CGRF Orders for the quarter JAN -16 TO MARCH
Transcript of CGRF Orders for the quarter JAN -16 TO MARCH
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-69/2015
Date of Institution - 17.11.2015 Date of Order - 05.01.2016
In the matter to Shri Dharamanshu Sood, House No. 3059, Sector 40-D,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Dharmanshu Sood, Scientist ‘D’, DRDO (Ministry of Defence), TBRL,
Chandigarh vide his e-mail dated Nov.17, 2015 stated that he is resident
of House No.3059, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh and none of the street lights
in their area is in working condition. He requested for taking suitable
steps for proper illumination of streets in his locality.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-69/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
taking appropriate action vide letter dated 18.11.2015 with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated
2.12.2015 stated that the complaint regarding non-functioning of street
light was attended on 17.11.2015. The street light three phase MCB was
tripped off in the previous night. The street light of the area was restored
and is functioning properly now.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 05.01.2016 vide letter dated
14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing (on
05.01.2015), the complainant did not attend. The SDO of Sub Division
No. 10 present during the hearing stated that the complaint was
attended on date of complaint itself and the street light was set right and
same is functioning properly thereafter.
5. The Forum observing that the complaint was attended promptly by the
SDO, considers the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-41 & 50/2015
Date of Institution - 13.09.2015 Date of Order - 05.01.2016
In the matter to Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, House No.5620, Sector 38 West,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. An e-mail at 13-09-2015 was received from the e-mail account of Smt.
Jaswinder Kaur, resident of House No. 5620, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh
regarding her electricity bill. She stated that though the same amount of
electricity is consumed by them but bill amount of current is too high.
She apprehended there may be some problem of the meter and readings
and requested for getting it checked.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-41 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments and other relevant details vide letter
dated 15.09.2015 with a copy to the complainant with the request to
submit written complaint within five days. Simultaneously the complaint
was notified for hearing on 15.10.2015 while calling the comments.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated
23.09.2015 stated that the electricity bill raised to the consumer was as
per reading recorded on the meter. The meter was got checked by
Shri Rakesh Kumar, J.E. on dated 21.9.2015 and found in working order.
He also enclosed the report of the J.E. as well as consumption data for
the last three years.
4. Another complaint was made by Sh. Labh Singh on the same issue vide
his letter dated 28-09-2015, received in the office on 30-09-2015. This
complaint registered as complaint as Complaint No. CG-50 was
forwarded to Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divin No.4, for comments
vide leter dated 05-10-2015.
5. The concerned Sub-Division No. 10 vide his letter dated 12-10-2015
stated that similar complaint filed by Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and registered
as Complaint No. 41 has already been replied vide his letter dated 15-10-
2015.
6. On the date of hearing on 15.10.2015 the representative of the
complainant Shri Labh Singh as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 along
with his RA were present. The complainant contested that the bill for the
period 20.5.2015 to 20.7.2015 (3207 units) was quite on higher side as
compared to the average. The SDO submitted that in the past also the
consumption was found to be more than 3000 units during summer
period. The working of the meter was also got checked and found in
working order. The complainant requested for installation of check meter.
7. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 17.11.2015 supplied
the report of check meter as per which the consumption recorded by the
disputed meter and the check meter was same during the period
30.10.2015 to 6.11.2015.
8. The complaint was notified for hearing on 05.01.2016 vide letter dated
14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on
05.01.2015, the complainant did not attend. Only SDO was present.
The SDO reiterated his written submissions against the disputed
consumption of 3227 units during May to July 2015. The complainant
had been consuming 2839 units during the same period in 2013 and
3018 units during the period July to Sept. 2014. The consumption from
March 2014 to July 2014 (4 Months) was also found to be 4364 units.
Further on the basis of check meter report, he stated that the working of
meter is fine.
9. The Forum observed that the consumer has 3 ACs of capacity of 1 ton
each. Thus consumption of 3000 units during 2 months period of summer
months is possible. Moreover the past consumption data also supports
the consumption, as consumption of the order of 3000 units was found to
be consumed during the corresponding period in 2013 as well as in 2014.
With the above observations, the Forum does not find any merit in the
complaint and dismiss the same.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-41 & 50/2015
Date of Institution - 13.09.2015 Date of Order - 05.01.2016
In the matter to Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, House No.5620, Sector 38 West,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. An e-mail at 13-09-2015 was received from the e-mail account of Smt.
Jaswinder Kaur, resident of House No. 5620, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh
regarding her electricity bill. She stated that though the same amount of
electricity is consumed by them but bill amount of current is too high.
She apprehended there may be some problem of the meter and readings
and requested for getting it checked.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-41 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments and other relevant details vide letter
dated 15.09.2015 with a copy to the complainant with the request to
submit written complaint within five days. Simultaneously the complaint
was notified for hearing on 15.10.2015 while calling the comments.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated
23.09.2015 stated that the electricity bill raised to the consumer was as
per reading recorded on the meter. The meter was got checked by
Shri Rakesh Kumar, J.E. on dated 21.9.2015 and found in working order.
He also enclosed the report of the J.E. as well as consumption data for
the last three years.
4. Another complaint was made by Sh. Labh Singh on the same issue vide
his letter dated 28-09-2015, received in the office on 30-09-2015. This
complaint registered as complaint as Complaint No. CG-50 was
forwarded to Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divin No.4, for comments
vide leter dated 05-10-2015.
5. The concerned Sub-Division No. 10 vide his letter dated 12-10-2015
stated that similar complaint filed by Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and registered
as Complaint No. 41 has already been replied vide his letter dated 15-10-
2015.
6. On the date of hearing on 15.10.2015 the representative of the
complainant Shri Labh Singh as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 along
with his RA were present. The complainant contested that the bill for the
period 20.5.2015 to 20.7.2015 (3207 units) was quite on higher side as
compared to the average. The SDO submitted that in the past also the
consumption was found to be more than 3000 units during summer
period. The working of the meter was also got checked and found in
working order. The complainant requested for installation of check meter.
7. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 17.11.2015 supplied
the report of check meter as per which the consumption recorded by the
disputed meter and the check meter was same during the period
30.10.2015 to 6.11.2015.
8. The complaint was notified for hearing on 05.01.2016 vide letter dated
14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on
05.01.2015, the complainant did not attend. Only SDO was present.
The SDO reiterated his written submissions against the disputed
consumption of 3227 units during May to July 2015. The complainant
had been consuming 2839 units during the same period in 2013 and
3018 units during the period July to Sept. 2014. The consumption from
March 2014 to July 2014 (4 Months) was also found to be 4364 units.
Further on the basis of check meter report, he stated that the working of
meter is fine.
9. The Forum observed that the consumer has 3 ACs of capacity of 1 ton
each. Thus consumption of 3000 units during 2 months period of summer
months is possible. Moreover the past consumption data also supports
the consumption, as consumption of the order of 3000 units was found to
be consumed during the corresponding period in 2013 as well as in 2014.
With the above observations, the Forum does not find any merit in the
complaint and dismiss the same.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-68/2015
Date of Institution - 16.11.2015 Date of Order - 06.01.2016
In the matter to Smt. Nutan Jain, House No.1813, Arorian Mohalla, Main
Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Nutan Jain vide her e-mail dated 16th November, 2015 stated that
to take meter reading of the meter installed at their resident House No.
1813, Arorian Mohalla, Main Bazar, Manimajra the meter reader visits at
odd times. The meter is installed inside the house and therefore, the bill
is generated on average basis on finding the premises locked. She
contacted the Sub Division but they did not co-operate with him. She
stated that all the members of the home are office goers and are
available after 3.00 P.M. She, therefore, requested for deputing meter
reader after 3.00 P.M. only.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-68/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for
comments and action taken report along with consumption data vide
letter dated 18.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8, vide his letter dated
4.12.2015 submitted the written comments duly countersigned by the
Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2. He stated that the electricity bill of 2 electricity
connection for the period July to September 2015 were issued on
average basis as the premises was found locked. Through, special
efforts, he got verified the reading of both meters and stated that the
readings would be sent to the Computer Centre in the next billing cycle.
He denied the allegations of non cooperation of the official of his office.
He submitted that as and when any complaint/enquiry is received from
the consumer, even on telephone, the same is attended promptly to his
satisfaction. He also stated that the meter reader was directed to visit
second time in case the premises was found locked. The consumption
data was also enclosed.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 06.01.2016 vide letter dated
14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. Through her mail dated
5.1.2016 she expressed her inability to attend the hearing, being regular
school teacher and could not get herself free for the time fixed for
hearing.
5. The SDO along with his RA present during the hearing stated that only
for the period July to September 2015, bill was issued on average basis
as the premises was found locked. The last 5-6 bills from 21.9.2014
onwards were issued on reading only. He further stated that the SJO
was issued for shifting both the meters outside the house as permanent
remedy to the problem.
6. The Forum noted the submissions by the SDO and support the action
taken by him to resolve the problem permanently by shifting the meters
outside.
The complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-59/2015
Date of Institution - 26.10.2015 Date of Order - 06.01.2016
In the matter to Prof. A.K. Mittal, House No.2043/1, Sector 47-C,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Prof. A.K. Mittal through his e-mail dated 26th October, 2015 submitted
that electricity bill dated 21.10.2015 of his House No.2043/1, Sector 47-
C, Chandigarh was issued up to meter reading 36948. He stated that the
existing reading even on 26th October 2015, was much less. He
requested for rectification of the bill after verification.
2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 2 were called vide letter dated 29.10.2015 along with the
consumption data on the complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-
59/2015.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5, vide his letter dated
18.11.2015 admitted that the disputed bill for the period July to
September 2015 was prepared on excessive reading. The reading was
found to be 36826 on 5.11.2015 against the recorded reading of 36948
on 27.9.2015. On the basis of verification of the reading the bill of the
consumer was revised and adjustment of Rs.1540/- was allowed.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 06.01.2016 vide letter dated
14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing (on
06.01.2015), the complainant did not attend. The RA of the Sub Division
informed that the consumer was satisfied with the revision of the bill and
paid the bill.
5. The Forum observed that the grievances of the consumer had been
redressed by the Sub Division to the satisfaction of the complainant. With
the above observations, the complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-85/2015
Date of Institution - 17.12.2015 Date of Order - 13.01.2016
In the matter to Major Gen. Joginder Singh, House No.1586, Sector 34-D,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Major Gen. Joginder Singh, resident of House No. 1586, Sector 34-D,
Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 17th December, 2015 requested for
deputing the Engineer to check the meter as in his views the same was
not working properly.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-85 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
submitting parawise comments vide letter dated 18.12.2015 with a copy
to the complainant.
3. In response, the concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7, vide his letter
dated 31.12.2015, submitted that the meter was got checked by J.E. of
his office on 23.12.2015 and was found dead stop. The dead stop meter
was replaced vide MCO dated 23.12.2015.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 13.01.2016 vide letter dated
04.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on
13.1.2016, the complainant did not attend. The concerned SDO
submitted that the meter has already been replaced on the request of
the complainant.
5. The Forum observing that grievance of the consumer has been
redressed, considered the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-66/2015
Date of Institution - 09.11.2015 Date of Order - 13.01.2016
In the matter to Shri Gulshan Arora, Booth No 309, Sector 32-D,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Gulshan Arora, tenant of Booth No. 309, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh
vide his complaint dated 9.11.2015 stated that he changed the trade in
Jan. 2014 from Bakeries to Garments & General Store. The Electricity
Department has issued a bill for Rs.40566/- as sundry charges after
overhauling of the account for the period meter remained dead. He
submitted that when changed business the consumption due to use of six
tube lights and two fans was much less as compare to electrical
appliances used in the Bakery business.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-66 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
submitting parawise comments vide letter dated 10.11.2015 with a copy
to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7, vide his letter dated
19.11.2015 submitted para-wise reply that the meter got defective
during 26.11.2013 was replaced on 28.9.2015. The account of the
consumer was overhauled w.e.f. 26.11.2013 to 28.9.2015 (22 months)
on the past consumption basis of November 2012 to November 2013 i.e.
@ 488 units per month resulting into charging of disputed amount
through sundry. He supplied consumption data as well as copy of MCO.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 13.01.2016 vide letter dated
04.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on
13.1.2016, the complainant did not attend. The concerned SDO
submitted that the meter has already been replaced on the request of
the complainant.
5. The Forum observing that grievance of the consumer has been
redressed, considered the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-76/2015
Date of Institution - 01.12.2015 Date of Order - 13.01.2016
In the matter to Shri R.B. Sehgal, Assistant General Manager, State Bank
of India, House No. 1705/1, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri R.B. Sehgal, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India,
resident of House No. 1705/1, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh vide his e-mail
dated 1.12.2015 stated that the bill prepared for the period 10.5.2015 to
10.7.2015 was wrong. The new meter reading was shown as 27769
though the actual reading even after one month of the issue of bill was
less than this reading. The disputed bill was for 4242 units and was on
higher side due to wrong recording of the reading. He, however,
deposited RS.18625/- as insisted by the Electricity Department. The
meter was got inspected by the Sub Division and was found to be display
defective. The meter was replaced on 4.9.2015. He stated that he visited
the sector 35 Sub Division twice but the excess payment paid by him
has not been refunded. Rather he was given a new bill on average basis
amounting to Rs.11254/-. He requested for overhauling of the account
with adjustment of the payment already made.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-76 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
submitting parawise comments vide letter dated 02.12.2015 with a copy
to the complainant with the request to submit written complaint within
five days. The complainant in response submitted the written complaint
on 10.12.2015.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7, vide his letter dated
09.12.2015. While submitting the written reply stated that on the
request of the consumer the working of the meter was got checked and
found display of meter reading as defective. The meter was replaced on
4.9.2015. In the mean time the consumer had already deposited the full
amount of the bill amounting to Rs.18625/- and also next bill amounting
to Rs.308/-. He further stated that account for the period 10.5.2015 to
4.9.2015 (Date of MCO) has been overhauled on the basis of
consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year in 2014.
