1. No category

ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR
Case No. : EOR - 230/2015
In the matter of representation filed before the Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan, Jaipur by
Shri Sanjay Kumar Godara, Jaipur
c/o 132KV GSS RRVPNL, Gotan
Tehsil- Merta City, District- Nagaur
PIN – 342 902
Appellant
v/s
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath,
Jaipur – 302 005
Represented by
Appellant:
Respondent:
Respondent
Shri Sanjay Kumar Godara
XEN (CD - I) JVVNL, Jaipur
Smt. Anuradha Upadhyay, Advocate
Heard on 23.3.15 in presence of
Appellant:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Godara
Respondent:
XEN (CD - I) JVVNL, Jaipur
Smt. Anuradha Upadhyay, Advocate
Coram
D. R. Mathur
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan
Award
Date: 24.3.15
Registration of the case
1. The Appellant filed the representation before the Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan on 12.1.15 which was registered at Case No. EOR – 230/2015 on
12.1.15.
1
Brief of the case
2. The Appellant is having a single phase domestic connection (a/c no. 2418/0432) of 5 kW in the flat No. S-1, Plot no. 242, Nemi Nagar Extension, Vaishali
Nagar, Jaipur. The minimal facts leading to this representation are narrated
hereunder:
1) For releasing electric connections to the residents of the plot, including
the Appellant, the Respondent installed a transformer in front of main
gate, blocking the passage, which was allegedly illegal.
2) The Appellant approached the City Circle Forum of the Respondent at
Jaipur for redressal of his grievance but that Forum did not decide the
case within the specified period.
3) Aggrieved by the Forum’s non-decision, the Appellant filed the
representation before the Electricity Ombudsman for redressal of his
grievance.
Representation
3. The representation along with documents submitted by the Appellant,
averred as under:
1)
The Appellant purchased the flat with open parking on 22.1.13. He
applied for electric connection on 22.3.13. On 30.6.13 he came to
know that a Transformer and a Pole have been installed in front of
both gates of his parking and due to which parking is blocked.
2)
The Appellant met the AEN (A-IV), Jaipur on 1.7.13 with objection letter
and with a request not to charge the transformer & displace the same
along with structure which was installed illegally in front of the
Appellant’s parking No. 1. By that time the transformer was not
charged. The Appellant also met the XEN (CD-I), Jaipur on the same
day and gave the similar application. He assured for positive response.
3)
The Appellant again served a registered letter on 7.7.13 to AEN (A-IV)
who, in reference to that letter wrote a letter to AEN (M-I), Jaipur on
2.8.13 to solve the complain and inform the Appellant. The Appellant
also sent a registered letter for the same complaint on 16.9.13 to AEN
(M-I) but in vain.
4)
Then the Appellant made an application to the Superintending
Engineer (Jaipur City Circle) on 19.6.14 for redressal of grievance but
no decision or reply was received.
5)
Relief sought from Electricity Ombudsman:
To order JVVNL to displace the illegally installed distribution transformer
& structure from the Appellant’s parking gate due to which the
Appellant’s parking has been blocked.
2
Processing of the case
4. The notices were served on 13.1.15. A copy of the representation received
from the Appellant was forwarded in terms of the Regulation 7(1) of the
RERC (Settlement of Disputes by Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2010
(Electricity Ombudsman Regulations in short), to the Respondent and the
Forum for sending reply / comments/ factual report, so as to reach to the
Electricity Ombudsman by 26.2.15 along with necessary supporting
documents and the proof of serving a copy of the same to the Appellant.
5.
The Appellant was also asked to furnish his comments, if any, on the
Respondent’s reply, to the Electricity Ombudsman by 10.3.15 along with a
proof of serving a copy of the same to the Respondent.
Replies, comments and arguments
6. The Respondent furnished the reply to the representation on 26.2.15 along
with a proof of serving a copy of the same to the Appellant.
7.
No reply/ comment on the Appellant’s representation were received from
the Forum.
8.
The Appellant furnished the comments on the Respondent’s reply on
11.3.15 along with a proof of serving a copy of the same to the
Respondent.
9.
The case was heard on 23.3.15 in presence of authorised representatives of
both the parties, listed above.
10. The Respondent’s reply along with the Appellant’s comments thereupon
and the arguments during the hearing as furnished by both the parties,
have been summarised as under:
1)
The Respondent submitted that at the said Plot No. 242, seven flats
have been constructed by the developer. Shri Nema Ram was the first
applicant of the building, applied for new connection on 19.2.13. Then
the Appellant applied for electricity connection on 22.3.13. The JEN
visited the site and reported that estimated designed demand of the
complete building was 36 KVA and connection was not feasible from
existing system and recommended to install new 100 KVA S/s.
2)
The AEN (HTM –I) proposed estimate for 100 KVA S/s which was
sanctioned by the SE (JCC) vide letter dated 24.4.13. Accordingly
demand notice to Shri Nema Ram was issued on 7.5.13 by the AEN (AIV). The amount was deposited by the applicant on 3.6.13, the work
was completed on 26.6.13, service connection order was issued on
12.7.13 and connection to Shri Nema Ram was released on 9.8.13.
