INDEX [] · Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518,...

1

ORDERS PASSED BY CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM FOR QTR. ENDING MARCH, 2013

INDEX

Sr. No.

Complaint No.

Orders of CGRF Page No.

1 341

Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518, Charan Singh Colony, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.

1-10

2 347

Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Mantun Kumar, # 2220 FF, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh

11-13

3 342

Date of order – 07.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Shanti Nath, SCO No.861, NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.

14-20

4 346

Date of order – 15.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Babu Singh resident of House No.377, Main Market, Khejari, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh

21-27

5 352

Date of order – 15.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Haripal Krishan Sharma, H.No.35/1, Village-Palsora, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.

28-31

6 348

Date of order – 16.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. KDS Nagra resident of House No.2926, Sector 42-C, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.

32-35

7 343

Date of order – 21.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Anil Kumar resident of House No.2556, Sector 52-D, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.

36-42

8 351

Date of order – 21.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Parveen Jain (on behalf of Smt.Surinderjit Kaur), SCO No.8, Sector-17E, Chandigarh vs. Additional Superintending Engineer, Electy.„OP‟ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.

43-52

9 353

Date of order – 23.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Mahavir Lal, H.No.126, New Indra Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.

53-57

10 354-374

Date of order – 30.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Khushal Singh, resident of H.No.1142-A, BBMB Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh & others vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.

58-73

2

11 375

Date of order – 01.02.2013 in the matter of Sh. K.K. Sharma resident of House No.5555, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.

74-81

12 350

Date of order – 04.02.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. P.D. Sharma resident of House No.1095, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.

82-86

13 345

Date of order – 05.02.2013 in the matter of Smt. Savitri Devi W/o. late Sh. Swaran Singh, # 112, Attawa, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.

87-97

14 381

Date of order – 11.02.2013 in the matter of Sh.Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal, (for Sh.Iqbal Singh) Ground Floor, SCO. 117-118, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh vs. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.1, U.T. Chandigarh.

98-106

15 378

Date of order – 13.02.2013 in the matter of Col. (Retd.) Ravi Kant Atreya Flat No.2522, Ground Floor, AWHO Flats, Sector 47C, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.

107-109

16 382-385

Date of order – 18.02.2013

(I) In the matter of Sh. Jai Gopal Luthra resident of House No.2228, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.

(II) In the matter of Smt. Aruna Rani resident of House No.2234, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.

(III) In the matter of Sh. Sunder Singh resident of House No.2225, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.

and

(IV) In the matter of Sh. Parveen Kumar resident of House No.2191, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.

vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh

110-121

17 379

Date of order – 19.02.2013 in the matter of Smt. Amrit Kaur on behalf of Smt.Sant Kaur, SCO No.495-496, Sector-35C, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.

122-136

18 376

Date of order – 22.02.2013 in the matter of Sh. Lajja Ram resident of House No.231, New Indra Colony, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.

137-142

19 380 Date of order – 04.03.2013 in the matter of

143-150

3

Sh. S.K. Juneja, SCF No.311, New Motor Market, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.

20 377

Date of order – 05.03.2013 in the matter of Warden, Girls Hostel No.8 represented by Sh.Narinder Kumar, SDE (E), Construction Office, Panjab University, Chandigarh vs. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.1, U.T. Chandigarh.

151-167

21 386

Date of order – 07.03.2013 in the matter of Sh. Rajeev Goyal, SCO 7-A, Sector-7, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh vs. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.1, U.T. Chandigarh.

168-179

22 387

Date of order – 18.03.2013 in the matter of Sh. Baldev Singh, S/o.late Sh.Mehar Singh, H.No.3218, Sector-35D, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.

180-188

23 397

Date of order – 22.03.2013 in the matter of Sh. Kulbhushan S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Singh, Booth No.814, DMC, Sector-38-West, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.

189-194

24 388-391

Date of order – 26.03.2013 in the matter of M/s Teri Oat Estates, SCO No.126, Sector-34A, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.

195-204

4

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

UT, CHANDIGARH-160009

Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, Sh. S.K. Madan, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Member

and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.

Complaint No. - 341

Date of Institution - 12.11.2012 Date of Order - 02.01.2013

In the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518, Charan Singh Colony, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

………………..Complainant

Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.

……………….Respondents

Order

Sh. Ram Bharose resident of EWS House No.518, Charan Singh Colony,

Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh lodged a complaint regarding non-acceptance

of his application for change of category of the existing DMC/DS ground floor

connection to NRS and a new DS connection for first floor of his house by the SDO,

Elecy., „OP‟ S/D No.8, Manimajra UT, Chandigarh. This complaint was received and

diarised vide Diary No.856 dated 07.11.2012. It was stated that an electric

connection bearing A/c No.208/MA45/0033000W for a load of 0.560 KW was

sanctioned for DS purpose by UT, Electricity Department and since long, he has been

selling bidis, cigarettes, toffees etc. for running his small business as self

employment. But the Electricity Department has been sending him bill at

NRS/commercial rate under i.e. DMC category and he has been paying the bills at

the same rate regularly without any arrear against him at present.

He further mentioned that a notice bearing Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012

was received by him intimating that domestic connection was being misused by the

complainant and he was directed to remove the cause of misuse by the SDO

concerned. He enclosed the copy of the memo. under reference. In the end of the

complaint, he stated that he visited the office of the SDO, Elecy. „OP‟ S/D No.8,

5

Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh on 02.11.2012 and applied for change of category from

DS/DMC to NRS category for ground floor and a separate DS connection for first floor

of the house to meet the obligation of his commercial activities at the ground floor.

But his file was not accepted and therefore having apprehension for getting his

commercial activities stopped by the Department of Electricity, his request be

entertained so that he should continue to earn his livelihood.

A formal notice bearing Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-341/1231-32 dated

12.11.2012 was issued to the XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh with a

copy to the complainant fixing the case for consideration on 23.11.2012. The XEN

concerned was asked to send comments in view of the orders dated 27.07.2012 in

the matter of National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle

UT, Chd. and in the matter of Sh. Sham Singh Vs. XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2,

UT, Chandigarh as per order dated 28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum

respectively. Comments of the SDO concerned were received vide his office Memo.

No. 6299 dated 22.11.2012.

On 23.11.2012, the complainant appeared and he stated that he had been

running the small business and paying for electricity consumption at commercial rate

i.e. NRS category for the last 7 to 8 years. He was asked to submit his statement to

support this contention. On the other hand, Sh. Raja Singh, SDO appeared and he

informed that the notice to the complainant for seeking permission from the Estate

Office was issued in the light of the decision dated 27.02.2009 taken by the Finance

Department and the same was reiterated as per the commercial Instructions

No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 issued by the S.E., Elecy, „OP‟ Circle, UT, Chd. After

scrutinising the facts of the case, the following information was required to be

submitted by the SDO concerned:-

“

1. It should be intimated since how long the Deptt. of Electricity has been

charging the consumer at the rate of commercial category.

2. The Forum passed two orders i.e. orders dated 28.12.2011 & 27.07.2012 in

the matter of Sh. Sham Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Elecy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2

6

and in the matter of National Consumer Awareness Group (Regd.) Chandigarh

Vs. C.E./S.E., Elecy „OP‟ Circle UT, Chandigarh respectively. The answering

respondents were directed to ensure that all the DMC connections should be

converted to NRS category to avoid any misinterpretation and harassment to

the consumers because no DMC category has been provided in the Statutory

Act, Supply Code as well as the Tariff Order so far passed by the Hon‟ble

JERC. Besides, even the Tariff Order dated 16.07.2011 issued by the Hon‟ble

JERC Page 87 would indicate that where a portion of the dwelling is used

regularly for the conduct of a business, the consumption in that portion shall be

separately metered and billed under the appropriate Non Domestic Tariff.