The total bill for the period comes to Rs.16967/-. He further stated that
amount of excess payment made by the consumer for the period
10.5.2015 to 4.9.2015 shall be refunded in the bill for the period
10.9.2015 to 10.11.2015. He also stated that notice-cum-bill issued
dated 16.10.2015 has been withdrawn.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 13.01.2016 vide letter dated
04.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on
13.1.2015, the complainant was explained by the attend the concerned
SDO that the account has already been overhauled and refund has been
allowed to the consumer in the bill issued in the month of December
2015. The consumer to the action taken by the SDO showed his
satisfied.
5. The Forum obsering that the Sub Division had provided the necessary
relief as preyed by the complainant, the complaint is considered as
disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-71/2015
Date of Institution - 20.11.2015 Date of Order - 15.01.2016
In the matter to Shri K.K.Bharat, Controller of Stores & Purchase CSIR,
Central Scientific Instrument Orgn., Sector-30, Chandigarh
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri K.K.Bharat, Controller of Stores & Purchase CSIR, Central Scientific
Instrument Orgn., Sector-30, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 20.11.2015
submitted that his electricity bill dated 6.11.2015 for the Account No.
306/3047/5016AIW showed the new reading as 11883 where as the present
reading on date is 11596. He requested for rectification of the bill on the basis
of actual reading.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-71 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
submitting parawise comments along with consumption data vide letter
dated 24.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6, vide his letter dated
08.12.2015 submitted para-wise reply that the reading was got verified
on 2.12.2015 as 11688 and thus admitted that disputed bill was got
prepared on wrong reading. He submitted that bill of the consumer has
been revised and the necessary correction/adjustment will appear in the
next bill. He also supplied the calculation sheet.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.01.2016 vide letter dated
05.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant did not
attend. It was explained by the SDO that on receipt of complaint the
reading was got verified and bill was corrected on the basis of verified
reading. The refund of Rs.1845/- will be reflected in the next bill.
5. The Forum noting that grievance of the consumer has been redressed,
considered the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-65/2015
Date of Institution - 09.11.2015 Date of Order - 15.01.2016
In the matter to Shri Ramesh Kumar Bansal, House No.2189, 1st Floor,
Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Ramesh Kumar Bansal, resident of House No. 2189, 1st Floor, Sector 45-C,
Chandigarh through his e-mil dated 9.11.2015 submitted a complaint against
Shri Darshan Singh, Internal Auditor and Vinod Kumar, Bill Distributor of
Electricity Sub Division NO.6, Sector-20, Chandigarh. He submitted that he was
allotted a Government Accommodation of House No.4224, Ground Floor, Sector
46-D, Chandigarh and obtained the electricity connection. The said house was
sealed by the Estate Officer-cum-SDM on 28.4.2014. The Secretary House
Allotment Committee’s letter dated 15.10.2015 stated that no license is required
to be charged after 28.4.2014 as the said house was sealed and hence the
electricity and water charges are chargeable up to 28.4.2014. and He made
the representation on 3.11.2015 to SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 and on
6.11.2015 to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 respectively. His
main grievance was that the dealing hand Shri Darshan Singh, Internal Auditor
and Shri Vinod Kumar, Bill Distributor harassed him and refused to prepare the
final electricity bill up to 28.4.2014 and even made pressure for giving bribe for
making electricity bill up to 28.4.2014. The complainant stated that the officials
are misusing their official capacity and not performing their duty honestly. He
prayed that the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 be directed to raise the final
electricity bill up to 28.4.2014.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-65 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
submitting parawise comments along with consumption data vide letter
dated 10.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant. In the mean time the
complainant submitted a written complaint along with relevant
supporting documents.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6, vide his letter dated
27.11.2015 submitted parawise reply. He stated that the complainant
requested for PDCO on dated 6.11.2015 and on his request the meter
was removed vide PDCO dated 6.11.2015 at final reading 9322.5. Based
on the final reading the final electricity bill was prepared and the account
was overhauled from 27.1.2014 to 27.9.2015 with adjustment of bills
issued on average basis on account of premises found locked during
this period. The consumer had paid the bill upto reading 8867 as on
27.1.2014. He submitted that as the consumer applied for NDC on
6.11.2015, accordingly, the action was taken for effecting PDCO on
6.11.2015 and final bill was prepared on the basis of PDCO report. He
strongly denied the allegations against Shri Darshan Singh, I.A. and Shri
Vinod Kumar, Bill Distributor stating that the final bill was prepared on
the basis of final reading as on 6.11.2014. He refused the allegations of
harassment by the employees of the Sub Division and asking for any
undue benefits. He rather raised the counter allegations that the
complainant used unparliamentary and abusive/threatening to the
employees. In this regard he enclosed the representation signed on
6.11.2015 by the employees of the Sub Division. In the end he
submitted that the final bill has already been prepared and issued to the
complainant after adjusting ACD and the average bills issued on L-Code.
The complainant paid the final bill and the NDC was issued to the
complainant on 10.11.2015. The consumer also gave an undertaking to
withdraw the complainant on 10.11.2015. He enclosed the copy of the
undertaking given by the complainant also. The SDO also enclosed the
consumption data and the basis of issuance of final bill.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.01.2016 vide letter dated
05.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant as well as
concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 were present. The complainant
stated that he vacated the Government Accommodation on 31.3.2014
which was sealed on 28.2.2014 and as such he was supposed to pay
dues up to 28.4.2014 only and not up to 6.11.2015 as prepared by the
Sub Division. The SDO re-iterated his written submissions. The
complainant prayed for reducing the amount on account of surcharge
etc. and preparation of the final bill up to 28.4.2014 only.
5. Observations by the Forum:
The Forum observed that the consumer vacated the Government
Accommodation on 31.3.2014 but did not informed the Sub Division.
Accordingly the bill was being prepared on average basis as the premises
was found locked. The last bill issued on reading was for the period
27.11.2013 to 27.1.2014 up to reading 8867. After that all the bills were
issued on average basis for average consumption of 370 units per cycle
with SOP charges of Rs.9840 besides ED and other charges. Based on
the final reading 9322.5 on the meter removed on 6.11.2015, the
account was overhauled for a total consumption of 455 units after
adjustment of average bills and ACD the final bill was rendered for
Rs.3506/- which was paid by the complainant on 10.11.2015.
6. The Forum without going into allegations and counter allegations by the
complainant and the employees of the Sub Division focused on the merits
of the case. It was note that the Sub Division continued to issue bills for
the period 3/2014 onwards though the complainant did not pay the bill
for the period 1/2-014 to 3/2014, this continued up to 9/2015.
7. The Sub Division was supposed to effect PDCO after non payment of the
bill for the period 1/2014 to 3/2014 as per Regulations 9.1 of the Supply
Code reproduced as under:-
“Where a person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any other
sum due from him to a Licensee, by the due date mentioned in the bill, in
respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to
him, the licensee may, after giving not less than fifteen (15) clear days
notice in writing to such person, without prejudice to his rights to recover
such charge or other sum due by suit, cut off supply of electricity, until
such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in
cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid.”
On the other hand, it was also the duty of the complainant to
intimate the Sub Division about vacation of the accommodation and
asking for final bill. Thus both the complainant as well as Sub Division
defaulted to take action at the appropriate time resulting into unnesssary
issuance of the bills up to Sept. 2015. With regard to complainant’s
request for recovery of electricity charges up to 28.4.2014, the Forum
observed that letter dated 15.10.2015 issued by the House Allotment
Committee was advise to charge panel rent of the said Government
Accommodation from 12.10.2012 to 28.4.2014 (i.e. from date of
cancellation till the date on which the house was sealed by the Estate
Officer). There was no mention of the electricity/other charges.
8. Decision
On the basis of observations made by the Forum, the Nodal Officer is
directed to revise the final bill on the following lines.
a) Presuming that the Sub Division had affected the PDCO due to non
payment of the bill for the period 1/2014 to 3/2014, the supply should
have been disconnected after 15 days of the due date for payment of
the bill (which may be in May/June 2014). The exact date may be
worked out on the basis of issuance date of the bill, the due date and
15 days notice period as per regulations 9.1 reproduced above.
b) The bill be prepared up to final reading of 9323.
c) Since the meter was removed only on 6.11.2015, the meter rentals be
recovered up to 6.11.2015.
d) The interest on the defaulting amount be also recovered w.e.f.
May/June 2014 (as per actual date to be worked out as per para (a)
above) till the date of payment as per relevant regulation of Supply
Code Regulations in this regard if any.
e) It may be ensured interest on ACD is allowed to the complainant up to
10.11.2015 as per Regulations/Instructions of the Hon’ble JERC from
time to time.
f) The excess amount, if any paid by the complainant be refunded
through cheque.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003.
9. With the above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-82/2015
Date of Institution - 10.12.2015 Date of Order - 15.01.2016
In the matter to Smt. Veena Sethi, House No.2297, Golden Enclave,
Sector 49-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Veena Sethi vide her letter dated 10.12.2015 submitted that the electricity
meter installed at her residence No.2297, Golden Enclave, Sector 49,
Chandigarh was not working from Feb.2015 to October 2015. The electricity bill
on average was being charged during this period. Now in the latest bill,
Rs.5223/- has been charged through sundry which is not clear to her. She
requested for looking into the matter and correction of the amount according to
the average basis.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-82 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
submitting parawise comments along with consumption data vide letter
dated 11.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6, vide his letter dated
28.12.2015 submitted that the electricity meter installed at the
complainant’s house was found dead stop and was replaced on
9.10.2015. The account of the consumer has been overhauled w.e.f.
26.2.2015 to 9.10.2015 on the basis of past consumption recorded
during the corresponding period in the year 2014 @ 356 units per
month. After adjusting the bill paid by the consumer it was observed
that amount of Rs.5823/- was chargeable. Accordingly the same has
been charged through sundry item. The SDO supplied copy of MCO, past
consumption and calculation sheet.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.01.2016 vide letter dated
05.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant did not
attend. It was explained by the SDO that the charging for the period, the
meter remained defective has been done on the basis of consumption
recording during the corresponding period in the year 2014 as per
regulations and is correct. As per details provided by the SDO, changing
was done on the following basis:-
g) Consumption during Feb 2014 to Oct 2014 -492+0+1995+357=2844
consumption per month = 2844/8= 356 units per month.
h) Units charged for 26.2.2015 to 9.10.2015 (7.5 month) = 540+540=
1080 units.
i) Units chargeable for 26.2.2015 to 9.10.2015 = 365*7.5= 2735 units.
5. The Forum observed that the action taken by the Sub Division is in order
and thus dismiss the complaint.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SHRI R.L. MITTAL, MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 630 Date of Institution - 17.10.2014 Date of Order - 19.1.2016 In the matter Shri S.C.Kohli, Managing Partner, M/s Cable Engg. Compnay, Plot No.181/13, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri S.C.Kohli, Managing Partner, M/s Cable Engg. Company, Plot No.181/13,
Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh vide his application dated 16th October, 2014
received in the office on 17.10.2014, stated that an Industrial Electricity Connection
is running in Industrial Area, Phase-I Chandigarh in the name of M/s Cable
Engineering Co. The connection was checked by the electricity department on
15.7.2014 and thereafter a Notice dated 21.8.2014 for short assessment was sent
by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 for a sum of Rs.7,73,315/- . Subsequently, the
amount was reduced to RS.3,95,105/- vide SDO letter dated 9.9.2014. A copy of
MRI data and calculation sheet was also sent by the Electricity Department with the
revised notice. In response to the Notice, the SDO was informed that there was no
tempering of seals found during checking as such their company was at no fault for
any variation/short energy reading. The meter was supplied and fixed by the
department on release of HT connection on 14.9.2005. The charging done for
period of 2 years by the Sub Division was also contested in view of JERC Supply
Code Regulation No.7.5(2)(ii) for defective meter. SDO vide his office letter dated
10.10.2014 informed that the issue was examined by the office and they were
directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,105/- within seven days compelling them to
approach the Forum.
The complainant pointed out that though the meter was installed on
14.9.2005 yet as per MRI retrieved data, the same was found to be defective w.e.f.
13.9.2005 i.e. one day prior to installation of the meter at their premises. The
Complainant raised the issue of initial installation of a certified correct meter and
also declaring the meter defective after about 10 years. He further stated that the
Supply Code Regulations 7.5(2)(ii) prescribed for 3 months period of recovery
where as the department was insisting for charging for period of two years. The
deficiencies are on the part of Electricity Department as it failed to check the meters
periodically as per Supply Code Regulations No.7.4(1)(d). It was also department’s
endeavour to downloaded monthly MRI data as per Supply Code Regulations
8.1(12). He therefore, prayed for recovery of short assessment limited to 3 months
period.
2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division
No.2 were called vide letter dated 28.10.2014. The complainant subsequently vide
letter dated 5.11.2014 intimated that he has already paid Rs.2,40,000/- against the
total amount of Rs.3,95,105/- demanded by the Sub Division.
3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 through written submissions
dated 18.12.2014 duly countersigned by the Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’ Division
No.2 submitted as under:-
a) The Electricity Connection of the complainant was checked by team constituted
for the purpose on 15.7.2014. During testing it was found that Red Phase CT of
11 KV meter was not contributing to 100% Energy recorded by the meter. The
accuracy test conducted on the meter at site showed that the meter was slow by
32.82% . The retrieved MRI data confirmed the exact date and time since when
the failure had occurred as 13.9.2005.
b) A Provisional Notice was issued on 21.8.2014 for depositing a sum of
Rs.7,73,315/- on account of short assessment from 15.7.2012 to 15.7.2014 due
to non contribution of Red Phase CT of 11 KV meter. However, later on a
calculation mistake was detected and a revised notice was served on 9.9.2014
to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,105/-.
c) With regard to complainant’s plea that charging be limited to 3 months period, the
SDO submitted that the Regulation No.7.5 (2)(ii) as mentioned by the
Complainant is not relevant as the same deals with the cases where meter has
been found defective /mal-functioning. He also submitted that It is not a case of
penalizing the complainant. The charging of the actual units consumed by the
complainant against the less recording by the meter has been made. The
chargeable units becomes 232471 units where as consumer had paid for 156174
units.
d) The SDO also denied that the department has not replied
the queries raised by the consumer from time to time. He also stated that the
checking was got done through M/s Yadav Measurements Pvt.Ltd., NABL
Accredited Lab.
e) The SDO submitted that the department had only charged the legitimate and
lawful amount for which the consumer had already used the electricity.
