ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR
Case No. : EOR - 244/2015
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 11.5.15 & 13.5.15 in presence of
Appellant:
None
Respondent:
XEN (Div. I) JVVNL, Bundi (on 13.5.15)
Ms Nitika Sud, Advocate
Coram
D. R. Mathur
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan
Award
Date: 21.5.15
Registration of the case
1. The Appellant filed the representation on 2.3.15 before the Electricity
Ombudsman, Rajasthan which was registered at Case No. EOR – 244/2015
on 2.3.15.
1
Brief of the case
2. The Appellant is having a connection (a/c no. is 1765-0141) 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 allegedly received the bill for the month of Sept’14 on the
basis of imaginary readings.
2) The Appellant approached the Sub-Divisional Forum (O&M) of the
Respondent at Hindoli, District Bundi (Forum in short) for redressal of his
grievance but the Forum did not conduct any hearing and no decision
was accorded.
3) 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 meter reading and JVVNL, Hindoli / billing agency
issued bill for the month of Sept’14 amounting Rs 532 for 470 units on
the basis of imaginary readings of the meter no. 5018283.
2)
In this bill the reading date was 12.10.14 whereas as per TMCO no. 2/4
that meter was removed and a new meter was installed on 5.7.14. In
fact, no consumption of electricity was made by the Appellant during
the period 15.8.14 to 12.10.14.
3) This is clear violation of Clause 26(2) of Terms and Conditions for Supply
of Electricity – 2004 (TCS in short) and Regulation 12(2)(a) of Metering
Regulations for taking correct reading.
4) It is common practice of JVVNL, Hindoli officials to make knowingly
wrong bills of exorbitant amount to show superficial sale of energy in
order to bring down the distribution loss and loss due to theft, so that,
sub division officials can show superficial energy sold figures in the MIS
reports. Accordingly JVVNL officials recover unlawful amount from the
consumers and simultaneously claim huge subsidy amount from the
State Government.
5) The Respondent made this bill on basis of imaginary reading for Rs.2147
including subsidy of Rs. 1634 claimed from State Government
unlawfully and in violation of Sec.65 of Electricity Act.2003.
2
6)
In several previous EOR cases (e.g. case no. EOR 67/2012) the
Electricity Ombudsman has passed orders 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 and to make refund of excess amount.
7)
Appellant stated that if this bill is not recast and higher consumption is
indicated in record, it would adversely affect the calculation of
average consumption for purpose of security deposit, assessment of
energy in case of stopped meter and for the purpose of fuel charges.
8) Clause 36(8) of TCS provides that when there is prima facie evidence
of glaring mistake, the bill shall be corrected without delay.
9) The Appellant submitted his grievance application on 21.11.14 before
the Forum along with fee but the Forum did not hear the application
and not passed any order. This is violation of Regulation 7(1) and
Regulation 8 of Redressal of Grievance Regulations 2008.
10) Relief sought from Electricity Ombudsman:
i.
The Electricity Ombudsman should pass award directing the
Respondent to recast the Sept’14 bill indicating ZERO
consumption and also make correction in its records and refund
excess amount of Rs 442(Rs 532 – Rs 90 Fixed charge) along with
interest.
ii.
The receipt of subsidy of Rs. 1634 in this case by the Respondent is
in contravention of Sec.65 of the Electricity Act, 2003 therefore the
Electricity Ombudsman should take appropriate action.
iii. Rs 2000 should be granted for mental harassment and
inconvenience to the Appellant and incurring unnecessary
expenses and waste of time and energy in filling 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 and Clause 36(8) of
TCS for not making new & correct bill without delay.
Processing of the case
4. The notices were served on 2.3.15. 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 13.4.15 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 27.4.15 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 13.4.15 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
27.4.15 along with a proof of serving a copy of the same to the
Respondent.
9.
The case was heard on 11.5.15 in presence of authorised representatives of
both the parties as listed above but the hearing could not be concluded
for the want of certain records, therefore the hearing was continued on
13.5.15, for which Appellant was also informed over Mobile phone.
