off vide Complaint No.586 by CGRF. With

103

regard to non issue of bill he attributed the same to the request made by the

complainant for change of name. He also confirmed that now bills are being

issued in his name and further that the amount standing at his credit in the old

Account No.205/4848/243301R has also been transferred to his new account.

The above was also confirmed through the written submissions duly signed by

the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 and counter signed by the Xen ‘OP’ Division

No.2. In the written submission it was mentioned that now there is no dispute

with the complainant in any shape and he is regularly making the payment of

electricity bill being rendered to him.









104





Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Ram Panit, Jhuggi No.44, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Phase_i, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Ram Panit, resident of Jhuggi No.44, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Phase-

I, Chandigarh through his representation dated 15.5.2014 submitted that he

received a bill in Feb. 2013 amounting to Rs.88,879/- which was beyond his

capacity to pay. He requested for review of the bill as the same was high

considering his consumption.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examine and to submit para wise comments/action


26.5.2014 followed by reminder dated 19.6.2014







present. The RA during the hearing stated that the complainant had a connection

in a Jhuggi No.44 which was disconnected w.e.f. 2013 and transferred to a

contractor along with other similar connections. He also stated that the

consumer is not making payment Nov. 2002. The bill was being issued on

105

average basis of around 400 units per billing cycle since 3/2008 to 11/2012 when

his meter became defective. The RA stated that average charged from the

complainant for the past period was certainly on higher side as compared to his

load/consumption. He agreed to reduce this average to 100 units per cycle

without levying any surcharge from the date when the same was started to be

charged. He also stated that his revision the bill of Rs.88,879/0 would reduced to

around Rs. 29,000/- with this revision of average. The written submissions duly

signed by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 and counter signed by the Xen ‘OP’

Division No.2 was also submitted.

4. The Forum observed that for a Jhuggi connection average charging @ 400 units

per billing cycle is certainly high and agreed to the proposal of the Sub Division

duly supported by the Nodal Officer to overhaul @ 50 units per month i.e.100 unit

per billing cycle without levy of any surcharge. The Forum also observed that the

letters being sent to the complainant was returned back undelivered. The Nodal

Officer is directed to get the account overhauled on the basis of average as 50

units per month and serve the revised bill to the complainant within a period of

21 days failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty as per relevant

rules of Electricity Act 2003.









106





Date of Order - 21.07.2015 In the matter Shri Raj Pal Singla on behalf of Shri Navneet Singla, Bay Shop No.391, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Additional Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Shri Raj Pal Singla on behalf of owner of Bay Shop No.391, Sector 44-D,

Chandigarh submitted a complaint that the electricity supply was got

disconnected by the owner as per Supply Code Regulations in December 2013.

Subsequently the supply was restored on 12.9.2014 as per orders of the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana. On the directions of the High Court, the

Ombudsman allowed to Shri Vikas Deep Sharma of M/s Comfort Technologies

to get the new electricity connection released in their name after fulfilling the

formalities. The complainant stated that Shri Vikas Deep Sharma failed to

submit the requisite documents as per Supply Code Regulations and the Sub

Division was not disconnecting the supply and thus action against the Licensee

as per Section 142, 146 and 149 of the Electricity Act 2003 is required to be

taken.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy.’OP’

Division No.4 were called vide letter dated 30.4.2015 simultaneously fixing the

case for hearing on 25.5.2015.

3. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 13.5.2015 submitted para-wise reply to

the complaint confirming that new connection could not be released in the name

of M/s Comfort Technologies as they failed to fulfil the requirements. He also

stated that connection could not be disconnected as per standing order of the

107

Ombudsman – “Licensee is ordered not to disconnect the supply till the

new connection is released)” for which clarification of the Ombudsman was

awaited.

4. On the date of hearing on 25.5.2015the complainant and the concerned SDO

along with his RA were present. The SDO informed that the connection was

disconnected on 14.5.2014 on the receipt of clarification from the Ombudsman.

The complainant desired to seek more information and submitted a paper

mentioning quarries.

5. The quarries were forwarded to the Nodal Officer for supplying parawise

details/information vide letter dated 30.4.2015.


submitted the requisite information/details as re quested by the complainant.

7. The case was listed for hearing on 21.7.2015, the complainant as well as SDO

along with his RA were present. During the hearing the complainant submitted

that he is not interested to pursue the case further, in view of the fact that the

delay in disconnection of the electricity supply in pursuance of Ombudsman

Orders when M/s Comfort Technologies failed to complete the formalities for

release of new connection was not to the account of the SDO.

8. The Forum observing that the connection stands disconnected and complainant

did not wish to pursue further, case is considers as disposed.








108




Complaint No. - 778 Date of Institution - 18.05.2015 Date of Order - 25.08.2015 In the matter Shri Amit Julka, House No.209, Sector-8, Panchkula.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Amit Julka S/o Shri Tilak Raj Julka, resident of House No.209, Sector-8,

Panchkula through his e-mail dated 18.5.2015 submitted that he received a bill with

arrears of Rs.22836/- in respect of his Flat No.1024, Sector 51-B, Dayal Bagh

Co-operative Society, Chandigarh. When he contacted the Sub Division, he was

informed that disputed amount was on account of overhauling of his account for the

period meter remained defective from the period September 2012 to 9.4.2014, the

date of replacement of the meter. The complainant submitted that actual use of flat

started from 1.9.2013 when the flat was given on rent. Before 1.9.2013 the allotted

flat in 2011 was made in liveable position with loan taken from the Oriental Bank of

Commerce in March 2013. The complainant submitted that the charging of amount

prior to 1.9.2013 on the basis of worked out average was not justified as flat was

lying unoccupied.

2. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Operation Division No.4 was called upon to

submit para-wise comments along with consumption data on the representation vide

letter dated 20.5.2015.


submitted the para-wise comments. The SDO stated that the energy meter of the

complainant was replaced on 9.4.2014 as the same was found Dead stop/defective.

After replacement of the defective meter the account was overhauled as per Supply

109

Code Regulations 2010. He submitted that the consumer account was overhauled

for the period 23.1.2013 to 9.4.2014 (14.5 months) on the available base of

consumption recorded by new meter from 5/2014 to 11/2014 as the consumption

pattern for the previous period was not available.

4. The complaint formally registered as Complaint No.778 was listed for hearing on

21.7.2015. The complainant as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 along with his

RA was present. On the request of SDO the complaint was re-notified for hearing

on 25.8.2014 vide letter No. 778/CG-1/CG-12/2015/1279 dated 10.8.2015. The

complainant and SDO along with his RA were present. On next date of hearing on

10.8.2015, the complainant reiterated his submissions that flat was allotted in 2nd

half of 2011 but was given on rent only on 11.9.2013 after making it in a liveable

condition.