He also enclosed the copy of notice issued to the Complainant, copy of MRI
data, Copy of calculation sheet, copy of ECR and Report of M/s YMPL.
4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.630 was listed for hearing on
30.12.2014. The complainants as well as Nodal Officer along with concerned SDO
and RA of the Sub Division were present. During deliberations, the presence of
representative of the testing agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case
was thereafter notified for hearing on 3.3.2015, the Nodal Officer, the complainant as
well as representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the representative of meter
manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not make himself available for the
hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL also desired for some more time to study
the MRI data. The Nodal Officer was requested to contact the representative of the
Meter Manufacturer and intimate the convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-
ordinating with representation of M/s YMPL. Necessary directions were issued vide
letter dated 18.3.2015. A reminder was also issued on 30.7.2015.
5. The case was again notified for hearing on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF. The
complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 along with RA
of the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL who carried out the
checking and representatives of the Meter Manufacturer were present. Shri R.L.
Mittal, Independent Member was on leave and did not attend. The Complainant also
authorised to Shri Narinder Sharma to make submissions on their behalf being a
technical issue.
6. Shri Narinder Sharma admitted the fact that the meter was recording less
consumption due to non contribution of the Red Phase CT of the meter. He pointed
out that the MRI data shows that the meter was defective from 13.9.2005 whereas
the meter was installed on 14.9.2005, thus meter was not checked as per
Regulations/ISS at the time of installation. He further contended that the period of
charging should be limited to 3 months as per Supply Code Regulations 7.5. The
Nodal Officer stated that the regulations 7.5 is not applicable in the present case but
regulations 8.1(16) is applicable. Regarding period for overhauling, he suggested for
one year as per Regulation 10.3(c) iii. The Nodal Officer also supplied the
consumption data of the consumer.
With regard to discrepancy of meter being defective on 13.9.2005 whereas the
connection was released on 14.9.2005, the Nodal officer also submitted that the
Service Connection Order (SCO) for release of the connection might have been
issued on 14.9.2005 where as preliminary work to release the connection at site
including installation of meter and its testing with electric supply etc. might have
been completed on 13.9.2005. Thus though the connection was formally released
on 14.9.2005 whereas the meter and its was installed on 13.9.2005 and due to
testing, it recorded the event of Red Phase CT of meter not contributing on
13.9.2005 itself. The explanation provided by the Nodal Officer appeared
reasonable in view of the practical procedure being followed by the Sub Division.
7. The Forum however observed subsequently from the MRI data that the failure of
current (reversal) in all three phase occurred on 23.8.2001 at 17.11.46 hours and
same was restored ( all phases) on 13.9.2005 at 17.29.31 hours. Thus it was noted
that on 13.9.2005, the event was restored and not that the event of reversal of
current in all three phases had occurred as contended by the Nodal Officer/the
consumer’s representative during the hearing on 22.9.2015.
The data supplied indicated that on 15.7.2014, the red phase current has
failed and 0.748A, 6.074A, 4.481A current flowing on all the three phase. Thus
indicating non contribution of Red Phase Current at the time of checking on dated
15.7.2014. The checking authority declared the meter slow by 32.82% due to failure
of CT’s of Red Phase and the defective meter was removed and new meter was
installed. The working of the new meter installed was checked and found within
permissible limit.
On the basis of above observations, the Nodal Officer was asked to
confirm the exact date and time of occurrence of the event of failure of contribution by
red phase with supporting documents vide letter dated 6.10.2015.
8. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 23.10.2015 contended that the Red Phase CT
not contributing was detected at the time of checking on 15.7.2014 as per ECR No.
41/522 dated 15.7.2014. The accuracy test declared meter recording less by
32.82%. This meter was got tested in the Lab again on 15.9.2015 and found to be
slow by 39.09%. He enclosed the photo copies of the MRI data, ECR and M&T Lab
report dated 15.9.2015 along with up to date consumption data.
9. The case was again heard by the Forum on 8.12.2015. The consumer
representative, the Nodal Officer and AEE Enforcement were present. But neither
the representative of M/s YMPL who conducted the test nor the Meter Manufacturer
representative were present. The MRI data/consumption data was scrutinized but
conclusion could not be drawn regarding date of occurrence of event of Red Phase
CT not contributing.
The case was thereafter heard on 19.1.2016. Again the representatives of
complainant/YMPL/Secure Meters did not attend. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5,
AEE/Enforcement and RA of Sub Division were present. The MRI data as well as
the consumption data was scrutinized.
10. Observations by the Forum:-
On the question of period of charging, the Forum has gone through the Supply Code
Regulations and noted the following regulations:-
Regulation: 7.4 – Testing of Meters:
i. The Licensee shall ensure tested meters are installed at the consumer
premises. Meters purchased by the consumer shall be tested, installed
and sealed by the licensee.
The licensee shall also conduct periodical inspection/testing of the
meters as per the following schedule:
(a) LT Single –Phase meters:- at least once every five years.
(b) LT 3 Phase meters: - at least once every 3 years.
(c) Other LT metering systems – at least once every 2 years.
(d) HT meters including MDI:
For EHT consumers – once in six months.
For HT consumer – at least once a year.
CT and PT shall also be tested along with meters.
Records of these test results shall be maintained in accordance with
Central Electricity Authority (Installation and operation of Meters)
Regulations 2006.
Regulation :7.5 (2) (ii) – Defective Meters:
(1) The Licensee shall have the right to test any meter and related
apparatus if there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the
meter, and the consumer shall provide the licensee necessary
assistance in conducting of the test. The consumer shall also be
present during the testing.
(2) “A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter, if he doubts
its accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his
consumption, stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the
licensee along with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the
meter within 30 days of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards
of Performance of Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary
testing of meters can be carried out at the premises of the consumers
through electronic testing of meters can be carried out at the premises
of the consumers through electronic testing equipment.
i) In case the meter is found O.K., no further action shall be taken.
ii) In case the meter is found fast / slow by the licensee, and the
consumer agrees to the report, the meter shall be replaced by a new
meter within 15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to
the month in which the dispute has arise shall be revised in the
subsequent bill as per the test results. In case meter is found to be
slow, the additional charges may be recovered in instalments not
exceeding three, if the consumer shows his inability to pay at a time.
Regulation: 8.1(16):
“In order to recover the energy charges for the duration when the meter
remains non-functional, average monthly consumption of corresponding
month/billing cycle of the previous year shall be adopted. If the same is not
available, average monthly consumption of the previous one year shall be
adopted for recovery of energy charges, subject to minimum monthly charges
or as otherwise provided in the tariff order of the Commission in force. In
case, check meter is available, the readings of the check meter may also be
used for assessment of consumption. In case of HT consumers, if during the
period when the main meter is defective, the check meter is not installed or is
also found defective, the quantity of electricity supplied shall be determined
as stated above. In case the meter becomes defective immediately after its
installation and prior consumption is not available, then billing shall be done
provisionally on the basis of formula specified in Annexure 7 subject to
adjustment on the average consumption of corresponding period of next year.
If the same is not available, adjustment shall be made with average
corresponding period of next year. If the same is not available, adjustment
shall be made with average consumption of subsequent period of one
year/about one year. Such provisional / average billing shall not continue for
more than 2 billing cycles.
Regulation 10.3(C)(iii): Hearing and Final Assessment:
If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of
electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period
during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if,
however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity
has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a
period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.
11. Decision:
From the facts of the case and the downloaded MRI data, it is established that at
the time of testing/checking of the meter on 15.7.2014, the meter was found
defective/deficient to the extent that it was recording less consumption (32.82%) as
the Red Phase CT of the meter was not contributing.
Regulations 8.1 (16) provide for recovery of energy charges for the
duration when the meter remained non functional/defective/deficient. However, the
date of occurrence could not be established from the MRI Data or the consumption
data (past and future) attached as per Annexure ‘A’ or any other document placed
before the Forum by the Nodal Officer.
For the period of charging the Supply Code Provision exist in Regulations
7.5(2) (ii) as 3 months prior to month in which dispute has arisen or 12 months
under Regulations 10.3(C)(iii) in case it is not possible to conclude or establish
the period of defect. The Forum observed that the provisions under Regulations
10.3(C)(iii) are applicable in case of unauthorized load and not when the meter is
found defective/deficient at the time of checking as argued by the Nodal Officer
during hearing. We are of the view Regulation 7.5 (2) (ii) is applicable in the
present case, as the period of charging should not change whether the meter is
found defective when tested by the Electricity Department of their own or on the
request of the consumer.
In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate the charges to
be recovered as per Regulations 7.5 (2) (ii) i.e. revision of the bills of previous 3
months prior to the month in which the dispute was arisen on the basis of test
results as per ECR report. The bill for short assessment, if any, be issued
within 15 days of issuance of this order. On the other hand if the consumer is
entitled for refund on the basis of payments already made in response to the
notice issued by the Sub Division, the refund may be allowed in the next bill.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which
the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003.
The Forum has noted that despite provisions in the Regulations, the
meters are not being checked at regular intervals. The Electricity Department is
directed to ensure checking of meters (particularly H.T. meters) as per the
frequency mentioned in the Regulations.
12. With the above directions and decision, complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
13. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-83/2015
Date of Institution - 13.12.2015 Date of Order - 21.01.2016
In the matter to Smt. Shanta Rudra, W/o Shri Bhupinder Kumar, House
No.656, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt.Shanta Rudra, resident of House No.656, Sector-40, Chandigarh through
her e-mail dated 13.12.2015 stated that though no one is living in the said
house since October 2015, but the electricity bill dated 7.11.2015 was issued
for Rs.3282/-. She requested for issuance of minimum charges. As per address
of e-mail it was noted that e-mail was sent from Canada. She also submitted
written complaint received in the office of CGRF on 22.12.2015 from Canada.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-83 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments along with consumption data vide letter
dated 15.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated
29.12.2015 submitted his reply stating that the electricity meter was
replaced with electronic meter on 1.10.2015. The mechanical meter
was removed on reading 35681 and the average bill issued in the past
could not be adjusted due to change of meter. He stated that the bill of
the consumer was prepared on reading up to 34728 dated 7.4.2013,
thereafter bill were raised on average basis as the premises was found
locked and reading could not be taken. He further stated that account
has been overhauled and bill raised on average basis for Rs.5152/- has
been adjusted through sundry item dated 28.12.2015. The copy of the
amended bill was delivered at the residence of the consumer. He also
supplied the copy of MCO as well as consumption data for last three
years.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.01.2016 vide letter dated
06.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant did not
attend. The SDO stated that the grievances of the complainant has
already been redressed with the overhauling of the account and
adjustment of the past bills issued on average basis.
5. The Forum observing that the grievances has already been redressed,
considered the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-77/2015
Date of Institution - 02.12.2015 Date of Order - 22.01.2016
In the matter to Shri Suresh Kumar Bhatia, House No.1589, Sector 18,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Suresh Kumar Bhatia, resident of House No.1589, Sector 18, Chandigarh
through his representation received in the office of CGRF on 2.12.2015 stated
that the meter installed at his residence is giving abnormal readings. He
supplied the details of readings for about 1-1/2 years and attributed the high
consumption observed in the past on account of meter reading jumping. He
specifically pointed out that the bill for the period 2.5.2015 to 2.9.2015 was
generated for 20353 units which was very much on higher side considering the
average consumption of around 2500 units per billing cycle. He requested for
checking of the meter and replacement of defective meter along with correct
meter.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-77 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
submitting parawise comments along with consumption data vide letter
dated 7.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3, vide his letter dated
29.12.2015 submitted that the bill issued on 9.10.2015 for the period
July to Sept. 2015 was on actual consumption as per meter reading i.e.
20353 units. On the basis of his application, the bill has been revised on
the basis of previous corresponding period consumption as it seems that
meter digit jumped being TGL meter. He supplied the consumption data
also.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 22.01.2016 vide letter dated
06.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. In the meanwhile a letter
was received from the complainant on 6.1.2016 addressed to the Sub
Division pointing out that in the recently issued bill arrear amounting to
Rs.49637/- has again been added which is totally unjustified in view of
the submissions to the CGRF.
On the date of hearing on 22.01.2016, the complainant pointed out that
in the recent bill the arrear has been added. The SDO stated that the
account has already been overhauled and necessary refund will appear in
the next bill.
In response to the query by the Forum, the SDO confirmed that
the account was overhauled from May 2015 to September 2015 on the
basis of the consumption recorded during corresponding period in 2014.
The complainant showed his satisfaction to the action taken by the SDO.
5. With the above observations, complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-79/2015
Date of Institution - 03.12.2015 Date of Order - 03.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Avnish Kumar Chhibba, House No.2166/3, Sector
45-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Avnish Kumar Chhibba, resident of House No.21266/3, Sector-45C,
Chandigarh through his e-mail dated December 3, 2015 stated that the bill
issued for the period August to October 2015 was issued on arbitrary reading
though the actual reading was much less than the reading shown in the
electricity bill. He deposited a fee of Rs.250/- to recheck his meter/ reading as
insisted by the Sub Division.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-79/2015, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments/action taken report vide letter dated
07.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9, vide his letter dated 8.1.2016
submitted that on verification of the reading on 29.12.2015, it was
found that the reading was less than the new reading shown in the bill.
He stated that an adjustment of RS.4311/- was made which would be
reflected in the bill to be issued on 21.1.2016. A copy of the revised bill
was also sent to the complainant along with forwarding letter on
21.12.2015.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 03.02.2016 in the office of
CGRF vide letter dated 11.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The
complainant did not attend. The SDO along with his RA were present
during the hearing reiterated the written submissions.
