ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR
Case No. : EOR - 236/2015
In the matter of representation filed before the Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan, Jaipur by
Shri Rajendra Kumar Mehta,
Bheru Gate,
Bundi – 323 001
Appellant
v/s
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath,
Jaipur - 302005
Represented by
Appellant:
Respondent:
Respondent
Shri Rajendra Kumar Mehta
XEN (Div. I) JVVNL, Bundi
Ms Nitika Sud, Advocate
Heard on 13.4.15 in presence of
Appellant:
None
Respondent:
XEN (Div. I) JVVNL, Bundi
Ms Nitika Sud, Advocate
Coram
D. R. Mathur
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan
Award
Date: 15.4.15
Registration of the case
1. The Appellant filed the representation on 16.2.15 before the Electricity
Ombudsman, Rajasthan which was registered at Case No. EOR – 236/2015
on 16.2.15.
1
Brief of the case
2. The Appellant is having a connection (a/c no. is 1765-0161) under Agriculture
Metered Supply (AG/MS/LT-4) category in village Holaspura (District Bundi).
The minimal facts leading to this representation are narrated hereunder:
1) The Appellant approached the Divisional Forum (Div. I) of the
Respondent at Bundi (Forum in short) for redressal of his Non-monetary
nature of grievance about receiving the electricity bills on the basis of
imaginary readings but the Forum did not conduct any hearing and no
decision was accorded.
2) Aggrieved from non-redressal of grievance by the Forum, 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 Meter reader / person authorised by the Respondent is not visiting
site for taking the correct meter reading and JVVNL, Hindoli / billing
agency are continuously issuing bills for month of Nov’14 on basis of
imaginary readings of the meter no. 5119228 which was removed
and new meter No. 14211349 with zero reading was installed on
28.10.14. It proved that the Meter reader / person authorised by the
Respondent did not visit the site
otherwise he would have taken
reading of existing meter on the meter reading date 25.11.14.
2) This is clear violation of Clause 26 of Terms and Conditions for Supply of
Electricity – 2004 (TCS in short) and Regulation 12(2)(a) of Metering
Regulations for taking correct reading; which read as under:
Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity – 2004
26. Reading of meters
(1) On behalf of the Nigam, a meter reader or a person authorised by the Nigam in this
behalf, shall have access to the consumer’s premises at all times during the day for the
purpose of reading the meter for ascertaining the amount of electricity supplied or the
electrical quantity contained in the supply to the consumer.
(2) The meters shall be read each month or at such intervals as the Nigam may fix with
approval of the Commission
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Metering) Regulations 2007
12. Meter reading and Data Collection.
(2)Consumer meters
(a) The licensee shall arrange meter reading of various categories of consumers through
authorized representative. Depending upon category of consumer meters or its stored data
meter may be read manually or using CMRI through meter communication port.
[Underlined for emphasis]
2
3) Such wrong billing on the basis of imaginary reading cause adverse
effect in calculation of average energy consumption for the purpose
of security deposits and various other complications in assessment of
energy in case of stopped meter.
4) In several earlier cases (e.g. case no. EOR - 67/2012) the Electricity
Ombudsman has passed award directing the Respondent to take
appropriate action so as to ensure recording of correct meter
readings and counter checking of meter readings taken by the Meter
readers.
5) It is a matter of great disappointment and anguish for the Appellant
that the Respondent and its field staff have no regard for the orders
passed by the Electricity Ombudsman and are continuously harassing
the Appellant by issuing bills on the basis of imaginary readings.
6) The Appellant vide letter dated 4.12.14 approached the Forum for
redressal of his Non-monetary nature of grievance about receiving the
electricity bills on the basis of imaginary readings but the Forum did not
conduct any hearing and no decision was accorded.
7)
Relief sought from Electricity Ombudsman:
i.
The Electricity Ombudsman should pass award directing the
Respondent to make arrangement for recording of correct meter
readings and counter checking of meter readings taken by the
Meter readers for ascertaining the correct energy charges of
electricity supplied to the Appellant so as to avoid any unwanted
harassment to the Appellant in future.
ii.
Rs.2000 should be granted for mental harassment and
inconvenience to the Appellant and incurring unnecessary
expenses and waste of time and energy in filing appeal before
the Electricity Ombudsman due to violations of Regulation 7(1)
and Regulation 8 of Redressal of Grievance Regulations 2008 for
not passing any order by the Forum and Regulation 12(2)(a) of
Metering Regulations and clause 26(2) of TCS for not taking
correct meter reading by the Respondent.