5. The Forum from the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division noted that for

the period November 2011 to September 2013, the bills were issued on meter status

Code as ‘Z’ i.e. O.K. The consumption recorded during this period was only 26

units. Thereafter the meter becoming Dead Stop at reading of 35 and was replaced

on 9.4.2014. The Forum also observed that though the overhauled period was 14

months, the base for working out the average was 6 months which mostly included

the summer period. The SDO during hearing submitted that in the absence of past

consumption up to date future consumption was taken for overhauling of account.

6. Decision by the Forum:

The Forum from the consumption data noted that the meter might have become

Dead Stop during the month of May 2013 and thus overhauling of account prior to

May 2013 when bills were issued on reading with meter status as Okay is not in

order. For the period Jan. 2013 to May 2013 the meter was recording consumption

which also tallies with the statement of the complainant that the construction was

undertaken towards completion of the flat after March 2013. The Forum, therefore,

set aside the overhauling done by the Sub Division and directs the Nodal Officer to

get the account overhauled from 5/2013 to date of MCO 9.4.2014 afresh on the

basis of consumption recorded by the replaced meter for the corresponding period

110

i.e. May 2014 (MCO) to April 2015. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the

receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as

per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.









111




Complaint No. - 779 Date of Institution - 28.5.2015 Date of Order - 12.08.2015 In the matter Shri Kamal Chandel, House No.581, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Kamal Chandel vide his e-mail dated 27.5.2015 submitted that electricity bill

dated 23.5.2015 for his house No. 581, Sector 11-B Chandigarh has the following

discrepancies. The meter was replaced in April 2015 and the consumption recorded

up to the meter replacement over and above. The already billed reading, was

around 100 units where as in the bill the consumption of old meter has been

mentioned as 638 units. He also submitted that his average consumption for two

month period is around 200 units.


Division No.1 were called vide letter dated 01.06.2015.


forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2 duly counter signed

by the Nodal Officer. The SDO submitted that consumer was served a bill for the

period 25.12.2014 to 25.02.2015 on premises locked basis (Average units.) The

next bill up to 25th April 2015 was issued on actual reading. Existing mechanical

meter was replaced with electronic meter on 20.4.2015. The advice for meter

change was sent to Computer Centre. The Computer Centre, however, did not

adjust the bill issued on average basis for the period 25.12.2014 to 25.2.2015. He

also submitted that the bill of the consumer has already been adjusted and

adjustment of Rs.1722/- has been made in Sundry Register which would be

112

reflected in the bill to be issued on 23.7.2015. The above was also intimated to the

consumer on his personal visit to the office. He also supplied the consumption data

long with copy of MCO.



consideration on 12.8.2015 vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-690/692/761/703/779/1146

dated 24.7.2015. On the date of hearing on 12.8.2015, the complainant did not

attend. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 informed that bill of the consumer

has already been corrected and refund allowed. Consumer was also intimated of

the same. He also submitted that consumer had already made full payment and

there is no default/dispute.

5. With the above observations that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed, the complaint stands disposed.








113




Complaint No. - 780 Date of Institution - 18.5.2015 Date of Order - 10.08.2015 In the matter Shri Ashwani Kumar Anand, House No. 356, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Ashwani Kumar Anand, resident of House No. 356, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 18.5.2015 represented that in the bill issued on 9.5.2015

the existing ACD was shown as Rs.1320/- and the new calculated ACD as Rs.3664/-

He stated that in the bill dated 6.11.2013 old ACD was shown as Rs.1440/- and new

ACD as Rs.3948/-. The additional ACD demanded was paid in the next bill

6.1.2014. Thus he submitted that his old ACD should be corrected as Rs.3948/-

instead of Rs.1320/-. He also raised the issue of payment of interest on the ACD.


Division No.1 vide letter dated 20.5.2015..


forwarded the reply submitted by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 wherein it was

stated that the amount of ACD has been corrected and he advice to the Incharge

Computer Cell has already been sent on 29.5.2015. He also confirmed that the

ACD has not yet been charged and only demand cum notice was sent to the

complainant in advance.



consideration on 10.8.2015 vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-708/709/712 to

714/2015/1137 dated 24.7.2015.. On the date of hearing, SDO along with his RA

114

were present, the Complainant did not attend and through e-mail dated 8.8.2015

showed his inability to attend the hearing. He confirmed that in the latest bill dated

8.7.2015 the amount of old ACD has been correctly shown as Rs.3948/- against

Rs.1320/-. He, however, raised that the correct interest on the ACD for 2014-15 has

not been paid.


The Forum observed that necessary correction of the ACD amount has already

been done and correct amount reflected in the next billb. The Nodal Officer is

directed to ensure that the interest is also paid to the complainant on the actual

amount of the ACD available with the department. Compliance be reported within

21 days of issue of order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty as per

relevant sections of Electricity Act 2003.









115




Complaint No. - 781 Date of Institution - 25.5.2015 Date of Order - 10.08.2015 In the matter Shri Vijay Dabur, House No.470, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Vijay Dabur, resident of House No.470, Sector 22-A,Chandigarh through his e-

mail dated 25.5.2015 represented that in the bill issued on 9.5.2015 the existing

ACD was shown as Rs.960/- and the new calculated ACD as Rs.3092/- . He stated

that in the bill dated 6.11.2013 old ACD was shown as Rs.960/- and new ACD as

Rs.2910/-. The additional ACD demanded was paid in the next bill 6.1.2014. Thus

he submitted that his old ACD should be corrected as Rs.2910/- instead of Rs.960/-.

He also raised the issue of payment of interest on the actual ACD.


Division No.1 vide letter dated 28.5.2015..


forwarded the reply submitted by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 wherein it was

stated that the amount of ACD has been corrected and the advice to the Incharge

Computer Cell has already been sent on 4.6.2015. He also confirmed that the ACD

has not yet been charged and only demand cum notice was sent to the complainant

in advance in the bill dated 9.5.2015.



consideration on 10.8.2015 vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-708/709/712 to

714/2015/1137 dated 24.7.2015.. On the date of hearing, only SDO along with his

116

RA was present. The complainant did not attend.The SDO reiterated his written

submissions.