5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has been
redressed with revision of bill on the basis of actual reading, considered
the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-78/2015
Date of Institution - 23.11.2015 Date of Order - 03.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Krishan Lal, Advocate, House No.263/1, Sector-55,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Krishan Lal, resident of Hoiuse No.263/1, Sector-55, Chandigarh
through his representation dated 23.11.2015 addressed to the SDO with
copy to CGRF submitted that the electricity bill for the period May to July
2015 was sent on some arbitrary reading though the reading
subsequently was found to be less than the new reading mentioned in
the bill. He approached the Sub Division and deposited a fee of Rs.10/-
challenging the electricity bill on 4.9.2015. Shri Surinder Kumar of
electricity department visited his premises on 30.10.015 for physical
verification of the reading. Though he was waiting for issuance of
revised bill, his electricity connection was disconnected but was restored
again when the matter was brought to the notice of J.E. concerned.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-78/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments/action taken report vide letter dated
07.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9, vide his letter dated 8.1.2016
submitted that the reading of the complainant was got verified on
30.10.2015 and revised bill was sent to the complainant on 3.12.2015.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 03.02.2016 in the office of
CGRF vide letter dated 11.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant.
5. On the date of hearing on 3.2.2016, both the complainant as well as SDO
and his RA were present. The SDO reiterated his written submissions
that an adjustment of Rs. 6120/- has been reflected in the bill issued on
22.12.2015. The consumer stated that he had paid amount in excess of
the amount due from him. The SDO stated that new reading has been
sent to Computer Cell and with the issuance of new bill, the adjustment
of excess payment made by the complainant, if any, would also be taken
care of. The SDO was directed to ensure that the next bill of the
complainant is issued after incorporating all the payments made by the
complainant. The complainant handing over written complaint addressed
to CGRF describing the events for record and reference. The
complainant may approach the CGRF again in case he is not satisfied
with the next bill issued by the electricity department.
6. With the above observations and directions, complaint considered as
disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-87/2015
Date of Institution - 21.12.2015 Date of Order - 03.02.2016
In the matter to Smt. Neelika Randev, House No.1049, 1st Floor, Sector
44-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. A complaint was received through e-mail dated 19.12.2015 (Saturday)
regarding the fluctuation in the electricity supply to the first floor of House
No.1049, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh from Smt. Neelika Randev.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-87/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments/action taken report vide letter dated
22.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9, vide his letter dated 7.1.2016
submitted that the J.E. In-charge of the area visited the site and found
that service connection at pole was carbonised resulting into slight
voltage fluctuation. The problem was set right. He also pointed out that
loose connections were found inside the consumer’s distribution box for
which the complainant was advised to get it set right at her level.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 03.02.2016 at 3.00 P.M. in the
office of CGRF vide letter dated 14.01.2016 with a copy to the
complainant. The complainant did not attend. The SDO stated that the
problem being faced by the complainant has already been identified and
set right.
5. The Forum observing that grievance of the consumer has already been
redressed, considered as complaint disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-74/2015
Date of Institution - 29.11.2015 Date of Order - 03.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Harpreet Singh, House No.1354-A, Sector-43,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Harpreet Singh, resident of House NO. 1354-A, Sector-43, Chandigarh
through e-mail dated 29 Nov. 2015 (Sunday) submitted that his water bill for
the period 15.8.2015 to 15.10.2015 was not delivered. He had to pay
surcharge after getting the duplicate bill on 23.11.2015. Regarding the
electricity bill he stated that the bill was found laying in stairs on 21 Nov. 2015
with issue date as 7th Nov. 2015 and due date by Cheque/Cash as
20.11.2015/24/11/2015. In his complaint he stressed for refund of surcharge
paid on account of non receipt of water bill.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-74/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments vide letter dated 01.12.2015 with a copy
to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9, vide his letter dated 8.1.2016
submitted that the work of distribution of the electricity bills has been
allotted to the Postal Authority and the complaint of the consumer was
sent to the Postal Authorities. He also submitted that in case of non
receipt of bill the consumer can get duplicate copy from E-Sampark
Centre/concerned electricity office or he can download the same from the
website of Electricity Department of Chandigarh Administration. He also
enclosed copy of letter written to the Superintendent, Post Office, Sector-
17, Chandigarh on the basis of the complaint.
4. The complainant submitted his written complaint in confirmation to the
e-mail as desired by the CGRF. He stressed for intimating the
department which would compensate the late payment of surcharge of
the water bill. He also enclosed copy of letter received from Senior
Superintendent of Post Office Chandigarh addressed to him. The Postal
Authorities in their letter submitted that the bills received in the post
office are being delivered on the same day or the very next day of
receipt to the addressee concerned.
5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 03.02.2016 vide letter dated
14.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant through his
e-mail dated Jan.22, 2016 expressed his inability to attend the hearing
due to his other official commitments. He again raised the issue of late
receipt of water bill. On the date of hearing, the SDO along with his RA
were present. The SDO reiterated the written submissions made to the
CGRF.
6. The CGRF observed that disputed electricity bill was paid in time and no
surcharge was levied. The SDO was directed to ensure that the
complainant’s Mobile number be got registered for delivering the
message regarding the generation of future electricity bills. So far as the
complainant submission about refund of surcharge paid by him towards
the water bill, the CGRF has no jurisdiction. The complainant is advised
to take up the issue with the concerned department/authorities. The
complaint stand disposed with above observations/orders.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-86/2015
Date of Institution - 18.12.2015 Date of Order - 04.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Akhil Kumar, House No.205, first floor Sector-38-A,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Akhil Kumar, House No.205, first floor Sector-38-A, Chandigarh vide
his application dated 14 Dec. 2015 received in the office of CGRF on 18
Dec. 2015 stated that he was being served electricity bills on average
basis since May 2014. All bills though on higher average were paid. He
requested for adjustment of bills paid on average basis.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-86/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for
submitting parawise comments vide letter dated 22.12.2015 with a copy
to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated
5.1.2016 submitted that the defective meter was replaced on 10.12.2014
due to dead stop. The consumer was billed 603 units per cycle during the
period meter remained defective i.e. from 27.01.2014 to 11.12.2014. He
further stated that on the basis of corresponding period consumption in
the year 2013, the A/c was over hauled. An amount of Rs. 1889/- to be
refunded on account of excess payment made by the consumer will be
reflected in the next bill to be issued in Feb.2016. He also supplied copy
of MCO and consumption for last 3 years.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 04.02.2016 vide letter dated
8.01.2016. Both the consumer and the SDO were present. The consumer
was provided the details to which he showed his satisfaction. He however
raised that the amount to be refunded to him be worked out on the basis
of applicable higher slab. The SDO confirmed that the amount has been
calculated as per the applicable higher slab.
5. The Forum observed that the grievance of the complainant had already
been addressed by the SDO considers the complaint as disposed. SDO
would however check up the details of the amount to be refunded to see
that the refund has been calculated at the higher slab and not lower slab
of the tariff.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-64/2015 Date of Institution - 04.11.2015 Date of Order - 04.02.2016 In the matter to Shri Tirlochan Singh, House No.5072 A, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Trilochan Singh, resident of House No. 5072 A, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh through
his complaint dated 4.11.2015 submitted that his electricity bill was being issued for much
higher amount and he apprehended the same on account of fast running of the meter. He
challenged the working of the meter after depositing the requisition fee of Rs. 250/-.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-64/2015 was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for para-wise comments
and to supply consumption data vide letter dated 5.11.2015 with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated 17.11.2015
submitted that the working of the meter was challenged by the consumer. The
meter was checked vide SJO dated 9.10.2015 by installing a check meter and was
found to be in working order. The connected load of the consumer was also
checked and found to be 3.790 KW including a split AC for 2 KW. He also supplied
the consumption data for the last three years and also the report of check meter and
the details of the connected load.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 10/11/2015 which was postponed to 11.12.2015
vide letter dated 08.12.2015 with a copy to concerned SDO and the complainant.
The complaint was also informed on telephone.
5. On the date of hearing on 11.12.2015, the complainant showed his dissatisfaction
and insisted that high consumption was on A/c of meter reading jumping. The SDO
during the hearing stated that the working of the meter was got checked by
installing check meter in series and no appreciable difference was observed in the
units recorded by both the meters during the period 17.10.2015 to 24.10.2015. The
SDO further submitted that the bills were being prepared on the basis of reading
and as such complaint be dismissed.
The Forum observed from the consumption data that the average
consumption per cycle was around 500 units for 2 months except for summer
months when the consumption was more than 1000 units for 2 months (during the
period July to September 2014). The recorded consumption during July to Sept.
2015 was 3575 units which was certainly on higher side as compared to
consumption in the past for last three years.
It was therefore decided to watch the behaviour of the meter for a longer
period. The complainant was requested to note the reading daily and to report in
case jumping was observed.
6. After waiting for almost 2 month, the case was again heard on 04.02.2016. Both
the complaint as well as SDO were present. The complainant stated that the meter
installed at his residence is of TGL make. Instances in other cases have been
noticed of meter reading jumping of this make of meter. He attributed the recording
of consumption of 3575 Units during the period July2015 to Sept.2015 due to meter
reading jumping.
The Forum estimated the 2 months consumption as per Supply Code
Regulations for the checked load of 3.790 KW and also for sanctioned load of 4.670
KW as under ( taking divesting factors as 1.0 and load factor as 50%).
Connected Load Formula Consumption
3.790 KW 3.790 x50%x24x30x2 1.0
2788
4.670 KW 4.670x50%x24x30x2 1.0
3362
“The above estimation with worst scenario (Divesting Factor 1.0 and load Factor
50%) is less than the recorded consumption of 3575 units”. The Forum from the
pattern and analysis tote consumption data did not find it to be the case of
accumulation of the reading.
On the basis of above, the Forum concluded that the high consumption of
3575 units during 2 month period may be on A/c of meter jumping. Such cases of
meter jumping of TGL make meters had also come to the notice of the Forum in the
past in some cases.
Decision
On the basis of above, the Forum directs the Nodal officer to over haul the
disputed period of July to Sept. 2015 on the basis of consumption recorded during
the corresponding period in the year 2014. The TGL meter be also replaced on
priority.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order
failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections
of the Electricity Act 2003.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 510 Date of Institution - 4.10.2013 Date of Order - 05.02.2016 In the matter to Shri Ram Saran Sikander, Shop No. 148/1, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Ram Saran Skander, Shop No. 1481/1, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh
submitted a written complaint on 4.10.2013, that on 18.4.2013, Shri Jatinder Parshad J.E.
of the Sub Division after checking the meter told that the meter seals have been tempered
with. He called the SDO for registering a Police Case and disconnection of electricity
supply. The penalty amounting to Rs.2,12,532/- was imposed and he was asked to deposit
Rs.1,10,000/- immediately failing which the supply was to be disconnected. The payment
was made under protest. After some days, Shri Jatinder Parshad J.E. contacted him and
told that he will get the payment (made by him) refunded and asked Rs.50,000/- from the
son of the applicant. Later on Rs.20,000/- was agreed upon. His son made a complaint to
the Vigilance Department, U.T., Chandigarh and Shri Jatinder Parshad was caught red
handed while accepting the bribe amount from the son of the applicant. Sh. Jatinder
Parshad was put in Judicial custody since 13th June 2013. Subsequently the SDO served
the notice on 19.6.2013 demanding Rs.1, 62,532/-, towards balance payment of the
penalty.
The applicant stated that they have been making payment regularly for the last 30 years
and no irregularity was ever found. The main allegation was that the plate installed in front
of the meter was placed inside out. He stated that the seals on the plate were in their
original position. Though he was told that meter would be got checked within 7 days in his
presence but same was not done. He challenged the imposing of penalty and prayed that
penalty amount may be set aside and Rs.1,10,000/- already deposited be got refunded. He
enclosed copy of checking report, initial assessment order, Notice and Bills along with his
application.
2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division
No. 2 were called on the application of the consumer along with consumption data
with directions that the supply of the consumer should not be disconnected and only
consumption charge of the current bill be accepted vide letter dated 7.10.2013.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8, vide his letter dated 25.10.2013
submitted that the case is covered under Section 126 of the Electricity Act
(subsequently case was treated as theft under section135) are not maintainable
before the Forum. He also stated that complaint filed by Shri Ram Saran Skinder
before the Parament Lok Adalat on 4.7.2013 was dismissed for non Prosecution.
He enclosed copy of the order of Permanent Lok Adalat along with his reply.
4. The complaint was treated as formal complaint No. 510 and was fixed for
consideration of the Forum on 17.1.2014 vide letter dated 19.12.2013. The hearing
was attended by the SDO only, but the complainant did not attend. One Shri
Gulshan Kumar appeared but without any authority letter. The SDO was directed to
submit copy of ECR, MCO and consumption data before the next hearing to be
conducted on 17.2.2014.
5. In the meanwhile the complainant vide his letter dated 13.2.2014, in addition to his
main application, further submitted that the case made under theft of electricity was
not in order. The penalty imposed was not as per guidelines/rules made by JERC
and he requested for checking of meter in the Laboratory. The concerned SDO
‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 12.2.2014 submitted reply on merit in
addition to raising preliminary objections vide his written reply dated 25.10.2013 as
mentioned in para 3 above. He submitted that on checking of electricity meter the
meter seals were found tempered with and accordingly the proceedings were
initiated by the department treating the case as theft of electricity as per Section 135
of the Electricity Act 2003. With regard to the applicant allegations about Shri
Jatinder Parshad, the SDO submitted that he was conducting a routine inspection
when he found that M&P seals of the electricity meter provided at the shop of the
applicant were found tempered with. On the call of the J.E., the SDO reached the
spot and found that the seals were tempered with loose wires moving in both seal,
besides the front glass cover fitted on the electricity meter was found in the wrong
direction implying that electricity meter was tempered. The ECR No. 30/676 dated
18.4.2013 was prepared and case was treated as theft of electricity. The meter was
removed and was packed in a card board box duly sealed with paper seal with
signature of the checking officer as well as son of the consumer. The penalty
amount was assessed as Rs.2,12,532/- as per JERC Regulations, Provisional
assessment notice was issued and the supply was disconnected. The applicant
deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on 23.4.2013 but the balance amount of
Rs.1,62,532/- was not deposit despite promise. He also supplied the consumption
details, initial assessment order, ECR, final assessment notice along with final
assessment order in the initial notice dated 18.4.2013.