Even in the Tariff Order 2012-2013 it has been directed that where a portion of

the dwelling is used for the mixed load purposes the connection shall be billed

for the purpose for which the tariff is higher. Since the consumer is already

paying for the higher tariff of NRS category, for the entire consumption, his

grievance appeared to be genuine and should looked into at the level of the

answering respondents. Therefore, a well considered reply should reach the

Forum by 04.12.2012 in view of the orders already passed by the Forum dated

28.12.2011 & 27.07.2012 and Tariff Orders dated 16.07.2011 and FY-2012-13

passed by the Hon‟ble JERC so that a speaking order was passed by the

Forum keeping in view the pleadings of the answering respondents.”

The case was thus fixed for further consideration on 05.12.2012.

On 05.12.2012, the complainant appeared. He was asked to specify the area

of the premises requiring residential and NRS connection respectively and he should

file a fresh application along with proof of ownership to the SDO concerned with a

copy to the Forum by 15.12.2012. Reply of the SDO concerned was received vide

his Memo. No.6430 dated 04.12.2012. He was asked to furnish the requisite form to

the complainant for seeking residential connection for his premises besides the NRS

connection as per procedure of the Department within 30 days from the date of

submission of his application under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The case

was thus adjourned for 18.12.2012.

7

On 18.12.2012, both the parties attended the proceedings. The complainant

stated that he had submitted a duly completed file for seeking a regular commercial

connection for ground floor as he has been getting the bills for DMC connection i.e. at

the commercial rate since long. The SDO concerned pointed out that the complainant

had not applied formally for the purpose vide his reply vide Memo. No.6589 dated

17.12.2012. The SDO was advised to entertain the application of the complainant as

and when the same was submitted by him because he had been paying for DMC

connection since long and the Forum had already passed a few orders in this

connection. Reference to the complaint No.287 filed by the National Consumer

Awareness Group, UT, Chd. was made which was decided by the Forum vide its

order dated 27.07.2012 to deal with such cases. Only the question remained to be

decided by the Forum was relating to application of commercial instruction

No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 issued by the S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle, UT, Chd. which

was referring to order dated 27.02.2009 issued by Chief Administrator, UT,

Chandigarh. One of the stipulations indicated in the order under reference deals with

allowing the use of ground floor for carrying out commercial activities but permission

is required to be obtained from the competent authority under whose control the

rehabilitation colony would fall. It was observed by the Forum that this condition

automatically got demolished as per decision dated 27.09.2010 held in the meeting

with Sh. Sanjay Kumar, IAS the then Finance Secretary, UT, Chd. The relevant

extract of the decision of this meeting is reproduced below for ready reference and

record:-

„Domestic misuse of connections by utilizing the residential connection

for commercial purpose unauthorisedly:- It was explained that some consumers

in the rural area of UT Chandigarh are facing problems for conversion of their

domestic connections to commercial use. Resultantly, they have started commercial

activities in residential area unauthorisedly. Such consumers are facing a lot of

inconvenience and hassles in absence of any guidelines for converting the use of

domestic connection to commercial use. This issue was duly discussed and it was

decided that UT Administration should allow conversion of these domestic

connections to commercial use. However, such connection will be converted and

8

allowed avoiding public nuisance as well as non-polluting and non-hazardous

commercial activities in the locality/area.‟

Running of a small shop like sale of bidis, cigarettes, grocery items etc. being a

commercial activity that could not be treated, by any stretch of imagination, as the

polluting and hazardous activity. Therefore, the issue involved in the complaint was

deferred for decision directing the complainant to submit the feedback relating to the

latest position of the action taken by the Estate Office in respect of order dated

27.02.2009 issued by UT, Administration. The case was adjourned for final

consideration and order on 02.01.2013.

Today on 02.01.2013, both the parties appeared for arguments. The

complainant relying upon his complaint vide Diary No.856 dated 07.11.2012 voiced

his grievances for non-sanction of separate connection for first floor for residential

purpose and for change of category from DMC/DS to NRS for ground floor to carry

out his small commercial activities like sale of bidis, cigarettes, toffees, grocery items

etc. He pointed out that his request was not accepted by the office and he was asked

to get no objection certificate from the Estate Office for use of premises for carrying

out the commercial activities. He narrated that he had been paying for DMC category

connection at commercial rate for the last 7 to 8 years. As such, he has been living

in the same premises and he rightly applied for use of the first floor for residential

purpose and the ground floor for commercial purpose to earn his livelihood of his

family as self-employment. He also stated that he had visited the office of the Estate

Office recently and brought to their notice the contents of order issued vide Endst.

No.11/6/106-UTFI(2)-2009/1175-1177 dated 27.02.2009 and this order is allowing

use of ground floors for self-employment purposes as per condition No.2 stipulated in

the order. But he conveyed to the Forum that the Estate Office of UT, Chandigarh

had informed him that no written permission could be given and such activities are

being carried out by so many residents of the colony without seeking such written

permission from the authority concerned. He also obliquely mentioned that even the

Tariff Orders so far issued by the Hon‟ble JERC were allowing such activity for NRS

activities. He invited attention to allotment of residential site No.518, Mauli Jagran

9

allotted to him by the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh vide their allotment

No.2122/NT(C) dated 03.10.1991 and thus he confirmed his ownership and

possession of the site under reference and reiterated his request that he should be

allowed to carry out his commercial activity to earn his livelihood as self-employment

and there is no formal ban to use such purposes as he was verbally told by the official

of the said Estate Office vide his application dated 02.01.2013 which was placed on

record.

Sh. Raja Singh SDO concerned admitted the fact that the complainant had

been earlier charged for DMC/NRS category and recently he was issued a notice vide

his office Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012 to stop misuse of his residential site. He

invited attention to his office Memo. No.6299 dated 22.11.2012 along with

Commercial Instruction No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 and copy of order dated

27.02.2009 issued by the Finance Department to allow such commercial activity for

self-employment purposes subject to written permission to be obtained from the

competent authority under whose control the rehabilitation colony would fall.

Attention was also invited to his office Memo. No.6430 dated 04.12.2012 as well as

Memo. No.6589 dated 17.12.2012 intimating that the complainant had not applied to

his office for seeking NRS connection against the premises under reference. He,

however, assured that application of the complainant for seeking NRS connection

would be considered after his formal application is received by his office in the light of

the orders to be passed by the Forum.

Sh. Ram Bharose-complainant being a poor fellow has rightly groused for not

allowing him to carry on the commercial activities at the ground floor and a separate

connection for the first floor for residential purpose separately. It is an established

fact on record that the complainant had been paying DMC tariff in respect of his DS

connection for a pretty long time and recently this connection has again being treated

as DS connection as per the facts contained in Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012

issued by the office of the SDO concerned. Copies of bill No.81853 dated

05.02.2012, No.10829 dated 05.04.2012, No.34911 dated 06.06.2012 and No.58917

dated 06.08.2012 as furnished by the complainant leave no doubt regarding charging

10

the complainant against DMC connection i.e. for commercial purposes rather than the

residential purposes.

Attention of the licensee was invited to the order dated 27.07.2012 and order

dated 28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum in the matters of National Consumers

Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT, Chd. and Sh. Sham Singh Vs.

XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh respectively. A perusal of these

orders would indicate that there is no consumer category named as DMC in existence

in the Tariff Orders so far issued by the Hon‟ble JERC. Even Electricity Act, 2003 and

Electricity Supply Code, 2010 do not have any mention about any such Domestic

Misuse Connection i.e. DMC. But it was noticed that domestic connections being

categorised as DMCs were being used for commercial purposes for the last many

years and the Department was recovering consumption charges on the appropriate

NRS Tariff since long. Therefore, the Department was/is not put to any financial loss

by such usage. Therefore, the licensee was directed that as per orders dated

28.12.2011 and 27.07.2012 consumers whose consumption was being charged

under DMC category and who were regularly paying for consumption charges as per

the higher tariff of commercial/NRS category should not be treated under any

unauthorised use of electricity as there was no financial loss to the Department. The

licensee was thus directed to instruct all the SDOs concerned of the Electricity

Department not to issue such wrong and unjustified notice of unauthorised use of

electricity to DMC category consumers unnecessarily causing harassment to them.