The Forum observed that necessary correction of the ACD amount has already

been done and advice was conveyed to the Incharge Computer Cell. The Nodal

Officer is directed to ensure that the interest is also paid to the complainant on the

actual amount of the ACD available with the department. Compliance be reported

within 21 days of issue of order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty

as per relevant sections of Electricity Act 2003.









117




Complaint No. - 782 Date of Institution - 29.5.2015 Date of Order - 08.09.2015 In the matter Sister Gracy Joseph, Principal, St. Anne’s Convent School, Sector 32, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. The Principal, St. Anne’s Convent School, Sector 32, Chandigarh through

application dated 25.5.2015, received in the office of CGRF on 29.5.2015, submitted

that St. Anne’s Convent School is a religious unaided “Minority Educational Institute”

within the meaning of section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minor Educational

Institutions Act 2004 and the National Commission for Minor Educational Institutions,

Govt. of India vide F.No.1757 of 2006 dated 29.1.2007 has declared that school is a

Minority Educational Institution covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

The school has not set up with any profit making motive and is not a commercial

establishment. The electricity connection to the school was being charged under DS

tariff till April 2013 where after the category has been changed to NRS. The

applicant submitted that School is recognized by Education Department, Chandigarh

Administration and as such the tariff applicability should be domestic supply as per

provisions in the tariff order issued by the Hon’ble JERC. The applicant prayed for

examining the points and correct the tariff category as DS w.e.f. May 2013 and

refund the excess charges charged on account of NRS tariff.

2. The para-wise comments were called from the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer,

Electricity Operation Division No.3 vide letter dated 1.6.2015 with a copy to the

complainant.

118


submitted para-wise comments.

The SDO submitted that the electricity bills were issued on DS tariff till 21.5.2013

where after the tariff category was converted to NRS during the billing period

30.5.2013 to 22.11.2013 as per Notification dated 23.5.2013 under intimation to the

applicant. The tariff category was changed as per Hon’ble JERC order for the year

2015-16 Clause 2 (b).

4. The Complaint registered as Complaint No. 782 was notified for hearing on

8.9.2015, vide letter No. 1337-43 dated 20.8.2015 . The representative of the

applicant as well as the concerned SDO were present. The SDO submitted that the

tariff category was changed as per Chandigarh Electricity Department Notification

dated 23.5.2013 where in it was provided that all Private Schools other than those

run by the Chandigarh Administration would be covered under NRS tariff.

5. Observations by the Forum:

The Forum has gone through the Tariff Order issued by the Hon’ble JERC for the

year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 and has observed that the following provisions

exist in respect of Private Educational Institutions.

(i) Domestic Supply Applicability:

“Government recognized education institutions, viz schools, colleges

universities, ITI hostels, canteens, and residential quarters attached to the

educational institutions”

Notes:

iii. “Private Education Institutions not recognized by the Chandigarh

Administration shall be billed under Non Domestic Tariff.”

The Plain reading of the provisions with regard to applicability of the domestic

supply tariff points out that all Government Recognized Schools are to be covered

under DS Tariff. The Note under (iii) further clarified that the Private Educational

Institutions Not Recognized by the Chandigarh Administration shall be billed under

NRS tariff.

119

The SDO during hearing also stated that as per provisions in the tariff order for the

charitable organisations, the Schools is required to apply in a writing to the

Electricity Department along with a certificate with regard to institution registered

with the Income Tax Authorities under Section 80G, 80 GGA or 35 AC for

consideration for the tariff in the Domestic Category

The Forum do not agree with the submissions made by the SDO in this regard as

the provisions with regard to Private Schools recognized by the Chandigarh

Administration are amply clear in the tariff order issued by the Hon’ble JERC.

6. Decision:

In view of above, the Forum directs the Nodal Officer to change the category of the

applicant from NRS to DS w.e.f. 22.5.2013 and adjust the excess amount deposited

by the School Authorities in future bill. Compliance be reported within 21 days after

the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC

as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.









120




Complaint No. - 783 Date of Institution - 13.5.2015 Date of Order - 08.09.2015 In the matter Shri Charan Singh Virdi, Secretary, Punjab State Committee of Communist Party of India, Cheema Bhawan, Sector-30, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. The Secretary, Punjab State Committee of Communist Party of India through Shri

Charan Singh Virdi submitted an application dated 8.5.2015 to the CGRF for

withdrawal of notice dated 24.12.2014 issued by SDO and for refund Rs.1,92,242/-

deposited by them. The complainant stated that Communist Party of India has state

Head quarters in Cheema Bhawan, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh. They were making

the payment towards the electricity bills as being issued by the department regularly.

A notice dated 24.12.2014 was received from the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3

where in a sum of Rs.1,94,242/- was demanded towards sundry charges on

account of meter being Dead Stop for the period 10.12.2012 to 11.12.2014 on the

basis of overhauling. The complainant submitted that during the disputed period

they were being issued bills on the basis of average and the meter being Dead Stop

was not conveyed by the meter reader/department, it was responsibility of the Sub

Division to change the defective electricity meter well in time. The details of the bill

received on average and the amount paid by them was also provided by the

applicant. The applicant stated that adjustment of the bill issued on average basis

for the period about two years is not in order and prayed for setting aside the Notice

dated 24.12.2014 issued by the SDO and also adjustment of R.1,94.242/- already

deposited by them in response to the Notice.

121

2. The para-wise comments were called from the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer,

Electricity Operation Division No.3 vide letter dated 18.5.2015 with a copy to the

complainant.


submitted para-wise comments along with consumption data of the complainant and

basis of overhauling as well as copy of MCO.

The SDO stated that amount of Rs. 1,84,326/- was debited after overhauling the

account of the consumer from the period 10.12.2012 to 11.12.2014 when the meter

was dead stop. During the period meter was Dead Stop the bills were issued on

adhoc basis with meter Status Code as ‘D’ thus it was well within the knowledge of

Complainant that the bills were being issued on average basis due to defective/dead

stop meter. The payment of Rs.1,94,242/- deposited by the complainant also include

the current bill charges in addition to sundry charges of Rs.1,84,326/-. The account

has been overhauled @ 3047 units per month for the period 10.12.2012 to

11.12.2014 on the basis of consumption recorded during the period 6/2011 to

6/2012 with adjustment of adhoc amount already charged and paid by the

complainant for the bills issued on average basis. He also stated that the meter

could not be replaced earlier due to non availability of meters in the store.