6. Further hearings were conducted on 17.2.2014, 21.3.2014 and 19.5.2014. The SDO
was directed to get the electricity meter tested from the Lab. The SDO, however,
stated that a civil case was pending in the Court and thus stated that it would be
better to wait for the decision of the Court before the electricity meter is got tested.
Which was never got tested by department as said to complaint & reply submitted to
Forum of dated 12.02.2014. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8 vide his letter
dated 16.6.2014 in confirmation to the discussion in the hearing on 19.5.2014
confirmed that the meter in question is packed in a card board box duly sealed with
paper seal. With regard to testing the same in the M&P Lab he stated that since the
related case to the Account No. MA42/054400E/premises is pending before the
Hon’ble District Court, it would be appropriate to wait till the decision of the Hon’ble
District Court. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 16.6.2014, 30.7.2014,
4.9.2014, 7.10.2014, 30.10.2014, 16.12.2014 and 18.8.2015. During all these
hearings the complainant stated that a connected case on account of arrest of Shri
Jatinder Parshad J.E. of the Sub Division for accepting bribe for settling the present
case is pending in the court and requested for adjournment. The Nodal Officer i.e.
Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 SDO Sub Division No. 8 raised no
objection and adjournment was granted to the applicant.
7. The case was listed for final hearing on 5.2.2016 after a News item appeared about
disposal of the case of Shri Jatinder Parshad J.E. by the District Court, Chandigarh.
The department issued two notices to the complainant. First notice was under
section 126 and the final notice was under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 after
the department noticed that first notice was issued inadvertently as per the record
submitted to the Forum by the Sub Division.
On 5.2.2016 Shri Gulshan Kumar on behalf of the applicant confirmed that the
case of Sh. Jatinder Parshad has already been decided by the court. He further
confirmed that there was no reference of the case pending with CGRF in the
decision by the Hon’ble Court. The Nodal Office Xen. ‘OP’ Divn.No.2/SDO ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.8 present during the hearing stated that the case falls under Section
135 of the Electricity Act 2003 and does not fall within jurisdiction of the CGRF.
The Forum explained that as per the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer) Regulations,
2009 notified on 31 July. 2009 clearly provides that any grievance arising out of
application of section 135 shall not be considered as complaint. The attention was
drawn towards definition (e) under Regulation 2 which reads as under:
“(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum
seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of electricity by the
licensee. Provided that the following shall not be considered as the complaint.
(i) Any grievance arising out of applicant of sections
126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of the Act.”
Forum concludes that it has no jurisdiction in the present case.
With above observation, the case is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-67/2015 Date of Institution - 15.11.2015
Date of Order - 05.02.2016
In the matter to Shri S.S. Sandhu, House No.6385A, Rajeev Vihar,
Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri S.S. Sandhu, owner of the premises at House No.6385A, Rajeev
Vihar, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 15th Nov. 2015
made a complaint that his last bill issued for the period 11.9.2015 to
10.10.2015 is not in line with the earlier billing periods. Whereas the
earlier billing periods were for 2 months, the bill under consideration
was issued for one month. He raised that payable amount for one month
can not be equivalent to the average billing for earlier billing periods for
two months.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-67/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for
para-wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated 16.11.2015
with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8, vide his letter dated
30.11.2015 submitted para-wise comments stating that the energy
meter of the complainant was replaced on 11.9.2015 being electro
mechanical meter. The energy bill amounting to Rs. 3778/- was
prepared for the period 10.8.2015 to 10.10.2015 (2 Months) but
because of entry of date of MCO and the readings of the new meter, it
appeared that the bill was for one month duration.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 6.1.2016, the complainant did not
attend. The SDO present during the hearing reiterated his written
submissions. As the consumer did not attend, it was decided to afford
one more opportunity. On the next date of hearing on 5.2.2016 again
the consumer did not appear. The Xen ‘OP’ Divn. No.2 present during
the hearing confirmed that the consumer was making payment regularly
of the bills being rendered to him.
In view of the position explained by the Licensee, the Forum is of
the view that the disputed bill was in fact for two months duration only
and not one month duration as contested by the complainant. In view of
the above, the complaint is dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 692
Date of Institution - 23.6.2014 Date of Order - 09.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Taran Deep Singh, Deputy Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Taran Deep Singh, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., SCO 177-178, Madhya Marg, Sector 8, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 23.6.2014, received in the office of CGRF on 26.6.2014, stated
that they made payment against two bills in different account number
wrongly due to oversight instead of making payment in their own
Account number for the electricity connection. He requested for refund
of the payment wrongly paid by them in other account. He also provided
the details of the payment made and the account number.
2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 were called vide letter dated 27.6.2014.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2, vide his letter dated 7.7.2014
submitted his reply confirming that the payment as state by the applicant
were received in the Account No. mentioned by him. He, however,
stated that as per their record, it is not possible to verify who made the
payment against the particular account. It is normally presumed that the
payment has been made by the consumer who is using the electricity or
some other person on his behalf. He expressed his inability to transfer
the payment entries from one account to another account unless both
the parties agree to it or submit proof in the support of claim. He also
stated that both the electricity connections are in the same name, i.e.
Shri Om Parkash. He suggested to resolve/sought the matter between
the parties with mutual consent. He also confirmed that there was no
outstanding payment against any of the two accounts.
4. The case was registered as complaint No. 692 and was fixed for hearing
on 14.5.2015. The complainant in the mean time submitted an affidavit
to CGRF on dated 15.4.2015 along with copies of bills and details of
payment made from United India Insurance Co. Account in support of his
application. On the basis of this affidavit, the present owner of the SCO
i.e. Shri D.S. Mohi was also requested to make it convenient to attend
the hearing on 14.5.2015. The owner of other connection Sh. D.S Mohi
as well as complainant and the concerned Xen./SDO were present during
hearing on 14.5.2015. During deliberation, Shri D.S. Mohi the owner in
whose account the payment was made by the applicant, agreed to settle
the issue mutually.
5. The case was again notified for hearing on 12.8.2015. The complainant
present during the hearing submitted that the negotiation with the
owner for settlement are going on an may take some more time. SDO
present during the hearing did not raise any objection to the request
made by the applicant for granting some time.
6. The final hearing was conducted on 9.2.2016 when the complainant,
Shri D.S. Mohi and the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 were present. It was
clarified by the SDO that it is among the complainant and the owner in
whose account payment was wrongly made, to resolve/settle the issue.
Both the complainant as well as owner agreed to settle the issue
amicably at their own level.
7. With above mutual settlement, the case is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-56/2015
Date of Institution - 30.9.2015 Date of Order - 09.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Kulwant Singh, House No.1512, Sector 11-B,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Kulwant Singh, resident of House No.1512, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh
vide his representation dated 30.9.2015 stated that his bill for the period
1.6.2015 to 21.8.2015 was excessive in view of the fact that no major
electrical equipment like A.C., T.V. was in use during that period. The
main portion of the house remained locked and unused during the
period. He attributed such consumption to the meter being faulty.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-56/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for
para-wise comments, relevant details along with consumption data vide
letter dated 9.10.2015 with a copy to the complainant. Due to non
receipt of reply, reminder was issued to the Nodal Officer vide letter
dated 17.11.2015.
3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide
his letter dated 24.11.2015 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE
‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2,
submitted that the bill for the disputed period of June 2015 to August
2015 was prepared on actual consumption shown by the meter for 698
units. The reading and working of the meter was got verified from the
J.E. and was found to be in order. Further he stated that earlier
mechanical meter was installed which was replaced on 28.4.2015. On
the basis of consumption, he stated that bill of the consumer was
correctly prepared. He enclosed consumption data along with copy of
MCO and report of J.E.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 7.1.2016, the complainant did not
attend. The case was renotified for hearing on 9.2.2016 to afford one
more opportunity to the complainant. The complainant did not appear
on 9.2.2016 either.
5. Observations and Decision:
From the consumption pattern for the year 2013-14, 2014-15,
2015-16, it was noted that the consumption in the past was ranging from
109 to 848 units. The consumption of 716 units was recorded during the
period February to April 2015. The forum is of the view that the
consumption of 698 units, being contested by him, is pertaining to the
peak summer period and is very much possible.
In view of the above and fact that the meter working was found in
order, the Forum does not find any merit and dismissed the complaint.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-14/2016
Date of Institution - 20.01.2016 Date of Order - 09.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, House No.50, Sector 10-A,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, resident of House No.50, Sector 10-A,
Chandigarh submitted a complaint in the office of CGRF on 20.1.2016.
He submitted that after death of Shri Hartej Singh on 4.3.2007, his
property share in SCO No.40-41, Sector 9-D was transferred in his name.
Till June 2012, the SCO consisting of basement, Ground Floor, 1st floor
and 2nd floor was tenanted. On 22.6.2012 the 2nd floor and on 8.2.2013
the ground floors were vacated by the tenants. The business in the
basement with separate meter in the name of tenant was also shut down
through Court order on 30.9.2014. Thus in October 2014 only occupied
floor of the building was 1st floor and rest of the building was totally
vacant and unoccupied. During this time, the electricity bill for
consumption of 377555 units amounting to Rs.1,87,272/- was issued.
He attributed the high consumption on account of meter malfunctioning
and the matter was got to the notice of the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2.
He deposited part payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and requested the SDO for
reconciliation of his account. Subsequently the meter was changed but
the account was not overhauled and amount continued to appear as
arrear in the subsequent bills. It was requested that during the period
meter was defective, the charging be done on the basis of previous
average consumption. Stating that the present amount has gone to
Rs.30,91,475/-, he requested to direct the Electricity Department to
reconcile his account.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-14/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for
para-wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated 27.1.2016 with
a copy to the complainant. It was also requested that the reply be
furnished by 5.2.2016 and the case would be taken up for hearing on
9.2.2016.
3. On the date of hearing on 09.02.2016 the complainant as well as SDO
were present. The Forum observed that the written submissions were
awaited from the Nodal Officer. The SDO, however, confirmed that bill
of the complainant has already been corrected after overhauling of the
account. Final hand written bill had already been issued after getting it
audited. The complainant stated that he has not received the revised bill
till date. He however, showed his satisfaction to the action taken by the
SDO.
4. The SDO was directed to submit the written reply with copy to the
complainant and also to ensure that the corrected bill is delivered to the
complainant. He is also to ensure that the necessary advice is sent to the
Computer Centre so that the next bill prepared by the computer
incorporates sundry allowance and depicts the correct payment to be
made by the complainant. The complainant may approach the CGRF
again in case he is not satisfied with the overhauling done by the SDO.
5. This is an interim order and in case the complainant shows his
dissatisfaction, another hearing will be conducted before the final order is
issue. However in case, the complainant does not approach CGRF, this
order would be treated as final order. However in case, the complainant
does not approach CGRF, this order would be treated as final order.
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - IA in GR-14/2016
Date of Institution - 20.01.2016 Date of Order - 29.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, House No.50, Sector
10-A, Chandigarh,
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal vide his complaint dated 20.1.2016 pointed
out wrong charging by Sub Division. After conducting the hearing on
9.2.2016, the SDO stated that the bill of the consumer was corrected as
per his complaint and the consumer showing satisfaction. Interim order
were issued on 20.1.2016 with the following directions:-
(4) The SDO was directed to submit the written reply with copy to the
complainant and also to ensure that the corrected bill is delivered to the complainant. He is also to ensure that the necessary advice is
sent to the Computer Centre so that the next bill prepared by the computer incorporates sundry allowance and depicts the correct
payment to be made by the complainant. The complainant may approach the CGRF again in case he is not satisfied with the
overhauling done by the SDO. (5) This is an interim order and in case the complainant shows his
dissatisfaction, another hearing will be conducted before the final
order is issue. However in case, the complainant does not approach CGRF, this order would be treated as final order. However in case,
the complainant does not approach CGRF, this order would be treated as final order.”
2. The complainant vide his interlocutory application dated 19.2.2016
showed his dissatisfaction to the relief provided by the Sub Division while
overhauling of his account after receipt of the bill. He specifically pointed
out that the amount charged for the meter remained defective was much
higher as the entire first floor was lying vacant except for the tenant
dealing with Silver Jewellery whose consumption was not more than
Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. He, therefore, requested to withdraw the
revised bill dated 9.2.2016 for Rs.5,17,087/-.
3. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 were
called vide letter dated 24.2.2016. Simultaneously the case was
notified for hearing on 29.3.2016.
4. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 18.3.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly countersigned. The
Sub Division submitted that disputed bill of the consumer for the period
8/2014 to 10/2014 for 377555 units was revised on the basis of
previous consumption i.e. 39892 units. The ACD was also revised
accordingly along with late payment surcharge. Regarding the building
remaining vacant, he stated that no intimation was given to the sub
division. He also supplied the consumption for last three years and
photo copy of MCO. While concluding, he stated that the revision was
in order as the same is comparable with the future consumption.
5. During the hearing on 29.3.2016, the complainant as well as RA of the
Sub Division were present. The complainant stated that the building
has 4 connections. Basement has two connections and top floor has
one for which there is no dispute. The electricity connection against
which dispute arose is feeding ground floor, first floor and part of 2nd
floor. The 2nd floor was vacated by HSBC in June 2012 for which he had
provided requisite supporting documents along with his application
dated 20.1.2016 as Annexure 3. This floor remained vacant till Middle
of 2015. The ground floor was vacated on 8.2.2013 by the tenant
named Real Choclate Pvt. Ltd. for which the requisite documents were
annexed as Annexure-4 in the original application.