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 Appellant filed the grievance on
21.11.14 and he was informed vide letter dated 16.12.14 for appearing
in the meeting of the Forum on 19.12.14 but on that day neither the
Appellant nor his representative was present and he informed that he
would be unable to appear in the meeting.
2)
Therefore the date of meeting of the Forum was extended for 12.2.15
and Appellant was informed. The Appellant again failed to appear in
the meeting but the case of the Appellant was disposed off in the said
meeting.
3)
The Respondent submitted that after checking the reading of meter
No. 5018283 by the Junior Engineer, it was found that the meter was
changed in the month of July’14 when last reading was 13293. The
Billing agency had issued bill up to Nov’14 of that meter No. 5018283
up to meter reading 17656 so the amount of Rs. 4101/- of 17656-13293
= 4363 units was credited in Appellant’s account and same was
reduced from the bill of Jan’15. The information of the same was sent
to the Appellant vide letter dated 9.2.15.
4)
While amending the bill, amount as well as units were credited. Thus it
is wrong on the part of the Appellant that units were shown to cover
the loss in MIS. In MIS actual consumption reading is shown. Moreover,
there would no effect on the calculation of security deposit or
average on stop meter or fuel surcharge.
4
5)
The wrong bill was issued to the consumer due to the fault of the billing
agencies who had not taken the actual reading and thus the same
was corrected by the Junior Engineer in the Bill of Jan’15 and directed
the billing agencies for taking correct reading in future.
6)
The refund of subsidy to the State Government is the departmental
matter which has no effect on the right of the consumer.
7)
The Appellant filed the complaint on 2.3.15 before the Electricity
Ombudsmen while the bill of the Appellant was already corrected on
9.1.15 and information of the same was already sent on 9.2.15.
8)
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the
Appellant has filed the complaint on false and concocted grounds
and therefore same is liable to be dismissed with cost.
9)
In reference to the Respondent’s above reply, the Appellant
commented that as per JPD6-351, in case of change of meter, AEN is
required to arrange new and old meter reading and ensure correct
billing but in this case when meter was changed the AEN did not
arrange to take reading of the new meter.
10) The Respondent has made violation of Clause 36(8) of TCS and did not
correct the bill without delay. Respondent has wrongly replied that
complaint was resolved within one month from date of receipt.
11) While indicating various irregularities conducted by the Forum in the
matter of registration of cases, issuing proper notices, depositing the
fee in bank, presence of JEN in the meeting, dispatching the Minutes
of Meeting etc, the Appellant has requested the Electricity
Ombudsman to call all the records and conduct detailed analysis of
various meetings conducted by the Forum.
12)
Respondent has made adjustment in Jan’15 bill and credited excess
amount charged in July’14 bill. But there is no provision in regulation /
TCS that when a bill was issued wrongly, the inflated reading can be
adjusted in next bill. In this present case wrong bill is to be dealt by
Clause 36(8) of TCS and Reg. 7, Schedule I of SOP Regulations, 2014.
13) Respondent has not replied when and where the effect of correction
in unit consumed would be shown. Reading and unit consumption are
primarily recorded in Binder Book. After computerization, Respondent
illegally discontinued to maintain Binder Book in A-10. All the reading
and consumption are primarily recorded on some unknown paper and
then punched in computer and computer generates consumer wise
unit consumption information. If Respondent did any correction in unit
consumption, it should be reflected in summary or in Binder Book. But
5
Respondent has not made any correction in consumption history or
binder book of Appellant. Merely mentioning the unit in CC& AR does
not correspondingly affect the consumption history of units, as CC&AR
is a financial record and if any correction in unit consumption is to be
done, it should be done through Binder Book.
14)
Appellant has requested the Electricity Ombudsman to call “annual
record” in which Respondent claimed that “units have been
subtracted” and ask Respondent to produce it, in original for
verification.
15) While giving credit of refund amount in Jan’15 bill, Respondent did not
credited the interest @ RBI bank rate on excess amount recovered
from date of recovery till date of credit as per Regulation 37 of Supply
code Regulation.