Rather a direction was issued to the licensee that all such DMC electricity consumers

of UT, Chandigarh who were paying the electricity charges as per tariff applicable for

commercial/NRS category be advised to get necessary formalities completed for

conversion of their DMC connections to commercial category to avoid any scope of

ambiguity and misinterpretation of the provisions and consequent harassment to the

consumers. The compliance of such orders passed by the Forum on 27.07.2012 in

the matter of National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle

UT, Chd. was to be made within four months from the receipt of this order. But it has

been observed surprisingly that instead of ensuring compliance of such orders

passed by the Forum the consumers are being harassed by issuing a notice by the

11

licensee/Nodal Officer/SDO concerned like Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012. The

Forum conveys its displeasure directing the licensee to ensure the compliance of the

orders dated 27.07.2012 and 28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum in the matters

of National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT, Chd.

and Sh. Sham Singh Vs. XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh without

further loss of time failing which provisions of Section 142 coupled with Section 146 of

the Electricity Act would be invoked against the defaulting officers/officials of the

Department.

In the present case, the complainant is thus being unnecessarily harassed to

the extent that he should be charged against NRS category as he has been already

paying against NRS for a pretty long time. In order to substantiate this contention

attention of the licensee is invited to page 87 of the Tariff Order dated 16.07.2011

issued for the year 2011-12 and Tariff Order dated 07.05.2012 issued by the Hon‟ble

JERC in respect of Tariff for the year 2012-13. The relevant extracts of these orders

as on page 87 and on page 198 respectively are reproduced below for clinching the

issue. These are as follows:-

Applicability of Domestic Category (DS) – Tariff Order for 2011-12

Note (i) “Where a portion of the dwelling is used regularly for the conduct of a

business, the consumption in that portion shall be separately metered

and billed under the appropriate Non Domestic Tariff. Private dwelling.”

Applicability of Domestic Supply (DS) - Tariff Order for 2012-13

Note (i):- “Where a portion of the dwelling is used for the mixed load purposes the

connection shall be billed for the purpose for which the tariff is higher.”

A combined perusal of the Tariff Orders issued by the Hon‟ble JERC would

manifestly indicate that the consumer who is already paying for the commercial

activity i.e. NRS category should not be put to any harassment as the same is

permissible under both the Tariff Orders quoted above. This must be complied with in

respect of all such categories without further loss of time by Electricity Department.

12

Coming to the application submitted by the complainant for his new

residential/domestic connection for first floor of his house and allowing to pay for NRS

category for ground floor to carry out commercial activities as a self-employment, he

should be allowed to pay for commercial activity/NRS category for his connection as

he has already been paying for the same and therefore, the notice issued vide

Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012 should be withdrawn forthrightly failing which

it would amount to non-compliance of the orders dated 27.07.2012 and

28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum in the matters of National Consumers

Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT, Chd. and Sh. Sham Singh

Vs. XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh.

Attention is also invited to the decision taken in the meeting held on

27.09.2010 under the Chairmanship of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, IAS, the then Finance

Secretary wherein it was decided that UT, Administration should allow conversion of

these domestic connection to commercial use providing such connection should not

have polluting and hazardous commercial activities in the locality/area. The relevant

import of this decision is reproduced below for facility of ready reference and record:-

“Domestic misuse of connections by utilizing the residential connection for

commercial purpose unauthorisedly:

It was explained that some consumers in the rural area of UT Chandigarh are

facing problems for conversion of their domestic connections to commercial use.

Resultantly, they have started commercial activities in residential area unauthorisedly.

Such consumers are facing a lot of inconvenience and hassles in absence of any

guidelines for converting the use of domestic connection to commercial use. This

issue was duly discussed and it was decided that UT Administration should allow

conversion of these domestic connections to commercial use. However, such

connection will be converted and allowed avoiding public nuisance as well as non-

polluting and non-hazardous commercial activities in the locality/area.”

Therefore, in the light of the Tariff Order dated 16.07.2011 for the year

2011-12 and Tariff Order dated 07.05.2012 for the year 2012-13 already issued

by the Hon‟ble JERC the order dated 27.02.2009 issued by UT, Administration

13

requiring written permission to be obtained from the Competent Authority does

not carry any merit and hence this order dated 27.02.2009 should be suitably

amended by the UT, Administration. Accordingly, the Commercial Instruction

No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 issued by the S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT,

Chandigarh does not have its own legs to stand in view of the Tariff Orders

dated 06.07.2011 and 07.05.2012 & hence these instructions should also be

withdrawn and be re-issued in accordance with the Tariff Orders already issued

by the Hon‟ble JERC as well as the orders issued by the Forum as quoted

above. Therefore, the issue relating to allowing him to use the first floor for his

residential purpose is concerned, his application be sanctioned for DS

connection in respect of first floor accordingly allowing him to use his ground

floor as NRS connection separately. With these findings and directions, this

complaint is treated as disposed.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, shall have the option or liberty to prefer

appeal/representation 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:

09811163943, E-mail id- [email protected], within one month from the date

of receipt of this order.”

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

the office of C.E./S.E. and XENs being the Nodal Officers with a copy to the

consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room

after having it properly numbered and indexed.

(I.P. Gupta) (S.K. Madan) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Member, CGRF Chairman,CGRF

mailto:[email protected]

14



Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, Sh. S.K. Madan, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Member of the Forum.


Complaint No. - 347


In the matter of Sh. Mantun Kumar, # 2220 FF, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

……………….Complainant

Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, U.T. Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

Sh. Mantun Kumar, # 2220 FF, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra,

Chandigarh submitted a complaint dated 30.11.2012/3.12.2012 to the Forum for

release of a new connection for 1st floor of his house, which was diarized vide

Diary No.897 dated 3.12.2012. A notice was issued to the Executive Engineer,

Electy. „OP‟ Divn.No.2, U.T. Chandigarh with a copy to the complainant vide

Memo.No. CGRF/Comp-347/2012/1315-16 dated 4.12.2012 fixing the case for

consideration on 18.12.2012.

Both the parties appeared on 18.12.2012. The complainant stated that

he was not granted electricity connection for the first floor. He drew attention to

his complaint dated 3.12.2012 and this was accompanied with allotment letter of

transit site No.2220 in Vill-Mauli Jagran vide Memo.No.4087/ALC issued by the

Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh in response to application dated 23.07.1997 of

Sh. Rajinder, father of Sh. Mantun Kumar. A perusal of the allotment letter

showed that the site was allotted for a period of 5 years and its condition No.5

further stipulated that the licensee should not sublet, assign or otherwise part with

15

possession of the transit site or any part thereof in favour of any person

whatsoever. Evidently as per above Clause, no documentary proof was

produced by the complainant to defend his case for grant of connection because

the site was allotted to Sh.Rajinder S/o. Sh.Basu Dev, Jhuggi No.814, Labour

Colony-31, Chandigarh. He was directed to show the ownership in his favour or

bring his father alongwith him to proceed further with the complaint.

Sh. Raja Singh, the SDO appeared. He submitted his reply vide

Memo.No.6590 dated 17.12.2012 which was placed on record. He raised a valid

question regarding the ownership of the complainant. The case was adjourned for

further consideration on 2.1.2013.

Both the parties appeared today. Sh. Rajinder S/o.Basu Dev, being

father of the complainant also attended the proceedings. He stated that the site in

question was allotted to him by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh vide

Memo.No.4087/ALC dated 17.12.1997. Accordingly, he has been in possession of

site since 1997 and has raised two storeyed building over the premises under

reference. The complainant was asked to show his ownership but he simply

mentioned that he had applied only for the connection for 1st floor of the house

constructed on the site. But legally he did not have any entitlement of ownership as

the site was allotted to his father by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The SDO

concerned relied upon his comments of Memo.No.6590 dated 17.12.2012 and stated

that connection could be given to Sh.Rajinder being legal occupant and not to son of

Sh.Rajinder, being the present complainant as he did not have any right of ownership

of the site under reference.