4. The Complaint registered as 783 was notified for hearing on 8.9.2015, vide letter No.

1337-43 dated 20.8.2015. The complainant as well as the concerned SDO was

present. The complainant reiterated his written submissions that the adjustment of

bills already issued and paid by them is not justified. He specifically stated that it

was the responsibility of the department to replace the defective meter early so that

bills are issued to the consumer on consumption basis. Further the average being

charged to them during this period was not worked out correctly thereby demand of

lump sum heavy amount through notice. The SDO stated that the meter could not be

changed early as the same were not available in the store. With regard to less

average charging, he stated that average was being charged by computer. The

SDO also stated that overhauling done by the Sub Division is in order as the

average consumption recorded by the replaced meter is more than the base

calculated by the Sub Division for overhauling the account.

122


The Forum after going through the consumption data, noted that the basis of

overhauling of the account and the charging of amount through Notice was required

to be calculated in view of following observations:-

a) The overhauling of the account has been done from 12/12 to 11/12/2014

whereas the meter become defective during the period 08/12 to 10/12 and thus

the overhauling of the account is to be done for 08/12 to 11/12/2014 instead of

12/12 to 11/12/2014 i.e. for 28 months.

b) The base for overhauling has been later as consumption recorded during the

period 06/11 to 06/12. The Forum noted that for the period 06/12 to 08/12, the bill

was issued with meter status code as ‘Z’. Thus this period also needs to be

included while working out the average for overhauling.

6. The Forum also observed that the sub division had allowed the continuation of

defective period for a much longer time. In case, the meters were not available in the

store, the option of asking the consumer to provide his own meter should have been

explored. Further the average being charged during the period was almost half of

the past consumption. Had the average been worked out correctly, the charging of

lump sum amount of 1.8 lac would not have arisen. In view of above observations,

the Forum directs the Nodal officer to recalculate the amount as per above

observations.

7. The Forum also directs the Electricity Department to arrange sufficient meters and

do not allow the defective meters to continue for such a long period. Further

directions needs to be issued to all the Nodal Officer that the average being charged

of defective/dead stop/burnt meters or premises locked cases should be reviewed at

regular intervals of 2/4 months in order to avoid shocks to the consumers when the

accounts are overhauled. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of

the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per


123

8. With the above observations and directions, the complaint is considered as

disposed.








124




Complaint No. - 788 Date of Institution - 29.04.2015 Date of Order - 16.09.2015 In the matter Shri Sham Lal, House No.530B, T-24, Housing Board Dhanas, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Sham Lal, resident of House No.530B, Housing Board, Dhanas, Chandigarh

through his representation dated 29.4.2015 submitted that the bills prepared in the

past from July 2014 onward were on wrong readings (on higher side) where as

actual readings were less.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electricity

Operation Division No.1 vide letter dated 15.5.2015 with the directions to submit

parawise reply. A reminder was also issued on 18.8.2015, as the Forum did not

receive the reply from the Nodal Officer in time.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 vide his letter dated 4.9.2015 submitted

that wrong reading bill of the complainant was issued for the period 20.11.2014 to

20.1.2015. The next bill was issued on average basis. He further submitted that the

wrong reading bill was revised by his office and sundry allowance advice for

RS.3434/- was sent which appeared in the consumer bills during the period March

2015 to May 2015. Simultaneously, the average bill issued on ‘I’ Code (Inconsistant

reading) was also adjusted by the computer and net bill of Rs.944/- was issued to

the consumer. The consumer paid the bill on 13.7.2015. A copy of the revised bill

was also submitted along with reply.

4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.788 was listed for hearing on

16.09.2015 vide letter No. 1388 dated 27.8.2015 with a copy to the complainant. The

125

notice was, however, returned undelivered with the remarks that no such house

number at Dhanas. An attempt was made to contact complainant on the mobile

number, mentioned in the complaint but the contact number was found to be not

valid number as per recorded message.

5. The Forum observing that the complaint has already been redressed, considers the

complaint as disposed.








126




Complaint No. - 789 Date of Institution - 29.04.2015 Date of Order - 16.09.2015 In the matter the Senior Manager, Haryana Financial Corporation Bays Nos. 17,18 & 19, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. The Senior Manager, Haryana Financial Corporation, Bays No.17,18 & 19, Sector

17-A, Chandigarh vide letter dated 29.4.2015 stated that the electricity bills of his

office are not being received by them in time and they are facing lot of difficulty in

making the payment timely. He also submitted that the electricity bills for period

Jan.2015 onwards were not received as on date. He requested for delivery of bills

within time to avoid any type of inconvenience to pay in time.


Operation Division No.1 vide letter dated 6.5.2015 for submitting parawise

comments, with a copy to the complainant. A reminder was also issued by the

Forum on 18.8.2015 to the Nodal Officer due to non receipt of reply with stipulated

time.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide letter dated

3.9.2015 forwarded the reply submitted by the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.4. wherein SDO submitted that the electricity bill of 4 Number Accounts were

distributed by the Post Office. The grievance of the consumer about late receipt of

bills has already been conveyed to the Post Master General, Sector -17,

Chandigarh vide letter dated 27.4.2015. The complainant was also informed vide

letter dated 6.5.2015 that the electricity bills can be downloaded directly from the

website of the Electricity department or duplicate copy can be had from his office or

127

e–Sampark Centres to avoid levy of late payment surcharges. The complainant

was also made aware of the Clause No.5 printed on the overleaf of the electricity bill

with regard to above. The Sub Division also enclosed a copy of the letter written to

the Post Master General and to the complainant.


16.09.2015 vide letter No. 1388 dated 27.8.2015. Only SDO & RA were present, the

complainant did not attend.

5. The Forum observing that Post Master, Sector 17, Chandigarh has already been

advised by the Sub Division for late delivery of bills and further the complainant was

educated about obtaining the duplicate copy of the bill, considers the complaint as

disposed. The Nodal Officer is however, directed to ensure that bills to the

consumers are delivered in time and in future.








128




Complaint No. - 790 Date of Institution - 13.04.2015 Date of Order - 16.09.2015 In the matter the Manager, LIC, Jeevan Parkash, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. The Manager (Estate), LIC, Sector-17, Chandigarh vide his letters dated 13.4.2015,

28.4.2015 and 28.4.2015, complaint about late receipt of electricity bill against 3 No.

Accounts. The bills were received on 9.4.2015, 27.4.2015 and 13.4.2015 with due

date as 4.4.2015 and thus bills attracted late payment surcharges. It was requested

to issue correct bills for payment without late payment surcharges and adjust the

surcharge.




Forum on 18.8.2015 to the Nodal Officer due to non receipt of reply with stipulated

time.