16) State Government subsidy is part of Tariff determined by RERC, and
which is showing in the bill of consumers. As per Regulation 3 of
Redressal of Grievance Regulations, consumer grievance relating to
electricity bills is a monetary nature grievance. It clearly shows that
any defect, discrepancy, error, excess, short amount, is consumer
grievance relating to electricity bill. That also covers excess amount
shown as (-) under head State Govt. Subsidy and is also part of
incorrect bill.
17) The Appellant has also raised some issues, not related to the present
case. Those issues have not been brought out here.
18) 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 bills of the Appellant were
corrected in terms of unit consumption as well as in terms of
corresponding amount.
19) 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.
20) The Respondent also stated that the excess amount was credited to
the Appellant along with interest, therefore the contention of the
Appellant was not correct in saying that the excess amount was
credited without interest. The original record to this effect was also
shown during the hearing.
6
21) In the matter of credit in terms of unit consumption, the Respondent
stated that necessary credit has already been made through CC&AR,
a copy of which was also provided to the Appellant through letter
dated 9.2.15. However, reflection of these figures in the computer
ledger is under process and when it is entered in the ledger, a copy of
same would also be provided to the Appellant for his record.
22) The Respondent clarified that since the adjustment in units has been
done within the same financial year, it will not affect the assessment of
next year security requirement. Secondly, fuel surcharge shall also be
calculated in accordance with the revised number of units. Further, in
case of meter stop, the Appellant is liable to be charged on Flat Rate,
as such, adjustment of unit will not affect the charging in case of
meter stop.
23) In the matter relating to refund of the Government subsidy to the State
Government, the Respondent submitted that as and when the units
are revised, the amount of subsidy is revised accordingly and a
consolidated claim is submitted to the State Government by the Head
Office. The Respondent, however, reiterated that it is not a matter of
consumer grievance.
24) The Respondent has however accepted that when any correction in
bill is done, the financial adjustment is carried over through next bill of
the consumer but presently there is no mechanism accordingly to
which when any correction in unit consumption is done, the same is
not made known to the consumer.
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 has, 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 the Appellant filed the representation before the
Electricity Ombudsmen on 2.3.15 while the bill of the Appellant was
already corrected on 9.1.15 by the Respondent and information of
the same was sent by the Respondent on 9.2.15. The bills of the
Appellant were corrected in terms of unit consumption as well as in
terms of corresponding amount.
7
2) 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 from time to time.
3) The matter relating to refund of the Government subsidy to the State
Government is not a matter of consumer grievance.
4) Thus, the Appellant’s grievance has already been redressed by the
Respondent.
5) The request of the Appellant cannot be accepted for calling all the
records by the Electricity Ombudsman and conduct detailed analysis
of the process of conducting meetings by the Forum and
dispatching Minutes of Meetings.
6) The Appellant has quoted some orders accorded by the Electricity
Ombudsman in previous cases, with a request to take similar view in
present case. In this respect it is stated that the orders are accorded
under the specific circumstances of respective individual cases.
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 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.
14. The Officer In Charge of the case reported that when any correction in bill
is done, the financial adjustment is carried over through next bill of the
consumer but presently there is no mechanism according to which when
any correction in unit consumption is done, the same is not made known to
the consumer. In this respect, it is stated that since the quantum of units
plays an important role in calculation of average consumption for the
purpose of security deposit, assessment of energy in case of stopped
meter, charging of fuel charges etc, any subsequent correction in unit
consumption should also be reflected in summary or in Binder Book or any
method so as to ascertain the correction in units by the consumers. The
Managing Director of the Respondent may get the matter examined and
take appropriate action in the matter.
8
15. The Appellant has brought out some discrepancies and non-compliance of
Discom orders, being made by the officers of the Discom, in the matter of
recording meter readings at the time of meter change, counter checking
of meter readings, not maintaining of the Binder Book in A-10, correction of
bills in case of wrong meter readings, following the procedure for dealing
with the consumer grievances by the Forums etc. The Managing Director of
the Respondent may get the matter examined and take appropriate
action against the defaulters.
(D. R. Mathur)
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan
9