Facts of the case have been gone through carefully. Prima facie, the

complainant has failed to prove his ownership of the site/plot under reference

because this plot was allotted to his father Sh.Rajinder S/o.Sh.Basu Dev by the

Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh in 1997. Sh. Rajinder could seek second connection

if desired by him. But the present complainant has no legal status to seek electricity

connection separately as per his complaint dated 03.12.2012 lodged with the Forum.

The Forum has no justification to prolong the proceedings.

16

In view of the above facts, this complaint is accordingly dismissed

without any cost to the party. However, the father of the complainant could seek

second connection, if a valid sanctioned building plan is submitted to the SDO

concerned for the purpose.

A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record and one copy be

sent to all concerned with a copy to complainant for compliance wherever required.

File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.

(I.P. Gupta) (S.K. Madan) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Member, CGRF Chairman, CGRF

17





Complaint No. - 342


In the matter of Sh. Shanti Nath, SCO No.861, NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh..


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

This complaint dated 21.11.2012 was lodged by Sh. Shanti Nath, SCO No.861,

NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh. It was alleged that the electricity meter installed

for A/c No.208/MA42/0826007 had not been working since 23.02.2011. He also

mentioned that the defective meter was not replaced despite repeated requests made

to the SDO concerned and hence he preferred to submit this complaint to the Forum

for redressal of his grievances. The complaint was accompanied with copy of original

complaint dated 01.06.2011 made to the SDO concerned followed by reminder dated

24.08.2011 in this regard. Copies of bills No.76930 dated 17.01.2012, No.5891 dated

22.03.2012, No.29963 dated 21.05.2012, No.53950 dated 21.07.2012 and No.77968

dated 21.09.2012 were also enclosed along with the complaint as documentary proof

showing nil consumption coupled with negative payments (not to be paid) by the

complainant-consumer.

It was treated as a formal complaint No.342 and notice was issued to the XEN,

Elecy. „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh with copy to the complainant vide office

Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-342/2012/1274-75 dated 22.11.2012 fixing the case for

consideration on 06.12.2012.

18

On 06.12.2012, the complainant could not turn up despite repeated calls given

to him and thus it was decided to issue him notice for appearance failing which ex

parte proceedings would be launched against him.

Sh. Raja Singh, SDO concerned appeared and he submitted his reply vide

Memo. No.6431 dated 04.12.2012 intimating that a new meter was installed vide

MCO No.2/170 dated 27.11.2012. It was noticed that the MCO was not got signed

either from the consumer or his legal heir. The main reason attributed to delay in

replacement of defective meter No.CHEP-27632 was the shortage of meters in his

sub-division as stated by the SDO concerned. After going through the reply and facts

made available on the record, the following directions were given to the SDO

concerned and the complainant:-

“

1. Reasons for delay of two years for non-replacement of meter. In case there

was acute shortage of meters in Sub-Division of Manimajra, detail of meters

installed from October, 2010 to November, 2012 may please be placed on

record for record.

2. Why „Z‟ Code continued w.e.f. December, 2010 onwards, when the meter was

defective? Why zero consumption was shown and the bills were issued

showing nil consumption instead of having the bills issued on average basis to

the consumer. Reasons for this negligence be reported.

3. The complainant earlier submitted two complaints dated 01.06.2011 and

24.08.2011 to the SDO concerned. If it was so, why not the officials of SDO

office concerned had looked into these complaints for timely replacement of

the defective meter of the complainant. What action was taken on these

complaints received by the respondents. In case no action was taken by the

respondent-SDO, he should inform who is responsible for dereliction of duty

from December, 2010 onwards.

4. The complainant has sanctioned load of 20 KW therefore there has been a

huge revenue loss to the Department of Electricity for issuing bills with zero

amount rather showing negative billing as per bill No.5891 dated 22.03.2012,

bill No.29963 dated 21.05.2012, Bill No.53590 dated 21.07.2012and bill

No.77968 dated 21.09.2012 respectively. The office of the SDO especially the

RA, LDC and the Audit Branch of his office are squarely responsible for this

delinquency and revenue loss to the Deptt. Names of the concerned defaulting

officials be indicated along with action taken against them so far, if any.

19

5. Before the case for charging the consumer on average basis is considered by

the Forum, the SDO concerned should justify the observations already made

above and to send the requisite information of the total assessed amount to be

charged from the consumer on the basis of the consumption shown against

billing cycles of 6/10-8/10 to 10/10-12/10. “

The case was adjourned for further consideration on 19.12.2012.

On 19.12.2012, the complainant-Sh. Shanti Nath appeared. Letter dated

17.12.2012 received from the complainant intimating that his case had been resolved

was also seen. It was observed that observations made on the last date of hearing

i.e. 06.12.2012 were submitted during the course of hearing vide sub-divisional office

memo.No.6607 dated 18.12.2012 and therefore for examination of the reply on

merits, the case was adjourned for further consideration and order on 02.01.2013.

On 02.01.2013, Sh. Ahasan Hussain appeared on behalf of Sh. Shanti Nath

Bansal without producing any authority letter. He submitted copy of his identity card

and the same was placed on record. But this identity did not lead anywhere for

proving the fact that Sh. Ahasan Hussain was authorized by the complainant,

therefore he was asked either to produce the authority letter from Sh. Shanti Nath

Bansal otherwise Sh. Shanti Nath should come on the next date of hearing.

Sh. Raja Singh, SDO appeared. He invited attention to his Memo.No.6607

dated 18.12.2012. It was found that the officials concerned like- meter reader, J.E.

concerned and officials of the Audit Branch were squarely responsible for not

performing their duties as „Z‟ Code continued from December,2010 to

December,2012 without any justification ignoring the consumption actually made by

showing it nil causing a great revenue loss to the Department. As per the overhauling

detail of account, the amount of recovery was worked out to Rs.74,967/-.

Interestingly, Sh. Ahasan Hussain who appeared on behalf of Sh. Shanti Nath Bansal

on 02.01.2013 confirmed that 3-4 reminders were given to the JE concerned/office of

the SDO concerned. He also assured to submit copies of such reminders to the

Forum by 04.01.2013. The case was thus adjourned for 07.01.2013 for final

consideration and order with direction that compliance of the observations referred

above, should be made by both the parties by 4.1.2013.

20

On 07.01.2013, both the parties appeared and the case was taken up for

arguments. The complainant drew attention to his complaint dated 21.11.2012 and

reiterated his grievance for non-replacement of his defective meter for A/c No.

208/MA42/0826007 since 23.02.2011. He argued that this grievance was also

brought to the notice of the SDO concerned vide his first complaint dated 01.06.2011

followed by reminder dated 24.08.2011. But no action was taken by the answering

respondent-SDO, the complainant alleged. Attention was also drawn to five bills No.

76930 dated 17.01.2012, No.5891 dated 22.03.2012, No.29963 dated 21.05.2012,

No.53950 dated 21.07.2012 and No.77968 dated 21.09.2012 showing nil

consumption and negative payments (not to be paid) by the consumer-complainant.

He confirmed that the new meter No.CHEP-57938 was installed with a reading of

00007 units by replacing the defective meter No.CHEP-27632 at reading of 60474

units on 28.11.2012. He made it clear that any document for replacement of his

meter was not got signed either from him or from his any legal heir/family member.

He admitted the fact that he is ready to make the actual payment for the electricity

consumed by him and requested for some instalments in keeping in view the huge

amount to be paid by him on account of the negligence of the officials concerned

belonging to the office of the answering respondent-SDO. Today, complainant-Sh.