No.4. wherein SDO submitted that the electricity bills of 3 Number Accounts were

distributed by the Post Office. The grievance of the consumer about late receipt of

bills has already been conveyed to the Post Master General, Sector -17, Chandigarh

vide letter dated 27.4.2015. The complainant was also informed vide letter dated

7.5.2015 that the electricity bills can be downloaded directly from the website of the

Electricity department or duplicate copy can be had from his office or e–Sampark

129

Centres to avoid levy of late payment surcharges. The complainant was also made

aware of the Clause No.5 printed on the overleaf of the electricity bill with regard to

above. The Sub Division also enclosed a copy of the letter written to the Post

Master General and the complainant.


16.09.2015 vide letter No. 1388 dated 27.8.2015. Only SDO & RA were present, the

complainant did not attend.

5. The Forum observed that no other consumer in the neighbourhood of the

complainant had complaint about receipt of bills after due date. Only M/s Haryana

Financial Corporation Ltd., Bays No. 17,18,19 & 20, Sector 17-A, has complained

about late delivery of bills but no after the due date was over. The consumers are

aware about the likely date of payment of bills. The complainant could have asked

for duplicate bills from the Sub Division as per printed clause No.5 on the overleaf of

the bill and as such their request for refund of the late payment surcharges is not

acceptable. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to check that the electricity bills

are delivered to the consumer in future.

6. With the above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.








130




Complaint No. - CG 5of June 2015 Date of Institution - 17.06.2015

Date of Order - 30.07.2015 In the matter Shri Sukhdev Singh, House No.3031, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Sukhdev, resident of House No.3031, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through his

representation dated 11.6.2015 received in the office on 16.6.2015 submitted that

the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 sent him a bill of Rs.30,719/- which included sundry

charges of Rs.29,377/-. He desired detail of sundry charges levied for the period

4.6.12 to17.4.2015. He further submitted that he had been paying the electricity bills

regularly in the past as served to him by the electricity department. He submitted

that as discussed with SDO, he made a part payment of Rs.16000/- for the disputed

bill. He also indicated that details may be provided to him at an early date as he is in

the process of vacating the house.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 to submit parawise comment along with consumption data

for the last three years vide letter dated 26.6.2015.

3. In response to this office letter asking him for the fact of the case along with

consumption data, the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated

14.7.2015 submitted the reply as under:-

i) That the meter of the complainant was replaced on 17.4.2014 being

defective.

ii) The Account of the consumer was overhauled for the period 4.6.2012 to

17.4.2014 (22.5 Months) on the basis of previous consumption.

131

iii) The present consumption by the replaced meter was also noted for one

year and was found to be higher than the base selected for charging.

iv) The charging was done as per Supply Code Regulations i.e. on the basis

of previous consumption.

He also stated that details of the sundry charges has already been

sent to the consumer and also supplied the consumption data of the

consumer for the period April 2011 to April 2015 along with other related

documents including copy of MCO.

4. The formally registered complaint was listed for hearing on 30.7.2015 vide letter No.

CGRF/Comp-CG5 & CG8/2015/1126 dated 21.7.2015, a copy of which was also

sent to the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 and to the complainant.

On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as concerned SDO ‘OP’

Sub Division No.6 were present. The complainant contested the levy of sundry

charges . The SDO stated that charges worked out by him were correct and as

per Supply Code Regulations.



observed that though the bill for the period June 2012 to October 2013 were

issued on the basis of meter readings with meter status code as ‘Z’ i.e. O.K. yet

the consumption during this period was very very less such as 6 units for the

period August to October 2013, 39 Units for the period December 2012 to Feb.

2013 which the SDO attributed due to meter becoming defective after June 2012.

T3he consumption being recorded during the summer peak of June 2012 to Aug.

20012 as 325 units was nowhere in comparison to the corresponding period

consumption of 1306 units in 2011 or 1072 units in 2014, which clearly

established that the meter became defective somewhere in June 2012. The

complainant also admitted that the premises was not locked during any time of

this period and also they have one AC which is otherwise lying defective now.

The complainant also submitted that he has already shifted from the house to a

new premises of House No. 32, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh and the connection was

in the name of the owner.

132


On the basis of above observations and submissions by the SDO the Forum

reaches the conclusion that the meter might have become defective and started

recording less consumption w.e.f. June 2012. The recorded consumption

became less and less with passage of time and ultimately becoming 69 units

during June to August 2013, 6 units during August to October 2013 before

becoming ‘Dead Stop’ in October 2013. Thus the action taken by the SDO in

overhauling the account is correct. The SDO as well as complainant confirmed

that all the payment has been made and nothing is due.

7. With the above observations, complaint stands dismissed.








133




Complaint No. - CG-6 of 2015 Date of Institution - 18.06.2015 Date of Order - 18.08.2015 In the matter Shri Harpal Singh, 289, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Harpal Singh, resident of House No.289, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra,

Chandigarh vide his representation dated 17.6.2015 received in the office on

18.6.2015 submitted that generally he makes the payment of the electricity bill

through Cheque. However, on 15.6.2015 when he went to e-Sampark Centre for

making payment of electricity bill amount to Rs.11970/-, he was insisted upon to

make payment through demand draft as one of his cheque got bounced/ was

dishonoured in the past . He submitted that the payment by Demand Draft should

not be insisted.


Division No.2 were called vide letter dated 25.6.2015 with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 30.6.2015 submitted that the matter relates to

generalised instructions of the Electricity Department and desired that the case be

dealt with the Commercial Section.

4. The formally registered complaint No. C-6 of 2015 was listed for hearing on

18.8.2015 vide letter No. CGRF/Comp-510/505/738/CG-3/CG-6/2015/1158 dated

24.7.2015, a copy of which was also sent to the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8

and to the complainant.

134

5. On the date of hearing on 18.8.2015, the complainant, Nodal Officer and the SDO

OP’ Sub Division No.8 along with his RA and AEE (Commercial) of the Office of S.E.

Elecy. ‘OP’ Circle were present. Shri Pawan Kumar , AEE (Commercial) informed

that as per existing instructions whenever cheque is bounced/dishonoured, the

consumer is required to make the payment through Demand Draft only. He also

informed that the earlier limit for making payment by cash was Rs.10,000/- but

recently this limit has been raised to Rs.20,000/- per bill. The complainant on querry

by the Forum stated that his normal bill does not exceed Rs.20000/- and thus as per

his understanding he can make payment in cash. The Forum also noted that the

DD was being insisted as per the instructions of the Electricity Department.