6. From the consumption data provided by the sub division, it was noted
that consumption prior to 4/2013 was not available and as such it was
not possible to co-relate the statement with the dropped consumption
as both the tenants vacated prior to April 2013. The RA, therefore,
was directed to provide consumption for the year 2011 & 2012 also to
verify that the consumption first dropped after June 2012 and further
after Feb.2013 when two tenants vacated the building respectively.
7. The Sub Division the consumption detail from April 2011 to April 2013
on 31.3.2016. On scrutiny it has been noted that after Dec,2012, the
consumption dropped around 40,000 units to around 15000 to 20,000
units bi-monthly and thus tallied with the complainant statement that
the two tenants vacated the premises by 8.2.2013
It has also been noted that the disputed consumption of 3,77,555
units during August 2014 to October 2014 was overhauled with 39893
units. This consumption of 39,892 units is for 4 months from April 2014
to August 2014 and not for 2 months and also matches with the past
consumption of 20,000 units bi-monthly and statement of the
complainant that major portion of building was vacant when the meter
became defective during August 2014.
8. On the basis of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the
account of the complainant during the meter remained defective i.e. from
8/2014 to 4/2015 on the basis of consumption recorded during the
corresponding period i.e. 8/2013 to 4/2014. Compliance be reported
within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties
may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003.
9. With above directions, complaint is disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by
the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs,
“Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-13/2015
Date of Institution - 8.7.2015 Date of Order - 10.02.2016
In the matter to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, SCO 84,
Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, SCO 84, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh
submitted a complaint dated 8.7.2015 (through e-mail) regarding excess
bill dated 25 June, 2015. It was stated that the sundry charges of
Rs.1,18,411/- were levied on account of meter dead stop in the past.
The main objection raised by the complainant was that when bills were
being raised on average basis during the period the meter was dead the
levy of charges at this stage for that period could not be done.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-13/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for
supplying parawise comments vide letter dated 09.07.2015 with a copy
to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6, vide his letter dated
23.7.2015 submitted parawise reply that the dead stop meter of the
complainant was replaced on 17.10.2014. The account of the consumer
from 25.10.2012 to 17.10.2014 was overhauled due to meter being dead
stop on the basis of previous consumption recorded during the
corresponding period i.e. from July 2010 to July 2011 @ 2497 units Per
month. An amount of Rs.1,18,411/- was found to be charged less and
accordingly the same was debited to the account. He also supplied the
past as well as future consumption data of the complainant.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 8.9.2015. The complainant did
not attend on 8.9.2015. Ms. Ambica, Branch Manager, however, visited
the CGRF Office on 9.9.2015 and collected the reply submitted by tthe
SDO.
5. Another hearing was called on 30.9.2015 which was attended by Shri
Harish Rehlam Manager as well as Ms. Ambica Branch Manager on behalf
of the complainant besides SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.6. The main plea
taken by the complainant was that the average charged during the
period meter remained defective should not be altered.
6. In response to query by the complainant, the SDO confirmed that all
payments made by the complainant in the past were accounted for while
calculating the short assessment amount of Rs.1.18 lac. The
complainant requested for supplying the following details.
i) Tariff at which amount charged.
ii) Total amount paid by the Bank during the disputed period.
iii) Total demand raised by the department.
7. The SDO supplied parawise details vide letter dated 29.12.2015. He
stated that NRS tariff was charged and the consumer made total payment
of Rs.1,98,283/- during the disputed period which was adjusted while
calculating the short assessment. With regard to calculation of average
he stated that the total consumption during the base period taken from
25.7.2010 to 25.7.2011 was 29969 units i.e. @ 2497 units per month.
He also supplied break-up of SOP, FPPC and ED raised during the
disputed period and also break-up of the amount paid and the difference
to be recovered from the complainant.
8. The case was again heard on 10.2.2016, Shri Harish Rehlam and Ms.
Ambica were present on behalf of the complainant. The case was
deliberated and the details provided by the SDO were shared with them.
The Forum while going through the consumption data supplied by the
SDO observed that the meter had become defective during the period
7/11 to 9/11 where as the Licensee calculated the short assessment only
for a period of 2 years prior to the date of MCO (17.10.2014) probably in
view of provision of Sect ion 56(2) of the Electricity. Act 2003.
9. Decision:
In view of the factual position that the meter became defective
during the period 7/11 to 9/11, the Forum is of the view that the
overhauling of the account is to be done from the period 7/11 to date of
MCO i.e. 17.10.2014. The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the
account from the period 7/11 to 17.10.2014 on the basis of consumption
recorded during the period 7/10 to 7/11. As the Licensee will be raising
lump sum amount for one year or so the complainant is given liberty to
make the payment in six equal instalment without levy of surcharge, if he
so desires. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order
failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections
of the Electricity Act 2003.
10. With the above observations and directions, complaint considered as
disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
11. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-49/2015
Date of Institution - 29.9.2015 Date of Order - 11.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Amandeep Singh, House No.2808, Sector 22-C,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Amandeep Singh, resident of House No.2808, Sector 22-C,
Chandigarh through his e-mail dated September 29, 2015 stated that the
electricity meter installed at his residence were replaced about six
months back and thereafter he is receiving inflated high consumption bill
for his connection at ground floor. He attributed high consumption to the
meter being faulty.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-49/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for
para-wise comments vide letter dated 29.9.2015 with a copy to the
complainant. Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated time,
reminders were issued on 14.10.2015, 5.11.2015 and 17.11.2015.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 vide his letter dated 19.11.2015
submitted the reply that the working of the concerned meter was got
checked on 17.11.2015 and as per report of the J.E. working of the
meter was found in order. Further the connected load of the consumer
was found to be 9.060 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.520 KW.
The SDO, therefore, stated that the consumer is liable to pay charge for
load surcharge, ACD and other related charge for regularisation of load.
He also stated that bills were issued on the basis of reading recorded by
the meter and bills issued in the past are correct. Checking report along
with detail of connected load was also enclosed with the reply.
4. On the date of haring (15.12.2015) only SDO was present but the
consumer did not appear. The SDO submitted consumption data for the
ground floor for last more than three years. From the consumption data
it was noted that the consumption of 209,333,567,759 and 651 were
recorded after the replacement of the meter during December 2014
which is possible with C.L of 9.0 K.W. However, it was decided to afford
one more opportunity to the complainant to present his views.
5. Again on the next date of hearing on 11.2.2016, neither the complainant
appeared nor any message was received from him. Only SDO and RA
were present. The Forum the view that the recorded consumption is
possible with the connected load found at the premises of the consumer.
On the basis of submissions by the SDO including checking report of
the meter, the Forum does not find any merit and dismiss the complaint.
As the connected load was found to be more than the sanctioned load,
the complainant may take up the matter with the Sub Division for
regularisation of load by depositing the requisite charges.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-70/2015
Date of Institution - 18.11.2015 Date of Order - 11.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Arun Kumar, House No.1665, Sector 23-A,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Arun Kumar, resident of House No.1665, Sector 23-, Chandigarh
through his letter dated 18.11.2015 stated that the trees are required to
be pruned as branches are touching live wires near his house. He also
raised issue of sanctioning of load at the time of transfer.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-70/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for
comments vide letter dated 24.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated time, reminders were issued
on 11.12.2015 and 14.1.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 vide his letter dated 25.1.2016
submitted that the exercise of pruning of trees touching the electric lines
is done by the department on regular basis whenever required. He
confirmed that pruning of the tree branches near the L.T. lines in the
area near to the house of the complainant was done after receipt of the
complaint.
The other issue raised by the complainant was not clear to him and
he requested for more specific details for filing the reply. The concerned
Xen. also forwarded the reply of the SDO duly countersigned vide his
letter dated 1.2.2016.
4. On the date of hearing on 11.2.2016, the complainant as well as
concerned SDO were present. The complainant showed his satisfaction to
the pruning of the trees done by the Electricity Department. With regard
to second issue raised in the complaint, he explained that when a
Government employee shift residence in another house allotted to him,
he has to complete all the formalities for getting a new connection. He
requested that payment of ACD and other charges should not be insisted
from the Government employees in such cases and the amount lying at
the credited of the person be transferred to the new connection. He was
explained that no such provision exist in the Supply Code Regulations
notified by the Hon’ble JERC and as such are beyond the purview of the
Forum.
5. With the above observations, complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-18/2016
Date of Institution - 01.02.2016 Date of Order - 11.02.2016
In the matter to Smt. Neelam Grover, House No.1254, Progressive
Enclave, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Neelam Grover through her representation dated 1.2.2016 stated
that a Electricity connection exists at SCO No.2, Top Floor, Sector 23-C,
Chandigarh in her name. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.1 through notice
dated 18.12.2015 demanded Rs.54,726/- on account of recovery of
outstanding amount of another electricity connection. She briefly stated
that the electricity connection at top floor is in her name and she is
paying the bills regularly for the last six years. The demand raised by
the SDO is against another account in the same SCO (ground floor) with
connection is in different name. She stated that she had also given
representation to concerned SDO stating that the outstanding of the
electricity connection in the name of Shri Satish Kumar Vohra, to which
she has no link could not be recovered from her. Enclosing all the related
documents, she requested for issuance of directions to the SDO for not
disconnecting her electricity supply of the top floor.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-18/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 1.2.2016 with the directions to submit the reply on priority
by 8th Feb. 2016 to take a view on the request by the complainant for not
to disconnect her supply on account of non payment of a mount
demanded through notice. Simultaneously the Nodal Officer was
conveyed that case would be heard on 11.2.2016 to take final view.
3. On 11.2.2016 Shri Anil Grover, Husband of the complainant was present
along with authority letter besides SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 and his RA.
The Forum observed that no written reply was filed by the Nodal Officer.
The representative of the complainant argued that the outstanding
amount of a different consumer could not be recovered from them as the
connection at top floor exist in their name where as the outstanding
amount of ground floor belongs to connection in the name of the owner.
The SDO confirmed that the electricity connection at the top floor was in
the name of the applicant whereas defaulting amount pertains to another
connection at ground floor of the same SCO which is in the name of the
owner. To a specific query the SDO could not quote the regulations as
per which the defaulting amount of one consumer can be recovered from
other consumer though the connection may be in the same
premises/building.
4. The Forum observed that the Sub Regulations 10 of Rule 9.2 provides:-
“(10) Where any consumer having more than one connection defaults in payment of dues relating to one of the connections.”
From the above, it is clear that the defaulting amount against one
connection can only be recovered from the connection if it is in the name
of same consumer. As in the present case both the connections are in
different name, the Forum concludes that the defaulting amount of
ground floor against the electricity connection in the name of Shri Satish
Kumar can not be recovered from the electricity connection in the name
of Smt. Neelam Grover. Accordingly notice issued by the SDO dated
18.12.2015 is set aside.
5. With the above decision, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-75 of 2015 Date of Institution - 01.12.2015 Date of Order - 16.02.2016 In the matter Sh. Balraj Singh Dhanda, House No. 113, Gali No. 8-C, Shant nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.08, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
7. Sh. Balraj Singh Dhanda, resident of House No. 113, Gali No. 8-C Shant nagar,
Manimajar, Chandigarh through his application dated 01.12.2015 attributed high
consumption bill of 5518 units for the period June to August 2015 to mistake in
taking reading. He stated that such consumption was not possible as he was not
using any AC. He also deposited Rs 150/- for challenging the meter.
8. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-75 of 2015, was forwarded to the
Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for comments vide letter dated 02.12.2015.
9. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 11.12.2015
submitted the reply duly counter singed by XEN. He submitted that the working the
meter was got checked through JE by installing a check meter. No variation in
consumption recorded by both the meters concluded that the working of the meter
was ok. He also supplied the consumption data, the check meter report.
10. On the date of hearing on 16.02.2016, the complainant stated that high consumption
of 5518 units during June 2015 to August 2015 could be due to meter reading
jumping. The RA representing the Sub Division informed that the connected load
was also got checked by JE on 9.12.2015 and was found to be 1.720 K.W against
sanctioned load of 2.0 K.W
11. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub division, The Forum noted that from
February to June 2015 the consumption was more or less consistant with average in
the range of 450-500 units. The Forum also ruled out that it could be a case of
accumulation of reading as the consumption was consistant.
The Forum also noted that the meter was of TGL make which experienced
jumping of reading in the past in many other cases. On the basis of actual CL of
1.720 K.W, the assessment of units as per ABCD formula as given in ANN 7 of
Supply code was found to be 1238 units for 2 months even after considering the full
CL running for 12 hours a day continuously. (1.72 K.W X 12hours X 30 days X2
months).
12. On the basis of above, the Forum concludes that the high consumption during the
disputed period from June to August 2015 could he on account of jumping of reading
by the meter. The meter being TGL make has experienced reading jumping in the
past in many other cases.
13. In view of above, The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account during the
period June to August 2015 with the consumption recorded during the corresponding
period in the Year 2014 and get the meter replaced. Compliance be reported within
21 days failing which action may taken by JERC as per relevant sections of the E
Act 2003.
14. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana),
Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-05of 2016 Date of Institution - 12.01.2016 Date of Order - 16.02.2016 In the matter Sh. Sadan Pal, House No. 2619, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.08, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Sadan Pal, resident of House No. 2619, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh
through his application dated 12.01.2016 stated that he received high consumption
bill in September 2015. He attributed the high consumption to jumping of meter
reading.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. GR-05 of 2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for comments vide letter dated 14.01.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 25.01.2016
submitted his comments duly countersigned by XEN. The SDO submitted that bill
for the period 21.03.2015 to 21.07.2015 was issued on actual reading recorded by
meter for 10158 units amounting to Rs 54,482/-, The working of energy meter was
got checked and found ok. He also enclosed the consumption data.