Shanti Nath Bansal also submitted an application dated 07.01.2013 to inform that he

had written a letter for change of his defective electricity meter to the SDO concerned

on 01.06.2011 and again sent a reminder on 24.08.2011. Thereafter, he had sent his

employee several times to the office of the SDO concerned for getting the meter

replaced. But meter was replaced after lapse of about two years, the complainant

pointed out.

Sh. Raja Singh, SDO concerned invited attention to the comments submitted

by him vide his office Memo. No.6431 dated 04.12.2012 followed by his office Memo.

No.6607 dated 18.12.2012 and argued that the meter No.CHEP-27632 was found

defective since December, 2010 and the same could not be replaced due to

non-availability of meters in his sub-division. Ultimately, the defective meter

was replaced on 28.11.2012 vide MCO No.170/002 dated 27.11.2012. Attention

was also drawn to the consumption data meant for the complainant informing that the

21

connected load of the consumer is 20 KW. Regarding reasons for quoting „Z‟ Code in

the meter blank, the SDO pointed out that Sh. Sat Pal Singh, Meter Reader was

responsible for this gross negligence and his explanation was sought. Referring to

the statement of Sh. Amit Dhingra, J.E.(GSC), the SDO mentioned that from

January, 2011 to November, 2012 his office received meagre supply of only 200

three phase meters and the same were installed against MCOs to clear the

backlog of defective meters upto the year 2010. He further stated that the MCO

No.59/1057 dated 31.01.2012 was issued earlier which could not be got

materialised due to non-availability of three phase meters. A copy of this MCO

was also enclosed for ready reference of the Forum. Concludingly, he informed that

the overhauling detail of the account has been worked out showing recovery of

Rs.74967/- for the period of 23.12.2010 to 28.11.2012. He thus requested that the

complaint may now be filed as the defective meter had since been replaced and the

account of the consumer was overhauled.

Facts of the case are indeed interesting to note that the complainant had

played his proactive role to lodge his first complaint for replacement of defective

meter vide his complaint dated 01.06.2011 vide which he mentioned that the meter

No.CHEP-27632 had not been functioning since 23.02.2011 as per the bill received

by him on 22.05.2011. A reminder was issued by him on 24.08.2011 and later on his

employee also visited the office of the SDO concerned several times for replacement

of defective meter No.CHEP-27632. It has been regretfully noticed that the

answering respondent could not replace the defective meter between December,

2010 to November, 2012 only on the ground that the three phase meters were not

available in his office. He clarified that only 200 three phase meters were

received during period of about two years and the same were installed against

MCOs issued to clear the backlog of defective meters upto the year 2010. This

issue regarding the acute shortage of meters has been repeatedly brought to

the notice of the Licensee/S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle, UT, Chandigarh but this case

under reference manifestly indicates that the authorities have not been able to

purchase the meters on which the revenue collection of the Department is

based. The concerned authorities are once again reminded to look into the

22

seriousness of this problem and arrange the desired quantity of meters to replenish

their central and sub-divisional stock rather than to allow the revenue loss to incur for

the Electricity Department and continued inconvenience and harassment to the

consumers for want of the required meters. Clause 7.3 of the Electricity Supply Code

does not permit forcing the consumer to purchase his meter till he is willing to do so.

Therefore, the entire responsibility has been cast on the Licensee to supply new

meters/metering equipment wherever required ensuring metered supply of electricity

to the consumer and correct & regular revenue collection for the Department. But

the case in hand speaks voluminously for inordinate delay in making

arrangement of sufficient meters even to change the faulty defective meters of

the consumers besides touching upon the case for replacement of mechanical

meters. Therefore, the authorities must pay their immediate attention to this

burning issue as per the various orders already issued by the Forum in this

regard failing which proceedings under Section 142 coupled with Section 146 of

the Electricity Act, 2003 would be invoked.

A perusal of the facts of this case would also make it amply clear that the

officials of the sub-divisional concerned like J.E./LDC/R.A. and the Audit Wing are

squarely responsible for allowing the „Z‟ Code to continue for two years showing nil

consumption, despite the fact that the connected load of the consumer is 20 KW.

Interestingly, bills No.76930 dated 17.01.2012, No.5891 dated 22.03.2012, No.29963

dated 21.05.2012, No.53950 dated 21.07.2012 and No.77968 dated 21.09.2012 as

produced by the complainant along with original application/complaint would further

indicate that the consumer has been required not to pay any bills because the bills

indicated negative payable amounts. This further clearly shows that the officials

concerned even could not prepare the „exception list‟ to detect the serious lapse by

way of allowing the continuation of the „Z‟ Code about more than two years showing

nil consumption throughout. A copy of the consumption pattern of the complainant-

consumer is attached herewith as part of this order which evidently reveals the

inefficiency and lackadaisical attitude of the defaulting officials. Therefore, the

officials concerned must face major penalty so that such gross negligence should not

be allowed to be repeated by them. Keeping in view the seriousness of the matter,

23

copy of this order should also be sent to Finance Secretary, UT, Chandigarh with a

copy to C.E./S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle.

As the defective meter No.CHEP-27632 has since been replaced vide MCO

No.170/002 dated 27.11.2012 affected on 28.11.2012 there is no justification to

prolong the proceedings. However, as per the account overhauling detail submitted

by the SDO concerned, the complainant has to pay now Rs.74967/- w.e.f. 23.12.10 to

28.11.12 @ 771 units per month on the basis of the previous consumption w.e.f. 6/10

to 12/10, the consumer is allowed to pay the same amount in three equal instalments

to be paid with three bi-monthly bills in view of his verbal request made to the Forum

today during the course of hearing. In case the amount is not paid, he will have to

pay the interest on the amount not deposited till the final payment made by him. The

defaulting officials should also be asked to pay the amount of interest on the arrears

of Rs.74967/- which was otherwise to be paid as per the consumption by the

complainant regularly but was not paid due to the serious negligence of the officials

concerned. This interest should be worked out and be recovered from them to make

up the revenue loss caused to the Department either negligently or intentionally by

such defaulting officials. With these findings and directions, this complaint is

accordingly treated as disposed.








the office of Finance Secretary/Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer and XEN

being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer-complainant for compliance

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

numbered and indexed.



24



Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.

Complaint No. - 346


In the matter of Sh. Babu Singh resident of House No.377, Main Market, Khejari, UT, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

Sh. Babu Singh resident of House No.377, Main Market, Khejari, UT,

Chandigarh preferred this complaint dated 29.11.2012 and the same was diarised

vide Diary No.892 dated 30.11.2012. He stated that he had a bill showing

consumption for Rs.26,000/- whereas his consumption decreased as his two brothers

got their own connections w.e.f. 12.12.2011. He thus requested that his bill should be

rectified in view of his low consumption w.e.f. 12.12.2011. This complaint was

accompanied with copies of bills dated 19.01.2012, dated 24.03.2012, No.64145

dated 23.05.2012, No.28424 dated 23.09.2012 and No.60517 dated 23.11.2012.

Considering the documentary proof and contents of the complaint, it was treated as a

formal complaint No.346 and notice was issued to the XEN, Elecy. „OP‟ Division No.4,

UT, Chandigarh with a copy to the complainant vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-

346/2012/1310-11 dated 03.12.2012 fixing the case for consideration on 17.12.2012.

On 17.12.2012, both the parties were present. The SDO concerned submitted

his reply vide Memo. 11611 dated 13.12.2012 which was placed on record. After

going through his reply he was directed to supply the consumption data of the

consumer w.e.f. April, 2010 onwards with copy of MCO vide which the meter was

changed along with details of overhauling the sundry charges amounted to

Rs.25808/-. He was also asked to accept the current charges from the consumer and

25

recovery of sundry charges be affected only after taking the final decision by the

Forum. The case was adjourned for further consideration on 03.01.2013.