Processing of the case
4. The notices were served on 16.2.15. 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 19.3.15 along with necessary supporting
documents and the proof of serving a copy of the same to the Appellant.
3
5.
The Appellant was also asked to furnish his comments, if any, on the
Respondent’s reply, to the Electricity Ombudsman by 30.3.15 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 19.3.15 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
26.3.15 along with a proof of serving a copy of the same to the
Respondent.
9.
The case was heard on 13.4.15 in presence of authorised representatives of
both the parties as listed above.
10. The Respondent’s reply, the Appellant’s comments thereupon and the
arguments during the hearing, have been summarised as under:
1)
The Respondent submitted that the Meter no. 5119228 was changed
on 28.10.14 and final reading of that meter was 21757. M/s Data Infosis
had issued bill of 22626 units up to the month of Nov’14 and the excess
amount of 22626 – 21757 = 869 units amounting Rs 817 was credited.
Thereafter the Bill of Jan’15 was issued for Unit 0-1879 based on New
Meter No. 14211349. The Appellant was also informed vide AEN letter
dated 9.2.15.
2)
The Junior Engineer (O&M) JVVNL Dablana prepared report dated
5.2.15 in respect of meter No. 14211349 (with KWH reading 2161) of the
Appellant for counter checking of meter reading. Thus the averments
of the Appellant that the Respondent and its field staff have no regard
for the orders passed by the Electricity Ombudsman is false and
concocted.
3)
The Appellant was informed vide letter dated 16.12.14 regarding the
Meeting of the Sub-Division Level Settlement Committee to be held on
19.12.14 but he was not present in the said meeting. Thereafter the
Appellant was again informed vide letter dated 9.2.15 for appearing in
the Meeting of the Sub-Division Level Settlement Committee to be
held on 12.2.15 but he again failed to appear in the meeting.
However, the Appellant’s complaint was disposed of in the said
meeting held on 12.2.15.
4)
The Respondent therefore prayed that the reply be taken on record
and the matter be dismissed with cost as the Appellant filed the
representation after the correction in the bill.
4
5)
In reference to the Respondent’s above reply, the Appellant
commented that the Respondent did not reply to the allegation that
Meter reader / authorized person is not visiting site for taking the
correct meter reading.
6)
Similarly, the Respondent did not reply to the allegation that Forum
violated Regulation 7(1) and Regulation 8 of Redressal of Grievance
Regulations 2008 for not passing any order. The grievance application
was sent to the Divisional Forum, JVVNL, Bundi to hear Appellant’s
above non-monetary grievance application. Therefore AEN JVVNL
Hindoli was not competent authority to hold meetings of Sub divisional
Forum on 19.12.14 and 12.2.15, being beyond jurisdiction.
7)
During the hearing the Respondent mentioned that the problem of
incorrect meter reading was due to change over of Meter Reading &
Bill Issuing Agencies. Subsequently the Nov’14 bill of the Appellant was
corrected in terms of unit consumption as well as in terms of amount.
8)
The Respondent further mentioned that now the JEN has been made
responsible to counter check the meter readings taken by the Meter
Reading Agency. It was further assured that the concerned AEN and
XEN will also ensure this connection for conducting the counter
checking of meter readings as per the norms prescribed by the
Discom Management.
Settlement by Conciliation
11. In absence of any person on behalf of the Appellant during the hearing,
the effort for any settlement of the representation in view of the Regulation
7(2) of the Electricity Ombudsman Regulations could not be attempted.
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) It is observed that subsequently the Nov’14 bill of the Appellant was
corrected in terms of unit consumption as well as in terms of
corresponding amount. The Respondent has already deputed the
JEN for counter checking of the meter readings of the Appellant
taken by the Meter Reading Agency. It was further assured that the
concerned AEN and XEN will also ensure this connection for
conducting the counter checking of meter readings under the norms
prescribed by the Discom Management.
5
2) Thus, the Appellant’s grievance has been subsequently redressed by
the Respondent.
Award on Representation
13. Based on the analysis of the case as above, the Electricity Ombudsman
hereby pass the award under Regulation 8 of the Electricity Ombudsman
Regulations, as under:
1) Keeping in of the fact that the Appellant’s grievance was
subsequently redressed by the Respondent; the Electricity
Ombudsman does not find any merit in allowing further relief or
compensation to the Appellant. The representation under reference
is therefore stands disposed off accordingly.
2) No orders as to cost.
(D. R. Mathur)
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan
6