4. On the date of hearing on 16.02.2016, the complainant stated that they have only 1
Fridge, one TV and Fan besides light points. In response to a specific query he
stated that there are no AC in their 2 room house. The RA representing the Sub
Division informed that the meter installed was single phase meter of TGL make and
the sanctioned load was 0.080 K.W.
5. The Forum from the consumption data observed that the during the period
September 2011 to March 2015, the consumption was consistant in the range of 16-
390 units for 2 months. On the basis of consistant consumption the case of
accumulation of reading was ruled out.
The Forum further noted that the disputed consumption of 10158 units for 4
months period from 21.03.2015 to 21.07.2015 is not possible with CL of around 1
K.W. The maximum possible consumption for 1 K.W load could be 1440 units
pressuring that all the load is run for 12 hours a day continuously (1 K.W. X12 hours
X 30 days X 4 months).
6. On the basis of above, the Forum concludes that the high consumption during the
disputed period from March to July 2015 could be on account of jumping of reading
by the meter. The meter being TGL make has experienced reading jumping in the
past in many other cases.
7. The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account during the period March to July
2015 with the consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the Year
2014. Compliance be reported within 21 days failing which action may taken by
JERC as per relevant sections of the E Act 2003.
8. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana),
Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-88of2015 Date of Institution - 21.12.2015 Date of Order - 16.02.2016 In the matter Sh. Ussman, House No. 1830, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.08, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Sh. Ussman, resident of House No1830, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh
through his application dated 21.12.2015 stated that he received high consumption
bill in November 2015. He attributed the high consumption to meter being faulty.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-88 of 2015 was forwarded to the
Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for comments vide letter dated 22.12.2015.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 05.01.2016
submitted his comments duly countersigned by XEN. The SDO submitted that bill
for the period 07.06.2015 to 07.10.2015 (4 months) was issued on actual reading
recorded by meter for 11196 units amounting to Rs 48,750/-, The working of
energy meter was got checked and found ok. He also enclosed the consumption
data.
4. On the date of hearing on 16.02.2016, the complainant stated that they have only
one cooler, 1 Fridge, one TV and Fan besides light points (CFL). In response to a
specific query, he stated that there are no AC’s in their 2 room house. The RA
representing the Sub Division informed that the meter installed was single phase
meter of AVON make and the sanctioned load was 800 Watt.
5. The Forum from the consumption data observed that the during the period
December 2013 to June 2015, the consumption was consistant. The average was in
the range of 200-250 units except for 2 months. The Forum did not find this as case
of accumulation of reading.
The Forum further noted that the disputed consumption of 11196 units for 4
months period from 07.06.2015 to 07.10.2015 is not possible with CL of around 1
K.W. The maximum possible consumption for 1 K.W load could be 1440 units
pressuring that all the load is run for 12 hours a day continuously (1 K.W. X12
hours X 30 days X 4 months).
6. On the basis of above, the Forum concludes that the high consumption during the
disputed period from June to October 2015 could be on account of meter being
faulty/jumping of reading by the meter.
7. The Forum further observed that during the corresponding period in the Year 2014,
the recorded consumption was again quite on higher side (4841 units for 6 months
period from April 2014 to October 2014) which could be in a/c of accumulation/wrong
recording of the reading in the past.
8. In view of above observations, The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account
during the period June to October 2015. on the basis of lower of consumption
worked out as under:
a) The assessment of units be worked out on the basis of ABCD formula as
given in Ann. 7 under 1.1 of the supply code Regulations on the basis of
actual connected load ( to be checked by deputing an official). The load
/diversity factor for lighting/ cooling load etc be taken as per the table.
b) The average consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2014.
The Nodal officer is also directed to replace the meter.
Compliance be reported within 21 days failing which action may taken by JERC as
per relevant sections of the E Act 2003.
9. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana),
Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-22of 2016
Date of Institution - 05.02.2016 Date of Order - 23.02.2016
In the matter Shri Amrik Singh, House No.1136, Sector 21-B,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.03, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Amrik Singh, resident of House No.1136, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh
submitted a fresh application on dated 5.2.2016 in the office of CGRF on
8.2.2016. He stated that Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 / SDO ‘OP’ Sub
Division No.3, Chandigarh for violated the Hon’ble Ombudsman Order
dated 28.12.2015 in Appeal No.60/2015. He stated that he received 3
Nos. Electricity bills each dated 8.1.2016 as per following details
(a) amounting to Rs.16700/- including arrears of Rs.15763/-,
(b) Rs.3433/- including arrears of Rs.2743/- and (c) Rs.812/-. His supply
was disconnected on 28th Jan. 2016 for the two connections which had
arrears i.e. as per (a) and (b) above. He stated that action taken by the
SDO was not correct as the department is entitled to have current dues
payment only. He further stated that earlier supply was also
disconnected and he was forced to pay Rs.12136/-. He requested for
restoration of his supply and correction of the bill for the actual current
bill without any arrears.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. GR-022 of 2016 was
forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for comments
vide letter dated 08.02.2016. Simultaneously the case was listed for
hearing on 23.2.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated
12.2.2016 submitted para-wise comments stating that the Hon’ble
Ombudsman order is very clear as under:-
“The consumer is directed to make the outstanding dues to the
Electricity Department within 15 days of the issue of this order or face disconnection”.
He stated that the total outstanding amount was Rs.16700/- which
also includes Rs.8386/- (Bill for the period 4/2014 to 6/2014) as
mentioned by the complainant in Para 1 of his complaint. The due date
for the payment was 25.1.2016. The bill dated 8.1.2016 was for the
period 4.10.2015 to 4.12.2015 amounting to Rs.16058/- including
arrears of Rs.15763/- . The total defaulting amount after due date
became Rs.16700/- which was paid by the consumer on 9.2.2016. The
second bill dated 8.1.2016 for Rs.3301/- was also for the period
4.10.2015 to 4.12.2015 including arrears of Rs.2943/- which after due
date became Rs.3433/-. This defaulting amount was also paid by the
consumer on 9.2.2016. With regard to 3rd bill dated 5.1.2016 he
submitted that the same did not relate to his office. In response to para
3 of the complaint, the SDO stated that the supply was disconnected as
per Hon’ble Ombudsman order dated 28.12.2015 after serving a notice
vide Memo. No. 104-105 dated 8.1.2016 to deposit defaulting amount
within 15 days. The supply was disconnected after waiting for more than
20 days of issuance of notice. He denied that there is no any violation of
the Hon’ble Ombudsman order dated 28.12.2015. He further stated that
the case has already been discussed and disposed of by Hon’ble
Ombudsman and as such is not maintainable in CGRF. He also denied
that the charges levelled by the complainant regarding mala-fide
intention of his office to harass any consumer. He closed his submissions
stating that the supply has already been restored after the consumer
cleared the defaulting amount and paid reconnection fee for both the
connections.
4. On the date of hearing on 23.2.2016, the consumer did not appear. The
SDO reiterated his written submissions.
5. The Forum observing that the connections have already been restored,
considers the complaint as disposed. With regard to issuance of bills, the
SDO submitted that the bills issued to the complainant were in order and
needs no correction. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to supply
the details of the bills in respect f A/ No. 303/2144/113604K issued to the
complainant from the date of last payment made by him in the year
2013. The details should indicate the breakup of current consumption
charges, arrears, surcharge and payments made and should be supplied
to the complainant within 21 days with a copy to the Forum. The above
details be supplied at Chandigarh as well as Delhi address.
6. With above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
11. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-21 of 2016
Date of Institution - 03.02.2016 Date of Order - 23.02.2016
In the matter Shri Satnam Singh, SCF 29, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.03, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Satnam Singh through his representation received in the office of
CGRF on 3.2.2016 submitted that he is owner of SCF No.29, Sector-19D,
Chandigarh. The premise was vacated by the Bank on 31.12.2013 and
thereafter the work of demolishing of SCF was undertaken in Jan. 2014
onwards. The Estate Office was also approached and request was made
for conversion of SCF to SCO by depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,900/-
including conversion fee on 3.3.2014. The construction work of building
was taken up thereafter. He stated that all the electricity bills were paid.
Now the bill on the basis of average from 22.11.2013 to 16.10.2014
amounting to Rs.1,23,594/- as sundry charges have been served upon
him. He submitted that part payment of Rs.41,200/- was made. He
requested for withdrawal of amount charged through sundry charges.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. GR-021 of 2016 was
forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for comments
vide letter dated 08.02.2016. Simultaneously the case was listed for
hearing on 23.2.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated
11.2.2016 submitted that the average charged is on account of meter
found burnt. It was replaced on 16.10.2014. The average charged is for
the period 22.11.2013 to 16.10.2014 @ 2386 units per month on the
basis of previous corresponding period consumption as per half margin
dated 13.4.2015. He also indicating that the consumer did not intimate
regarding vacation/demolition of the building at that time and intimated
only on 18.8.2015. The amount has been charged by the Audit section.
He also enclosed copy of MCO, half margin and the consumption details.
4. On the date of hearing on 23.2.2016, the consumer as well as concerned
SDO were present. The complainant reiterated his written submissions
and stated that the charging on the basis of the period when the building
was occupied by the bank is not in order, as the building was vacated by
the bank on 31.12.2013 where after the building was demolished. The
work of reconstruction was undertaken after approaching the Estate
Office in March 2014.
5. Form the MCO, the Forum noted that the meter was removed at reading
292685 where as from the consumption data it was seen that billing was
done up to reading of 289952 up to 7/2014 where after the bills were
being raised on average basis. It was also noted from the half margin
that besides charging for this un-billed consumption, the audit also
charged. charged for the same period which does not appear to be in
order being double charging.
6. In view of the facts of the case that the building was vacated on
31.3.2013 and was demolished thereafter, the Forum set aside the
charging done by the audit wing. The Nodal Officer is directed to charge
the unbilled units of 2733 (292685-289952) from 7/2014 to date of MCO.
The bills issued for the period 11/2013 onwards to July 2014 issue on the
basis of reading of the meter be taken as correct and no overhauling for
this period be done, presuming that the meter got burnt in the month of
October 2014.
However, it is establishing that the meter got burnt earlier,
charging for the period meter remained burnt to date of MCO be also
done on the basis of consumption recorded during the coming months i.e
October/November 2014. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the
receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble
JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. With above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
12. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-17of 2016
Date of Institution - 27.01.2016 Date of Order - 23.02.2016
In the matter Shri Sunil Doda, House No.359, 1st Floor, Sector 40-A,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Sunil Doda, a tenant of House No.359, 1st floor, Sector 40-A,
Chandigarh submitted a complaint on dated 27.1.2016 that during 2012
it was noted that the meter installed for first floor was running very fast
and accordingly the bills for the period 16.2.2012 to 16.12.2012 were
sent on average basis. On receipt of bill of Rs.55,000/- during the last
months of 2014, the applicant contacted the Sub Division No.10. He
stated that Shri Manoj Kumar, Accountant was not at all cooperative and
he had to visit more than 20 times but to no avail. He was ready to
make the current consumption charges. He however, made a part
payment of Rs.25000/-. His present bill has grew to Rs.63,990/-
including arrears. He submitted that the main problem seems to be the
bills issued between the periods 6.2.2012 to 6.12.2012 which has been
calculated excessively. He approached for acceptance of current bill for
keeping his electricity connection intact and not to be disconnected.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. GR-017 of 2016 was
forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for comments
vide letter dated 01.02.2016. Subsequently the complainant visited the
CGRF Office on 2.2.2016 and offered to make part payment in order to
prevent his connection from disconnection. He was advised to make
about 50% payment amounting to Rs.30,000/-. Simultaneously the case
was listed for hearing on 23.2.2016 vide letter dated 5.2.2016 to take
final view.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10 vide his letter dated
12.2.2016 submitted written reply. He stated that the meter is in
working order and the consumption recorded by the meter for last three
years is almost same and is consistent. He also supplied the
consumption data. The disputed meter was replaced on 25.1.2013. The
Internal Auditor while auditing the ledger noticed that the consumer was
billed less due to wrong coding of D Code and accordingly Internal
Auditor through half margin dated 11.9.2014 charged an amount of
Rs.24428/- on account of difference of readings from 6.2.2012 to
1.2.2013 not billed due to wrong coding of D-code. The Electricity bills
raised prior to 10/2011 were also on average basis due to meter
defective. During the month of 8/2014 to 10/2014 the bill was raised as
per meter reading along with sundry charges of Rs.24428/- as per half
margin. The consumer deposited only Rs.25000/- against the total
amount of Rs.46,411/- in Jan. 2015. Thereafter no payment against any
electricity bill was made by the complainant resulting into the total
defaulting amount of Rs.66550/-. He further submitted that the full
details regarding the sundry charges were provided to the applicant by
the concerned official. He concluded his submissions that the bills raised
by the consumer are as per reading recorded by the meter from time to
time and the meter working were found O.K. For the disputed period of
2012, the adjustment of bills raised on average basis on D-Code were
overhauled on the basis of actual reading recorded by the meter as per
half margin. He also confirmed that the consumer made the payment of
Rs.30,000/- as per CGRF Interim order on 5.2.2016.
4. On the date of hearing on 23.2.2016, the consumer as well as concerned
SDO were present. The complainant submitted that after receipt of bill of
952 units for the period 6.12.2011 to 6.2.2012 by new replaced meter.
He submitted an application for correction of the bill by depositing fee of
Rs.10/- as he attributed that the meter was running fast. He submitted
that during that period he hardly lived in his house for 15 days during a
month. The complainant also showed the bill which included sundry
charges besides an arrears of Rs.11,916/- when the sundry charges
amount was raised in November 2014 by the Internal Auditor. He stated
that there should be no arrears as he had been paying all the payments
regularly till then. The SDO after checking the record of the Sub Division
on Phone provided breakup of arrears. He stated that the consumer did
not pay one bill and the balance amount was on account of less charging
of ACD (Rs.4669/-).