6. With the above observations that the consumer got satisfied with the enhancement

of limit for payment of bill amount in cash, the consumer showed his satisfaction, the

complaint stands disposed.








135




Complaint No. - CG 8 of June 2015 Date of Institution - 25.06.2015

Date of Order - 30.07.2015 In the matter Smt. Surinder Kaur, House No. 2869/3, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Surinder Kaur, resident of House No. 2869/3, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh vide

her application dated 25.6.2015 submitted that on receipt of high consumption bills

in 2011, she made a request to the concerned SDO for checking the meter as she

attributed high consumption to the case of jumping of reading. The bills were

however, paid. Disputed meter was changed in the Sub Division in December 2014

and now a bill of Rs.38,711/- has been sent to her. She stated that the overhauling

of the account on the basis of past consumption for which she suspected to be a

case of meter jumping, is not in order and account for the period meter remained

defective be overhauled on the basis of new consumption. She also requested to

stay the disputed amount.


Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 to submit parawise comments along with consumption

data for the last three years vide letter dated 26.6.2015.


that dead stop electricity meter of the complainant was replaced on 12.12.2014.

Thereafter the account of the consumer was overhauled for the period 6.1.2013 to

12.12.2014 on the basis of previous consumption for the period March 2011 to

March 2012 @ 593 units per month and accordingly an amount of Rs.36094/- was

136

debited to the account of the complainant. He also supplied the copy of MCO as

well as consumption data for the last four years.

4. The formally registered complaint was listed for hearing on 30.7.2015 vide letter No.

CGRF/Comp-CG5 & CG8/2015/1126 dated 21.7.2015, a copy of which was also

sent to the SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 and to the complainant.

On the date of hearing, the representative of the complainant as well as

concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 were present. The representative of the

complainant submitted that they received an inflated bill in December 2011 which he

attributed to meter reading jumping and made a representation to the SDO on

8.11.2011. Though he paid the bills at that time he contended that average being

now charged on that basis (contested by him) is on higher side and not in order. He

prayed for charging on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter. The

SDO submitted as the period of meter remaining defective was more than one year,

the base for charging has been taken as one year from 3/11 to 3/12. He submitted

that the meter was perfectly in working order during this period.

5. Observations:

The Forum observed that the overhauling was done by the SDO @ 593

units per month. The consumption after replacement of the meter was found to be

520 units during the period Jan to March 2015 and 530 units during the period Mach

2015 to May 2015. As the period was less than 6 months the current reading as on

date was asked which the SDO told as 4785. Thus it was observed that the present

meter recorded consumption of 4779 units from 12.2.2014 (Date of MCO with initial

reading 6) to 30.7.2015 in 7-1/2 months. The average consumption on the basis of

new meter was calculated as 637 units per month which was found to be more than

average charged by the SDO on the basis of past consumption.

6. Conclusion & Decision of the Forum:

On the basis of above, the Forum conclude that overhauling done by the SDO on

the basis of o ne year consumption is in order. The complainant agreed to the

inference drawn by the Forum. The complainant requested for allowing to make

the payment in instalments of Rs.6000/7000. The Forum agreed to the request

made by the representative of the complainant and directs the Nodal Officer to

137

recover the amount from the consumer in instalments without levy of surcharge

@ Rs.6000/- (as sundry amount is of the order of Rs.36000/-) bi-monthly in

addition to current bill charges. Compliance be reported within twenty one days

after the receipt of the order failing which the Hon’ble JERC may impose penalty

as per relevant rules of Electricity Act 2003.

7. With the above observations, complaint stands dismissed.








138




Complaint No. - CG-10 of 2015 Date of Institution - 02.07.2015 Date of Order - 08.09.2015 In the matter Smt.Sham Rani Gupta, W/o Shri Vir Bhan Gupta, House No.4005, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Sham Rani Gupta , resident of House No.4005, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh vide

her representation dated 2.7.2015 stated that she paid the electricity bill issued in

February 2015 up to reading 56950. However, the bill issued in April 2015 showed

the bill paid up to reading of 56229. Though in this bill electricity department charged

the bill of 791 units in excess, yet she paid the bill. Despite her representation to the

sub division, the next bill issued on 25.6.2015 was without adjustment.


submit parawise comments/action taken report on the representation vide letter No.

997-99 dated 6.7.2015 with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated 23.7.2015 informed

that the consumer had applied for change of name and deposited the bill in

December 2014. The new account No. was allotted and the bill for the period

December 2014 to March 2015 was issued showing the initial reading as 56229

instead of 56950. He further submitted that the bill has been corrected and an

amount of Rs.2914/- has been credited to the new consumer account to be reflected

in the next bill.

4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.CG-10 of 2015 was listed for hearing on

08.09.2015 vide letter No. 1336 dated 20.8.2015. The consumer did not attend.

The SDO reiterated his written submissions

139

5. The Forum observing that the SDO had already taken corrective action and the

excess payment made by the consumer might have been reflected in the last bill

issued in August 2015, considers the complaint as disposed.








140




Complaint No. - CG 11 Date of Institution - 07.07.2015

Date of Order - 14.07.2015 In the matter Shri Vipul Dubey, House No.226C, Sector 51A, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Additional Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4 UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Shri Vipul Dubey through his e-mail dated July 7, 2015 submitted that current bill

for his Account No. 409/5142/0226COK was received in torn condition and he

fail to understand the details. He was also unable to review the bill online. He

requested for issuance of duplicate bill.

2. The Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No.4

was directed to ensure deliver of duplicate bill to the consumer latest by 10th July

2015 vide letter dated 7.7.2015.

3. The SDO delivered a duplicate bill to the complainant by hand on 9th July 2015

and confirmed the same to the Forum.

4. The complainant through e-mail dated 7.7.2015 was also conveyed and he

confirmed the receipt of the bill stating that issue had been resolved.

5. With the above observations that grievance of the consumer had already been

redressed with the quick action taken by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9. The

prompt action by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No. 9 is appreciated.

141

6. With the above observation, complaint stands disposed








142




Complaint No. - CG-12 of 2015 Date of Institution - 09.07.2015 Date of Order - 25.08.2015 In the matter Shri Lokesh Vasudeva, House No.1017/2, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Lokesh Vasudeva, resident of House No.1017/2, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 8.7.2015 requested for arranging duplicate copies of

electricity bills for the last 3 cycles stating that same have not been received by him.