On 03.01.2013, both the parties attended the proceedings. The complainant

clarified that he did not have any problem for consumption after the installation of the

newly installed meter in the month of June, 2012 onwards. But he, however,

questioned the sundry charges of Rs.25808/- which were wrongly shown in bill

No.60517 dated 23.11.2012. He also pointed out that his two brothers, namely, Sh.

Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh had already got their separate electricity

connections in the month of December, 2011. Thus he logically mentioned that his

consumption should have been much less than the earlier consumption when he was

living with his two brothers. After hearing both the parties and going through the

documents placed on record by them, the SDO was asked to furnish the following

information to appreciate the contents of the complaints: -

“

1. He may recheck his office record in the light of the bills dated 24.03.2012 and

dated 23.09.2012 meant for Sh. Harminder Singh and bill dated 23.09.2012

meant for Sh. Narinder Singh as they got separate connections in the month of

December, 2011.

2. List of appliances should be furnished by the complainant to appreciate the

consumption pattern.

3. The SDO concerned should recalculate the average consumption after

appreciating the bills being paid by the two brothers of the complainant so that

the revenue loss is properly assessed before any final order is passed by the

Forum.”

The case was adjourned for final consideration and order on 08.01.2013.

On 08.01.2013, both the parties appeared. Reply submitted by the SDO

concerned vide Memo. No.153 dated 07.01.2013 was seen. It was noticed that the

load of one meter was divided amongst three connections on 12.12.2011 not on

12.12.2012 as recorded in the memo. under reference. The SDO was thus asked to

charge the consumer from 20.02.2012 to the replacement of the defective meter i.e.

upto 08.06.2012 vide MCO No.570/196 dated 30.05.2012 which was affected on

08.06.2012. Accordingly, the average earlier worked out by the SDO concerned

26

received along with memo. under reference was to be suitably revised and the

complainant was to be informed under Clause 8.1(11) of the Supply Code. The case

was adjourned for final computation of the payment to be made by the consumer for

charging him on average basis w.e.f. 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012 i.e. 1620+573+117 =

2310/6 = 385 units per month and the consumer be charged @ 385 units per month

from the period from 20.02.2012 to 08.06.2012. Thereafter, he was to pay as per the

actual consumption based on the newly installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618. The

case was adjourned for final order on 15.01.2013 after overhauling the account of the

consumer as per the direction given above.

Today i.e. on 15.01.2013, Sh. S.K. Madan, Member, CGRF was on leave. Sh.

Babu Singh-complainant and Sh. Zile Singh, SDO concerned were present. The

case was taken up for arguments. Sh. Babu Singh-complainant reiterated the

contents of his complaint dated 29.11.2012 and argued that the bill No.60517 dated

23.11.2012 showing sundry charges of Rs.25808/- was wrongly prepared because

his consumption had drastically come down in view of two connections already

sought by his two brothers namely Sh. Harminder Singh for A/c No.

309/KZ11/050702W and Sh. Narinder Singh having A/c No.KZ11/050701U against

their connected load of 1.54 KW and 1.98 KW respectively. He mentioned that he

had no problem to pay for his actual consumption against the consumption as per his

newly installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618 w.e.f. 08.06.2012 onwards but the payment

relating to Rs.25808/- as sundry charges was not acceptable to him being wrongly

prepared. He also placed on record that the new meter No.CHSPVT-27618 was

installed on 08.06.2012 with reading of 00006 units and till today the total

consumption as per his meter as gone upto 1611 units between 08.06.2012 to

15.01.2013. He thus very logically pointed out that his consumption pattern after

change of the meter w.e.f. 08.06.2012 would indicate that his consumption pattern

has gone considerably down and therefore he should not be compelled to pay

unreasonable amount of Rs.25808/- as shown in the bill No.60517 dated 23.11.2012.

Having relied upon comments bearing Memo. No.11611 dated 13.12.2012

followed by Memo. No.11724 dated 21.12.2012, Memo. No.153 dated 07.01.2013

27

and Memo. No.326 dated 15.01.2013, the SDO concerned argued that as per ledger

record of his office electricity bill for the period 20.08.2012 to 20.10.2012 was

Rs.2022/- plus surcharge of Rs.1111/- including amount of Rs.25808/- as sundry

charges. He also invited attention to the consumption pattern of the consumer and

the half margin note No.58 dated 18.09.2012 and stated that the average for the

period 20.12.2011 to 08.06.2012 was charged on the basis of consumption shown

w.e.f. 25.04.2011 to 20.10.2011 i.e. 2838+1992+1620 = 6450/6 = 1075 units per

month and accordingly the consumer was charged for Rs.25808/- and the same

amount was reflected as sundry charges in bill No.60517 dated 23.11.2012. The

SDO further mentioned that he was not aware of two connections given on

12.12.2011 to Sh. Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh brothers of the

complainant Sh. Babu Singh. He, however, admitted the fact that the consumption of

the consumer had gone down after billing cycle of 20.12.2011 onwards which could

be attributable to the new connections given against accounts No.

309/KZ11/050702W and No. KZ11/050701U released Sh. Harminder Singh and Sh.

Narinder Singh respectively.

His attention was drawn to bill No.29785 dated 24.03.2012 and bill dated

23.09.2012 issued for Sh. Harminder Singh and bill dated 23.09.2012 issued for Sh.

Narinder Singh against the respective accounts having connected load of 1.54 KW

and 1.98 KW respectively and the half margin note dated 18.09.2012 vide which the

consumer was asked to pay @ 1077 units per month by taking into consideration

the consumption w.e.f. 20.04.11 to 20.10.11 whereas practically consumption of

573 units meant for billing cycle of 20.10.2011 to 20.12.2011 was not taken into

consideration whereas the average worked out was based on the consumption meant

for billing cycles of 25.04.2011 to 20.10.2011 excluding the billing cycle of 20.10.2011

to 20.12.2011. The SDO, however feigned his ignorance about the calculation part

simply stating that it was done by the Audit Wing of his office and he could not look

into the nitty and gritty of computations made for working out the average. He further

relied upon the MCO No.570/196 dated 30.05.2012 which was materialised on

08.06.2012 by removing the dead stop meter No.CHSE-12193 and installing the new

meter No.CHSPVT-27618 at the premises of the complainant. However, the SDO

28

could not produce the copies of SJOs meant for release of two new electricity

connections meant for two brothers of the complainant. But he only admitted the fact

that these connections were released on 12.12.2011 and not on 12.12.2012 as

wrongly mentioned by him in his office Memo. No.153 dated 07.01.2013.

Concludingly, he submitted that the average as directed by the Forum was worked

out w.e.f. 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012 i.e. 1620+573+117 units = 2310/6 = 385 units per

month and the consumer would be now charged w.e.f. 20.02.2012 to 08.06.2012 on

account of the faulty functioning of the meter No.CHSE-12193 which was removed

on 08.06.2012 vide MCO No.570-196 dated 30.05.2012. The total payable liability of

the consumer was accordingly worked out for Rs.2337/- vide which the overhauled

account sheet as attached along with office Memo. No.326 dated 15.01.2013. He

thus requested that the complaint may accordingly be deserved to be filed as the

correct liability of the consumer was worked out to the tune of Rs.2337/-.

Facts of the case along with the documentary proof as submitted by the

complainant as well as the comments/submissions made by the answering

respondent-SDO have been gone through carefully. History of this case dates back

to the original connection for joint account No.409/KZ51/085500K which was being

used by three brothers i.e. Babu Singh the complainant and other two brothers Sh.

Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh till 12.12.2011. The connected load for this

connection was 3.44 KW and the common meter No.CHSE-12193 was replaced only

on 08.06.2012on account of its malfunctioning/dead stop vide MCO No.570/196

dated 30.05.2012 installed a new meter No.CHSPVT-27618. It is an admitted fact on

record that two brothers, namely, Sh. Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh have

got their new connections on 12.12.2011 and accordingly the consumption pattern of

the consumer-complainant went drastically down as per consumption pattern of the

consumer-complainant. However, the answering respondent and the Audit Wing

could not take note of this development for release of two different connections for

two brothers of the consumer-complainant and they thought on their own that the

consumption of the consumer-complainant had gone down due to some other

reasons including malfunctioning of the meter.

29

A careful perusal of the half margin note dated 18.09.2012 as produced by the

answering respondent along with his office Memo. No.11724 dated 21.12.2012 would

reveal that the average was worked out as 1077 units on the basis of consumption

taken for billing cycle of 20.04.2011 to 20.12.2011. But strangely enough,

consumption was taken for working out the average in respect of billing cycle of

25.04.2011 to 20.10.2011 only excluding the period meant for billing cycle 20.10.2011

to 20.12.2012. After a thoughtful consideration of the facts of the case, the Forum

has come to the conclusion that since two brothers of the complainant got two

different connections w.e.f. 12.12.2011, the consumption of the consumer has rightly

decreased from the billing cycle 20.12.2011 onwards and therefore, the consumer

was not required to be charged @ 1077 units per month which was the joint

consumption of three brothers till 20.12.2011 and therefore, the Audit Wing and the

answering respondent could not appreciate the background of this development and

thus wrongly charged consumer by way of showing the sundry charges of Rs.25808/-

in bill No.60517 dated 23.11.2012. As such, the SDO concerned was directed by the

Forum vide its direction given on 08.01.2013 that the consumer should be charged for

the period w.e.f. 20.02.2012 to 08.06.2012 on the basis of average to be considered

for the billing period 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012 i.e. 1620+573+117 = 2310/6 = 385

units per month and accordingly the account of the consumer has been overhauled

by working out the liability of Rs.2337/- to be actually paid by the consumer as per the

copy of the account attached with Memo. No.326 dated 15.01.2013 submitted by the

SDO concerned.

This average @ 385 units has also been found correct keeping in view the

consumption of the consumer w.e.f. 08.06.2012 i.e. the date of replacement of dead

stop meter No.CHSE-12193 by installing a new meter No.CHSPVT-27618 vide MCO

No.570/196 dated 30.05.2012 which was effected on 08.06.2012. As per this newly

installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618 with reading of 00006 units, the consumption of

the consumer was reported as 1611 units on 15.1.2013 and therefore, the total

consumption of the consumer w.e.f. 8.06.2012 to 15.01.2013 is worked out to 1605

units which approximately comes to 229 units per month whereas his average

consumption comes to @ 385 units per month on the basis of consumption for the

30

period of 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012. Now as the consumer has been rightly charged

@ 385 units for paying total liability of Rs.2337/- for the period 20.02.2012 to

08.06.2012 and he should be informed to pay this amount as per the account to be

overhauled under Clause 8.1(11) of the Electricity Supply Code. He will pay for the

period w.e.f. 08.06.2012 to till date as per the actual consumption of the newly

installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618. With these findings and directions, this complaint

is accordingly treated as disposed.








the office of Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer and XEN being the Nodal

Officer with a copy to the consumer-complainant for compliance wherever required.

File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.

(I.P. Gupta) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Chairman, CGRF


31



Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.

Complaint No. - 352 Date of Institution - 10.12.2012

Date of Order - 15.01.2013

In the matter of Sh. Haripal Krishan Sharma, H.No.35/1, Village-Palsora, Chandigarh.

……………….Complainant

Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, U.T. Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order Sh. Haripal Krishan Sharma, resident of H.No.35/1, Village-Palsora, U.T.

Chandigarh preferred his complaint dated 05.12.2012 regarding removal of hanging

wires and to restore their connection at the previous place. He referred to his

correspondence vide letter dated 01.02.2012 followed by his letters dated

10.05.2012, 04.06.2012 and 14.09.2012 in order to pursue his complaint with the

S..D.O., Electy. „OP‟ Divn.No.9, Sector-43, Chandigarh. He further intimated that the

connection of the hanging wires was made at remote distance of 60-70 ft.

extraneously due to which his house had to suffer low voltage and frequent power

cuts in the summer season of 2012. He thus requested that since he had retired

being a Govt. employee and senior citizen, hence his grievance should have been

resolved on priority basis. But the needful was not done by the Department and

hence, he had to lodge the complaint for redressal of grievance.

This complaint was treated as a formal complaint No.352 taking into

consideration the status of complainant being a senior citizen and in view of his

previous correspondence made with the SDO concerned for solution of his problem.

Accordingly, a notice was issued to the Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn.No.4

32

with copy to the complainant vide Memo.No. CGRF/Comp-352/2012/1334-1335

dated 10.12.2012. The case was fixed for consideration by the Forum on 27.12.2012.

On 27.12.2012, the complainant attended the proceedings. Sh. Zile Singh,

SDO concerned could not appear as he was on leave and he was represented by

Sh.Gurnam Singh, SDO. The SDO was directed to submit action taken report on

various complaints made by the complainant since Feb., 2012 to the answering

respondent i.e. SDO concerned as the reply vide Memo.No.11716 dated 21.12.2012

submitted by the SDO was found to be quite sketchy and could not highlight the

remedial action which was required to be taken to solve the problem relating to

voltage fluctuations and the power cuts as were faced by the complainant in the

summer season of 2012. The case was adjourned for detailed reply of the SDO

concerned by 07.01.2013 and it was listed for further consideration on 09.01.2013.

On 09.01.2013, the complainant appeared and he pointed out that he had lodged

his first complaint with the department on 01.02.2012 followed by complaint dated

10.05.2012, 04.06.2012 and 14.09.2012. In the intervening period of 19.05.2012 to

27.05.2012, two persons of Electricity Department came and they shifted the wires

connecting at some distance of about 60-70 ft. and consequently, he started

experiencing low voltage coupled with frequent power cuts in the last summer

season of 2012. Thereafter, he could not face any problem till date. Sh. Zile Singh,

SDO, Electy. Sub Divn. No.9 attended the proceedings and he referred to his

Memo.No.137 dated 07.01.2013 intimating that the shifting was done on 14.5.2012,

connecting the wires from Ckt.I to Ckt.II which was having less load than Ckt.I and it

was technically correct. The SDO, however, brought to the notice of the Forum that

village-Palsora could face low voltage and power cuts in the ensuing summer of 2013

and in anticipation of this, he had already moved the case for purchase of transformer

of 300KVA. As such, he would like to submit the details thereof to eradicate the

problem of low voltage on last year pattern and in interest of the consumers of the

village. The case was thus adjourned for final consideration and order on

15.01.2013.

33

Today i.e. on 15.01.2013, Sh.S.K.Madan, Member, CGRF was on leave. The

complainant could not attend the proceedings. He had stated during the course of

last hearing held on 09.01.2013 that he had no problem at present and he only

desired that he should not face any problem of low voltage in the coming summer

season of 2013. As such, he was exempted for appearance. Sh.Zile Singh, SDO

appeared. He referred to his communication bearing No.137 dated 07.01.2013

followed by his Memo.No.310 dated 14.01.2013 and he argued that the problem of

hanging of wires being faced by the consumer was solved by shifting the same at

right destination on 14.05.2012. He admitted the fact that the village-Palsora could

face problem of low voltage and frequent breakdowns of supply in the coming

summer season of 2013. In case, one more transformer was not added to augment

and rationalize the distribution of supply to the residents of the village, he pointed out.

He thus placed on record that the estimate for purchase of new transformer of

300KVA for village-Palsora had since been sent to the C.E.office vide S.E.office

memo.No.7364 dated 27.8.2012 and he thus pleaded that in case the new

transformer is made available, the basic problem of low voltage and frequent

breakdowns of supply would be solved on permanent basis.