3
3)
The Appellant applied for the new connection on 22.3.13 when the
case file of Shri Nema Ram was under process for sanction of
installation of new S/S. After the sanction from the SE (JCC) the
demand notice to the Appellant was issued on 7.5.13, the amount was
deposited on 2.7.13, service connection order was issued on 12.7.13
and the connection was released on 9.8.13. Now The Appellant has
approached the Electricity Ombudsman with prayer to displace/shift
the transformer installed in front of the building.
4)
The statement of the Appellant that he was informed by his relative is
not correct because he was well aware with the fact regarding the
place where the transformer was installed and the work was done with
his consent. The transformer was installed on the application of Shri
Nema Ram who firstly applied for an electricity connection for his flat
and the Appellant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Godara was the second
applicant in the same building.
5)
The Respondent further submitted that the Clause 2 (ii) of TCS-2004
provides that in case of premises to which supply of electricity is sought
on LT and a transformer is to be provided and if space on public land
for providing transformer is not available, space has to be provided in
the premises by the consumer whereas in this case, the transformer
was installed on public place.
6)
The Respondent therefore prayed that the case filed by the Appellant
is not maintainable in the eye of law; accordingly the Electricity
Ombudsman may dismiss the case with cost.
7)
In reference to the Respondent’s above reply, the Appellant stated
that In fact, Discom Engineers didn’t want to make feasible on existing
system. There is a S/S of transformer of 100 kVA capacity installed in this
area and as per RTI information given by AEN (A-IV) the peak load on
that S/S was 70A, 76A & 82A, thereby utilizing 62 kVA capacity.
Therefore they can use full capacity of S/S by giving connection to the
Appellant. In future, capacity of S/S can be augmented with
replacement of transformer with 250 kVA capacity at same place.
8)
The transformer was said to be installed with the consent of the first
applicant Shri Nema Ram but how he can give consent to install a
transformer in front of other’s registered parking.
9)
The Appellant further stated that the section 42(1) of Electricity Act2003 provides that it shall be the duty of distribution licensee to
develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical
distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in
accordance with the provisions contained in that Act. He also
suggested some other alternatives for releasing the connection and to
remove the transformer under reference.
4
10) During the hearing, both parties argued their respective written
statements. The Respondent mentioned that the technical feasibility of
the system cannot be judged by the Appellant. The said transformer
was installed as per the system requirement. However, the same was
mounted on a single support occupying about 2’x2’ space only and
that too by using the space in front of common boundary wall so as to
occupy the minimum possible space in front of the Appellant’s plot.
Settlement by Conciliation
11. Both the parties were explained about the factual position of the case
within the framework of the Act/ Rules and the Regulations made there
under and were advised in view of the Regulation 7(2) of the Electricity
Ombudsman Regulations, to reach some settlement of the representation
but no settlement could be reached. They furnished a written statement in
this regards. The Electricity Ombudsman, therefore, analysed the case and
accorded the decision as hereunder.
Analysis of the case
12. Based on the written statements / documents provided by both the parties,
arguments made during the hearing and considering the applicable
provisions of the Act, relevant Rules & Regulations, Tariff and TCS etc, the
case has been analysed as under:
1)
The Appellant’s grievance was of Non-monetary nature as per the
Regulation 3(2) of the RERC (Guidelines for Redressal of Grievances)
Regulations, 2008. Therefore, as per the Regulation 4(3)(1) of those
Regulations, the jurisdiction of the Forum was as under:
4. Establishment of Forum:
(3) The jurisdiction of the Forum will be:
(1)Grievances of Non-monetary/general nature:
(a) Divisional Forum-Grievance of LT supply consumers of the Division
(b) Circle (District) Forum-Grievance of HT supply consumers of the Circle
(c)Corporate Forum-Grievance of EHT supply consumers
(Underlined for emphasis)
2)
In this case, the Appellant was an LT supply consumer, as such, the
Divisional Forum was the competent Forum to register and decide
the case. The Appellant submitted the application for redressal of
grievance to the Superintending Engineer (Jaipur City Circle) of the
Respondent and not to the appropriate Forum for redressal of the
grievance under the aforesaid Regulations.
3)
In view of above, the Electricity Ombudsman cannot consider such
representation, being premature under the provisions of the
Electricity Ombudsman Regulations.
5
4)
Under the circumstances of the case, the Appellant’s representation
being not found admissible for consideration by the Electricity
Ombudsman, the merit of the case has not been analysed here.
Award on Representation
13. Based on analysis of the case as above, the Electricity Ombudsman hereby
pass the award
under Regulation 8 of the Electricity Ombudsman
Regulations, as under:
1) The Appellant’s representation under reference, being premature for
consideration by the Electricity Ombudsman, is hereby rejected. The
Appellant may first approach the appropriate Forum, for redressal of
the grievance under the RERC (Guidelines for Redressal of Grievances)
Regulations, 2008.
2) No order as to costs.
(D. R. Mathur)
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan
6