He also stated that he was ,however, regularly making the payment for electricity

bills at nearby e-Sampark on employee’s verbal communication.


submit parawise comments/action taken report on the representation vide letter

dated 9.7.2015 with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 16.7.2015 supplied

the copies of duplicate bills of last 3 cycles to the complainant. The copy of the

above letter was also endorsed to CGRF in compliance to its direction. A copy of

the account statement electricity/water bills showing the payments made by the

consumer was also supplied. It was noted that the consumer was making the

payment regularly.

4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.CG-12 of 2015 was listed for hearing

on 25.8.2014 vide letter No. 778/CG-1/CG-12/2015/1279 dated 10.8.2015. The

consumer through e-mail dated 25.8.2015 showed his inability to attend the hearing

due to other commitments. He, however, showed his concern about the payment of

Rs.309/- made at Sector 43 Sampark Centre on 2nd May 2015 as the same was not

143

reflected in the last bill with due date as 8.6.2015. The SDO along with his RA

present, during the hearing submitted that payment of Rs.309/- is reflected in the

credit of the complainant and would be adjusted in the subsequent bill.

5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant for supply of duplicate

copy of bills is already been redressed considers the complaint as disposed. The

Nodal officer is, however, directed to ensure

i) Delivery of bill to the complainant before the due date in future.

ii) The credit of payment Rs.309/- is reflected in the next bill.








144




Complaint No. - CG-17 of 2015 Date of Institution - 20.07.2015 Date of Order - 01.09.2015 In the matter Shri Vinod Joshi, House No.3203-G, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Vinod Joshi, resident of House No.3203-G, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh through

his representation dated 20.7.2015 complained about non receipt of his electricity bill

since Jan. 2015. He stated that he had made many requests by visiting personally

to the Electricity office but could not get the desired response during the period of

last six months.





submitted that the consumer applied for an electric connection but due to clerical

oversight wrong Account number was assigned resulting into delay in issuance of

the bill. He also submitted that to avoid inconvenience to the applicant, necessary

verification was got done and bill up to meter reading 1025 was prepared manually

and handed over to the consumer. The consumer also made payment of this

manual bill amounting to Rs.1267/- on 24.7.2015. The SDO stated that Master File

is being sent to the Computer Centre on 31.7.2015 for creating a new account and

issuance of computerized bill.


on 01.09.2015 vide letter No. 1332 dated 20.8.2015. The consumer as well as

145

concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 was present. The complainant reiterated his

written submissions and stated that the Sub Division staff handled his application in

a casual manner as the address was mentioned wrongly and also that in the manual

bill, meter rent were charged though the meter was supplied by him.

The SDO was directed to get the computerized bill issued from the date of

application and also to adjust the payment of Rs.1267/- paid by the applicant

towards the manual bill. The SDO was also directed to ensure that the address is

correctly printed on the bill and the meter rental are not levied. The SDO should

also get the old account overhauled simultaneously, if required.

In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to ensure that the grievances

pointed out by the complainant are suitably addressed and correct computerized bill

is rendered to him. Compliance be reported immediately on issuance of the

computerized bill to the complainant failing which the penalties may be imposed by

Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.

5. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed.








146




Complaint No. - CG-19 of 2015 Date of Institution - 23.7.2015 Date of Order - 16.09.2015 In the matter Smt. Jaspreet Grewal, resident of House No.536A, Side Gate, Sector 16-D, Chanigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Jaspreet Grewal, resident of House No. 536-A, Side Gate, Sector 16-D,

Chandigarh through e-mail dated 23.7.2015 in occupation of the back half of House

No.536, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh with postal address as House No.536-A, Side

Gate, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh. For the last 2 years she had not received the bills in

time due to improper billing address. She prayed for correction of the mailing

address on the bill. She also offered to avail the facility of SMS alert on her Mobile

No.9815631655.




Forum on 18.8.2015 to the Nodal Officer for submission of the reply.



No.4. SDO in his reply stated that the amendment in the billing address has been

made by his office by adding the words “Side Gate” in the billing address of the

consumer and necessary advice for the same was sent to the Computer on

1.9./2015. With necessary changes to be reflected in the next bill of the consumer.

The SDO also submitted that the electricity bill of the consumer for the period April

147

2015 to June 2015 was negative with Rs.3527/- standing at the credit of the

consumer.


on 16.09.2015 vide letter No. 1388 dated 27.8.2015. The complainant was informed

through e-mail on 15.9.2015 while forwarding the reply furnished by the Sub Division

for information and further action.

5. The complainant was also informed on telephone about the date of hearing. The

complainant assured her satisfaction to the action taken by the Sub Division. She

also informed that in respect of water bills to incorporate full mailing address to the

water department instead of printing full name started printing initial only in view of

the limit of the characters.

6. On the date of hearing SDO and RA were present but the consumer did not attend.

The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure that correct mailing address is printed on the

electricity bills and also that in case limit to the number of characters her name may

be abbreviated instead of mentioning full name. Compliance be reported

immediately on issuance of the bill with correct mailing address.

7. With above directions, the complaint stands as disposed.








148




Complaint No. - CG-20 of 2015 Date of Institution - 23.07.2015 Date of Order - 08.09.2015 In the matter Smt. Jaswant Kaur, House No.1559, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Mrs. Jaswant Kaur, presently residing in of House No.745, Swastik Vihar, Zirakpur,

Punjab vide her representation dated 23.7.2015 submitted that she is owner of Flat

No. 1559, Pushpac Complex, Sector 49, Chandigarh. For the last two years she is

not residing at the flat but living with her daughter in Zirakpur due to medical

reasons. She was paying the electricity bills as received but the bill dated

21.5.2015 included an amount of Rs.36515/- on account of average charged for a

period of nearly 1-1/2 years.





para-wise comments along with consumption data for the last three years. The SDO

stated that the meter got burnt and same was replaced on 20.2.2015. The account

of the consumer was overhauled for the period the meter remained burnt (from

20.4.2014 to 20.2.2015) on the basis of past consumption for the period 4/2013 to

4/2014 @ 903 units per month. With regard to premises remaining locked the SDO

submitted that the complainant had neither submitted any applications to the sub

division in this regard nor any application for visiting her son in France/U.S

149

4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.CG-20 of 2015 was listed for hearing on

08.09.2015 vide letter No. 1336 dated 20.8.2015. The consumer as well as

concerned SDO was present. The complainant stated that charging for the period

when she was not residing on the basis of past consumption is not justified. She also

submitted a certificate signed by the neighbours stating that she was not staying in

the flat for nearly past two years

5. Observations by the Forum:

From the consumption data, Forum observed that last bill issued on meter status as

‘OK’ was up to August 2014 where after the bills were being issued on average

basis with meter status code as “burnt’ till 20.2.2015 when the meter was replaced.