Facts of the case have been seen carefully. In fact, the complainant started

grousing in view of the non-communication made to him by the office of SDO

concerned in respect of his original complaint dated 01.02.2012 followed by his

subsequent reminders dated 10.05.2012, 04.06.2012 and 14.09.2012 for redressal of

his grievance.

After hearing both the parties, the complainant admitted the fact during the

course of hearing held on 09.01.2013 that he had only faced problem of low voltage

and frequent power cuts during the last summer and after shifting the wires from

Ckt.1 to Ckt.2, he could not face such problem in this regard. But his main concern

remained for not replying to his repeated complaints by the SDO concerned. He

further apprehended that he would face problem of low voltage coupled with frequent

breakdowns of supply in the coming summer season of 2013 and therefore, the

concerned SDO should assure him un-interrupted quality supply of electricity in the

coming summer season. Basically, the problem for removal of hanging wires over the

34

house of the complainant was sorted out by the SDO concerned on 14.05.2012 and

therefore, the main grievance of the complainant thus stood resolved in May, 2012.

Therefore, the problem relating to make the electricity supply un-interrupted to the

consumers/residents of the village-Palsora, the department is directed to look into the

request of XEN, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, U.T. Chandigarh for purchase of one more

transformer of 300 KVA for village-Palsora which has since been sent to the

C.E.office vide S.E.office memo.No.7364 dated 27.8.2012. Since, the summer

season would start from April, 2013 onwards, the licensee (C.E.) should ensure to

accord the necessary approval for purchase of one more transformer in the larger

interest of the consumers of village-Palsora so that the new transformer is installed by

31.03.2013 to solve the problem on permanent basis.



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:

09811163943, E-mail [email protected], within one month from the date


A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record and one copy be sent

to the licensee/S.E./XEN concerned with a copy to complainant for compliance



(I.P. Gupta) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Chairman, CGRF


35





Complaint No. - 348 Date of Institution - 04.12.2012

Date of Order - 16.01.2013

In the matter of Sh. KDS Nagra resident of House No.2926, Sector 42-C, UT, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

Sh. KDS Nagra resident of House No.2926, Sector 42-C, UT, Chandigarh

submitted his representation dated 05.11.2012. It was diarised by the Forum vide

Diary No.874 dated 20.11.2012. The main grievance lodged in the representation

was against excessive charging for the last six months. He enclosed a copy of latest

bill No.33962 dated 07.10.2012 showing consumption of 2398 units for Rs.10107/-

against the billing cycle of 10.07.2012 to 10.09.2012. Before this case was to be

treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to the Executive Engineer, Electy.

„OP‟ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh for comments with a copy to the complainant vide

Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-Misc-V/2012/1269-70 dated 21.11.2012. Comments of the

SDO concerned were received vide his office Memo. No.11417 dated 03.12.2012

along with consumption pattern of the consumer. Thereafter, it was treated as a

formal complaint No.348 and notice was issued to the complainant with a copy to the

XEN concerned fixing the case for consideration on 14.12.2012 vide Memo. No.

CGRF/Comp-348/1313-14 dated 04.12.2012.

On 14.12.2012, repeated calls were given to secure the presence of the

consumer/complainant but he could not turn up. However, it was thought desirable to

36

give him one more opportunity for appearance to serve the ends of justice failing

which ex parte proceedings would be launched against him.

Sh. Zile Singh, SDO concerned attended the proceedings. He furnished his

comments vide his office Memo.No.11417 dated 3.12.2012 intimating that the meter

No.CHEP 04136 was got checked by the concerned J.E. on 1.12.2012 and as per his

report, the functioning of the meter was reported „OK‟. He justified that the consumer

was rightly charged and in case the consumer was having any grievance, he should

have deposited the challenge fee for checking of the meter on any working day.

Reference was also invited to the consumption pattern sent along with the memo.

under reference. It was noticed that the consumption pattern of the consumer for

summer of 2012 was comparable to the consumption for summer season of 2011.

After hearing the SDO and going through his reply under reference, he was asked to

furnish the following information:-

“

1. He should get the functioning of the meter duly checked by installing a check

meter for period of 15 days so that possibility of its mal-functioning is ruled out.

2. He should also get the copy of list of appliances of the consumer to ascertain

the consumption pattern of the consumer.

3. The check meter should be installed in the presence of the consumer so that

he should also have the knowledge of getting the accuracy of meter checked

for a period of 2 weeks.

4. Capacity of the meter No.04136 has been reported as 10-20 Amps which

seems to be doubtful. He should ascertain it keeping in view the connected

load of the consumer i.e. 6.680KW whereas installed capacity of the meter is

worked upto 4.6 KW as stated by the SDO concerned.”

The case was slated for further consideration on 03.01.2013.

On 03.01.2013, Sh. K.D.S. Nagra-complainant and Sh. Zile Singh-SDO

concerned attended the proceedings. The SDO concerned drew attention to his

communication vide office Memo. No.11807 dated 31.12.2012 and the same was

scrutinised. It was noticed that the documents/information like report of check

meter, copy of SJO dated 21.12.2012, list of appliances of the complainant were still

to be supplied to the Forum for passing the final order. The case was adjourned for

final order on 16.01.2013.

37

On 16.01.2013, the case was taken up for arguments. Repeated calls were

given but the complainant could not turn up. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were

launched against him. Sh. Gurpreet Singh, J.E. appeared on behalf of SDO

concerned as the SDO was away to attend some urgent official work. The JE

concerned submitted one Memo. No.359 dated 16.01.2013 intimating that the

consumption of the consumer between 10.05.2011 to 10.11.2011 = 5838 units and

10.05.2012 to 10.11.2012 = 6254 units which was almost corresponding to the

summer season of 2011 with summer season of 2012. He further stated that the

check meter was installed on 24.12.2012 w.r.t. the SJO No.89/725 dated 21.12.2012

and it was removed on 08.01.2013. The test result showed that the consumption of

the installed meter No.CHEP-04136 and the check meter No.CHEP-59177 was

almost the same i.e. 125 units between period 24.12.2012 to 08.01.2013. He also

stated that the consumer had already paid all the electricity bills which were due

against him. He thus requested that the complaint be accordingly filed.

Facts of the case have been seen in view of the contents contained in

complaint dated 05.11.2012 which was duly accompanied with bill No.33962 dated

07.10.2012 indicating consumption of 2398 units for the billing cycle of July-

September, 2012. Consumption pattern of the consumer as supplied along with

Memo. No.11417 dated 09.12.2012 submitted by the SDO concerned has been

carefully scrutinised. A perusal of this consumption pattern would indicate that the

consumption for the billing cycle 10.07.2012 to 10.09.2012 was 2398 units which was

stated excessive by the complainant in his complaint, whereas the consumption for

the same billing cycle for the previous year was found still higher i.e. 2412 units.

Moreover, the consumption of 6633 units for the period Nov.2011 to Sept.2012 is

much less than consumption of the complainant for the period Nov.2010 to Sept.

2011 which is 7178 units. As such the contention of the complainant regarding

excessive consumption recorded by the meter is not proved correct. Even the

consumption shown as per check meter No.CHEP-59177 as well as already installed

meter No.CHEP-04136 was found the same i.e. 125 units between the period

24.12.12 to 08.01.2013 vide SJO No.725/89 dated 21.12.2012. All these facts

manifestly indicate that the functioning of the meter is correct and accurate and

38

therefore, the complaint of the consumer that he was excessively being charged in

the past could not find any merit. Besides, the consumer was heard in person on

03.01.2013 who verbally conceded that his consumption could be on the higher side

due to installation of three ACs in his premises under reference. As such, comments

given by the SDO do have their own merits and hence, the same have been relied

upon by the Forum. Accordingly, the complaint has found to be devoid of merit and

hence the same is dismissed.








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





39





Complaint No. - 343

Date of Institution - 23.11.2012 Dat

INDEX [] · Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518,...

Documents

Transcript of INDEX [] · Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518,...