Thus the overhauling of the account overhauled for the period April 2014 to August

2014 is not in order when the bills were issued on reading.

6. Decision:

The Forum on the basis of above observations directs the Nodal Officer to overhaul

the account from August 2014 to 20.2.2015 on the basis of consumption recorded

during the corresponding period during the year 2013-14. The earlier charging done

by the SDO is set aside. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of

the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per










150




Complaint No. - CG-21 of 2015 Date of Institution - 29.07.2015 Date of Order - 18.09.2015 In the matter Shri Avnish Kumar Chhibba, House No.2166/3, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Avnish Kumar Chhibba, resident of House No.2166/3, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 29.7.2015 submitted that he got excess electricity bill due to

error in meter reading. The new reading was shown as 5971 units where as on

actual checking the reading was found to be 3195.7 on 28.7.2015.


No.4 were called vide letter dated 30.7.3015 with a copy to the complainant. In the

mean time, the complainant sent another e-mail on 26.8.2015. A reminder was

issued to the Nodal officer vide letter dated 27.8.2015 for submission of comments.

The case was also notified for hearing on 18.9.2015.


submitted that the reply of the first notice of the Forum dated 30.7.2015 was

submitted on 14.8.2015.


on 18.09.2015, The complainant did not attend. Only SDO along with his RA were

present in the hearing informed that the bill of the consumer for the period 19.2.2015

to 20.6.2015 was rectified up to meter reading 3522 after the reading was got

checked/verified by his office. He also stated that refund of RS.12552/- has been

allowed to the consumer through sundry allowance to be reflected in the next billing

cycle. The SDO also supplied copy of the letter dated 14.8.2015 which was not

151

received by the Forum. The Forum also observed that the reply by the Sub Division

was sent to the Xen as well as to the Complainant.

5. The complaint is considered as disposed as the Sub Division had already rectified

the bill as per complaint made by Shri Avnish Kumar Chibba.








152




Complaint No. - CG-30 of 2015 Date of Institution - 20.08.2015 Date of Order - 15.09.2015 In the matter Shri Gurinder Soni, House No.3434, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Gurinder Soni through e-mail dated 20.8.2015 submitted that he lives in House

No.3434, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh and paying the electricity and water

bills in time. For the last 4 months he did not receive any water or electricity bill. He

tried to contact the Complaint number or helpline number and also visited the

website in engineering.gov.in to view his bill but in vain.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer,

Electricity Operation Division No.4 vide letter dated 21.8.2015 with the directions to

ensure delivery of duplicate bill to the consumer latest by 26th August 2015. The

Forum through return e-mail dated 21.8.2015 also requested the complainant to

contact the Sampark Centre for making the payment of the electricity bill.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10 through his written submissions dated

25.8.2015 informed that the complainant was contacted on his mobile on 24.8.2015

by the A.R.A. of his office. The Complainant informed that he had received

electricity bill through Postal Department. The applicant was also told to visit the Sub

Division during working hours for training him for downloading electricity bill form the

website of the department to avoid any inconvenience in the future.


on 15.09.2015 vide letter No. 1401-03 dated 27.8.2015. The complainant did not

attend. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 along with his RA were present.

153

The SDO stated that consumer had confirmed the receipt of the bills, which was also

conveyed to the Forum through written submissions dated 25.8.2015 and as such

the complaint be considered as disposed.

5. The Forum observing that the grievances of the consumer has already been

resolved, considers the complaint stands disposed.








154




Complaint No. - CG-32 of 2015 Date of Institution - 25.08.2015 Date of Order - 16.09.2015 In the matter Mrs. Santosh Bajaj, W/o Late Shri K.C. Bajaj, House No.3235, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Mrs. Santosh Bajaj, resident of House No. 3235, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh through

e-mail dated 25.8.2015, stated that she applied for a new Three Phase connection

and along with enhancement of load of 2 existing connections on 15.6.2015. The

Electricity ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 when contacted informed non availability of cables

and asked for provide the cables for herself for release of connections. Thereafter,

she approached the Forum for issuing advise to the Sub Division to arrange the

cables and to release the connection expeditiously.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division o.1

were called vide letter dated 26.8.2015 by 1.9.2015. The hearing of the case was

simultaneously fixed for 16.9.2015, with a copy to the complainant.

3. The complaint registered as Complaint No.CG-32 of 2015 was listed for hearing at

the time of calling comments on 16.09.2015 vide letter No. 1375-77 dated

26.8.2015. On the date of hearing, the SDO along with his RA were present. The

complainant did not attend. The SDO submitted that the connections have already

been released on 31.8.2015. He also handed over the written submissions along

with the copies of the SCO during hearing. The SDO in his written statement also

stated that consumer’s that she was asked to provide her own cable is wrong. A

letter signed by the consumer stated that her grandson met some person outside the

office who told him about the non availability of the cable was also enclosed with the

155

written submissions. The complainant also stated that the connections have been

released and she has no pending complaint against the department.

4. The Forum observing that the grievance of the consumer has already been

redressed, considers the complaint as disposed.








156




Complaint No. - CG-37 of 2015 Date of Institution - 02.09.2015 Date of Order - 18.09.2015 In the matter Shri Balkar Singh, House No.1486, MIG Flats, Sector 61, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Balkar Singh through his e-mail dated September 2, 2015 submitted that street

light on Pole opposite House No. 1486, MIG Flats, Sector 61, Chandigarh was not

working for the last 15 days. He lodged 3 complaints at the Electricity Complaint

Centre Sector 43 on 22.8.2015, 30.8.2015 and 1.9.2015 but no action was taken by

the Sub Division.


No.4 were called vide letter dated 3.9.2015 with a copy to the complainant.

3. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 8.9.2015 addressed to the

Nodal Officer with a copy to the Forum as well as to the complainant informed that

the complaint was got checked by JE Street light wo reported on 8.9.2015 that

street light point at Pole No.34 near House No. 1485-86, Sector 61 was set right.


on 18.09.2015.. On the date of hearing, the SDO along with his RA were present.

The complainant did not attend. The SDO stated that the street light has already

been set right as per the complaint of the consumer. The Forum observing that the

grievance of the complainant has been redressed, considers the complaint

disposed.

157








office of the consumer grievances redressal forum … · 2018-04-13 · office complex (2nd floor),...

Documents