5. The Forum on the basis of consumption data provided by the SDO noted
that the meter was defective for the period 6.10.2010 to 6.12.2010 and
the consumer was being billed@ 200-210 units per cycle. The defective
meter was replaced during the period 6.10.2011 to 6.12.2011. The
consumption for the period December to February 2012 was 952 units
against which on the application by the complainant, the meter was
treated as defective and bills for the period Feb.2012 to December 2012
were issued on average of 200 units. This meter was replaced on
25.1.2013 where after the consumption was being recorded in the range
of 585 to around 2000 per cycle for 2 months. The action taken by the
I.A. in overhauling the disputed period bills on the basis of actual reading
recorded by the meter appears to be in order. The Forum also noted that
the average consumption recorded during the period Jan. 2013 onwards
was on higher side as compared to the consumption recorded by the
meter during 2012. Thus establishing that meter was not defective and
was perfectly in working order. On These conclusions the Forum observed
that the charging done by the I.A. is in order.
6. During deliberations in the hearing, the Forum also noted that full amount
of surcharge was being carried forward when the complainant made the
part payment which is not as per tariff order issued by the Hon’ble JERC.
The Tariff Order issued by the Hon’ble JERC clearly provides that the
delayed payment surcharge should be levied @ 2% per month or part
thereof on all arrears of bills. Thus it is very clear that surcharge is
leviable on the arrears and not on the full amount of the bill in case of
part payment. The Nodal Officer is therefore, directed to refund the
surcharge amount charged in violation to provisions of the tariff orders
issued by the Hon’ble JERC wherever the part payment was made by the
complainant. The surcharge on this amount is also be refunded for the
future bills issued by the Sub Division. The Sub Division may also be
directed to check that the amount of Rs.11916/- shown as arrears in the
bill for the period August 2010 to October 2014 is in order. The
necessary adjustment be made in case the payment was made by the
applicant but not credited on account of the one reason and another.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order
failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per
relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. With the above directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
13. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-33 of 2015
Date of Institution - 07.09.2015 Date of Order - 23.02.2016
In the matter Brig. A. Kaplia, House No. 42, 1st Floor, Sector-4,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.02, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Brig. A. Kaplia, resident of House No. 42, 1st Floor, Sector-4, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated August 27, 2015 stated that after installation of
new meter his consumption has increased as compared to consumption in
the past. He apprehended the recording of high consumption due to
meter being faulty and requested to get it checked. He, however,
confirmed that he would pay bill in full expecting refund if the meter is
found faulty.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-33 of 2015 was
forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for supplying
parawise comments vide letter dated 27.8.2015 with a copy to the
complainant. Simultaneously it was also notified that the case would be
heard in the office of CGRF on 23.9.2015.
3. The Nodal Officer, i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated
23.9.2015 forwarded the comments submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub
Division No.2 duly countersigned by him. In the reply it was stated that
the old meter being mechanical was replaced with an electronic meter
vide MCO dated 5.5.2015 effected on 7.5.2015. The electricity bill for the
subsequent cycle was issued on the basis of reading of new meter for
2365 units. On the request of the complainant the reading and working
of the meter was got checked and found in order. He, therefore, stated
that the bill was correct and payable by the complainant. The
consumption data for last three years along with MCO was also enclosed.
4. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not attend. It was thought
properly to give one more opportunity to the consumer to present his
case. Simultaneously RA of he Sub Division was directed to get the load
of the consumer checked. This was also communicated to the Nodal
Officer vide letter dated 1.10.2015 followed by reminders on 17.11.2015
and 11.12.2015.
5. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 4.1.2016 submitted that load of
the consumer could not be checked as premises found locked. The
servant did not allow to check the load.
6. The case was listed for hearing on 24.2.2016. On this date also, the
complainant failed to appear. The RA of the sub division present during
the hearing told that the complainant could not be contacted when
officials went for checking of the load and the servant did not allow them
to check the load. The RA also informed that the consumption was
consistent and consumption of around 2500 units during the summer
months was possible with sanctioned load of 8 KW. He supplied up to
date consumption of the consumer. It was noted that from 2500 units
during July to September 2015 the consumption dropped to 1229 units
during September to Nov. 2015 and further dropped to 657 units during
Nov. to Jan. 2016.
7. On the basis of above, the Forum is of the view that the consumption
recorded by the replaced meter is possible with the sanctioned load of 8
KW. As regards the consumer plea that in the past his consumption was
quite less, it appears that old mechanical meter might be sticky and
recording less consumption. The newly installed meter was also got
checked and found in working order.
8. With these observations, the complaint is dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
14. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-80 of 2015
Date of Institution - 07.09.2015 Date of Order - 26.02.2016
In the matter Shri Vinod Kumar, House No.4048, Sector-25,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.01, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Vinod Kumar, resident of House No.4048, Sector-25, Chandigarh
through his application dated 8.12.2015 submitted that the electricity
connection of his house No.4048, Sector-25 was not being released in his
name. After death of his father, he submitted A&A Form and other
documents to the Sub Division but Sub Division refused to release the
connection. He also enclosed copy of orders issued by High Court stating
that it was directed to transfer the said house in his name within one
month but till date no action has been taken.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-80 of 2015 was forwarded
to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for supplying parawise
comments vide letter dated 9.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.
Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated time, reminder was issued
on 14.1.2016.
3. The Nodal Officer, i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated
1.2.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub
Division. No.1 wherein he submitted that the complainant failed to
submit the requisite documents as per Clause 3.5 of the Electricity
Supply Code Regulations, 2010 due to which the connection could not be
released.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 26.2.2016, the complainant as
well as RA of the ‘OP” Sub Division No.1 were present. The RA submitted
that the complainant did not submit the Will or Succession certificate in
order to get connection in his name. With regard to complainant’s
submissions referring directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court, it was
noted that the fulfilment of requirements as per Electricity Supply Code
Regulations were not met. The RA, however, suggested that the
electricity connection can be released to the complainant as “occupier”
of the premises, as he holds the documents such as Aadhar Card
supporting that he was residing in that premises. For getting connection
in his name as “owner” he will have to submit Will or Succession
Certificate or orders of the Estate Office transferring the house in his
name. The RA also stated that the decision to grant electricity
connection in Rehabilitation Colony Sector-25, Chandigarh on
submissions of residence proof instead of allotment and possession letter
by CHB have been communicated by S.E. Electy. ‘OP’ Circle, U.T.,
Chandigarh to the Division Office vide letter dated 5.1.2015, he supplied
a copy also. The decision taken in this regard is reproduced below:-
(i) In view of the clear cut judicial pronouncements as explained
in Para- 6,7,8,9 of the orders passed by Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat in Application No. 688/2013 pronounced by PLA
Dated 26.05.2014, the electricity connection has to be allowed. Since we are migrating and those persons who do
not have any proof of occupier as per supply code, but they
have been given connection by leading person M/s Rakesh Mishra & Co., they may be treated as Occupier since 2007
and, they may also be released electricity connection in the name. However, following wording may be inserted in the
A7A form/Master File/Electricity Bill.
(ii) XEN ‘OP’ 1 should submit the list of all such consumers so that the petition is filed before the JERC for appropriate
orders but at this stage to avoid theft of energy, the existing connection should migrated in the same name.
(iii) An undertaking be obtained from such occupiers that release
of electricity connection as an interim measures will in NO
way shall be treated as a proof of ownership and he/she will
abide by the decision of the JERC in this regards.
5. In view of the above, the Nodal Officer is directed to release the
connection to Shri Vinod Kumar as “occupant” of the premises after
obtaining the requisite undertaking. Compliance be reported within 21
days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be
imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act
2003.
6. With the above directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
15. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-81/2015
Date of Institution - 09.12.2015 Date of Order - 29.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Ankit Bansal, House No.1293, Village Burail,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Ankit Bansal, resident of House No.1293, Village Burail, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated 9.12.2015 representated against the Sundry
charges of Rs.6702/- levied against his electricity bill. When he visited
the Sub Division, he was told to make the payment.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-81/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 10.12.2015 for comments with a copy to the complainant.
Reminder was issued on 8.1.2015 as the reply was not received within
stipulated time. Further reminder was issued on 1.2.2016.
3. The concerned SDO, ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated
3.2.2016 submitted the reply stating that there are 3 Nos. electricity
connections running in House No.1293, Village Burail. The connections
are in the name of Shri Krishan Kumar, Smt. Saroj and Smt. Kusum
Gupta. One No. electricity connection in the name of Shri Subhash Goel
in the same house No.1293 was disconnected due to default in payment
amounting to Rs.26809/-. This defaulting amount was transferred
equally @ Rs.6702/- against the 3 Nos. existing connections at the same
premises. He justified the transferring of amount as per Sale Manual
Instruction No.179.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 29.2.2016. On the date of hearing,
the complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division No.9 were present.
The complainant briefly stated facts of the case that the original owner of
House No.1293 sold his property to 4 persons including the complainant.
The existing electricity connection was allotted to Shri Subhash Goel one
out of 4 purchasers. Shri Subhash Goel, however, defaulted and the
electricity connection was disconnected. Subsequently he applied for a
new connection in his name. The defaulting amount of the old connection
was transferred to the Account of Shri Subhash Goel. He again defaulted
and his new connection was again disconnected. This defaulting amount
has now been transferred to other three persons of the same premises
who obtained new connection in their own name. The complainant stated
that since the electricity connections are in different names the defaulting
amount of Shri Subhash Goel cannot be transferred to their account
though the address/premises of their connection is same. The
complainant also stated that Shri Subhash Goel was still residing in his
own portion. He further stated that Shri Subhash Goel was using
electricity through probable account No. BU54/006701A with meter
No.CHSE129979.
5. The Forum observed that Supply Code Regulations 9.2(10) provides:-
“Where any consumer having more than one connection defaults in
payment of dues relating to one of the connections.”
From the above it is clear that the defaulting amount can be recovered
if the consumer is same.
6. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the factual position
verified as stated by the complainant. After locating the electricity
connection through which Shri Subhash Goel is receiving the electricity,
the total defaulting amount be transferred to this connection. The
amount already charged to 3 consumers whose connections are in
different name be withdrawn and necessary credit for the payments made
by them be given in the subsequent bills. Compliance be reported within
21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be
imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act
2003.
.
7. With these observations and directions, complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-03/2016
Date of Institution - 05.01.2016 Date of Order - 29.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Ashutosh Singh, Flat No.1702C/1739C, RBI
Flats, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
9. Shri Ashutosh Singh of RBI vide his representation dated 5th Jan. 2016,
received in the office on 8th Jan. 2016, pointed out the wrong generation
of electricity bill for Flat No. 1702C and 1739C of RBI Colony, Sector 44-
B, Chandigarh. Both the bills (for the period 17.9.2015 to 25.11.2015)
included the amount of the bill for the period 25.9.2015 which was
already paid. It was also been stated that the electricity meter of both
the flats were changed and consumption of the old meter was also added
in the current bill which is not correct. He requested for correction of
both the bills.
10. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-03/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 08.1.2016 for comments with a copy to the complainant.
11. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ vide his letter dated 3.2.2016
forwarded the parawise comments. He stated that mechanical meters of
both the flats were changed with electronic meters on 3.9.2015. The
electricity bills for the period 7/2015 to 9/2015 were issued on average
basis due to “F” Code means meter at site was found different than the
meter as per record in the Computer Centre. He further stated that
adjustment of the bills issued on average basis would be reflected in the
forthcoming bills. The revision of the bill and adjustment was also
conveyed to the consumer vide his letter dated 3.2.2016. He also
enclosed the copy of letter written to the consumer dated 3.2.2016 and
the consumption data of both the flats.
12. The case was listed for hearing on 29.2.2016, the consumer did not
attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division informed that the
bills have already corrected to the satisfaction of the complainant.
13. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already
been redressed, considered complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
14. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-11/2016
Date of Institution - 18.01.2016 Date of Order - 29.02.2016
In the matter to Shri Bharpur Singh, House No.292, Village Burail,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Bharpur Singh, resident of House No.292, Village Burail Chandigarh
vide his application dated 15.1.2016 stated that he was charged
Rs.56310/- as penalty for theft of Electricity through the notices issued
by the concerned ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9. Through initial assessment
notice (theft case) Rs.25970/- was demanded. He deposited the amount
on 25.7.2015. Further sundry charges of Rs.30340/- were charged in
the bill issued on 20.11.2015 which was deposited by him on
30.11.2015. He stated that amount charged to him is not justified on
the following grounds.
i) The energy consumption of old as well as replaced meter is similar.
ii) The charges calculated with the ABCD formula comes to
Rs.17532/- while actual amount comes to Rs.29644/- for the 12
month, which does not justify the theft.
iii) The amount already charged and paid against sundry charges
(Rs.30340/-) is not justified as his actual consumption was higher
than calculated with the formula.
iv) As per ECR dated 28.5.2015, the accuracy of the meter stated as
slow is also not justified, his consumption of the premises remains
similar after replacement of new meter.
v) Regarding seals, he showed his innocence and that it could have
been tempered with by old consumer.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-11/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 21.1.2016 for comments with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9 vide his letter dated 3.2.2016
while forwarding the comments raised the preliminary objections as
under:-
“That as per Commercial Instruction No.68/2013 dated 27.9.2013 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Electy. (OP) Circle, Chandigarh, the said
instruction addressed to the Executive Engineers, Electy. (OP) Divisions and copy endorsed to this office as well as your office vide Endst.
No.8018 dated 27.9.2013. As per this instruction, Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 against the proceedings under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act-2003 are not maintainable before the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further submitted that as
per Chandigarh Administration, Home Department Notification dated
3.10.2011, copy attaché that all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is pleased to designate
the courts of all the Additional Session Judges in Union Territory of Chandigarh as special courts for the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the
purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Section 135 to 139 of Electricity Act 2003. Hence the said case is not maintainable.”
In view of above, he requested for dismissal of the complaint on
the plea that assessment assessed as per Section 135 is not under the
purview of the Forum.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 29.2.2016, the consumer did
not attend. The RA of the sub division re-iterated written submissions by
the Sub Division.
5. The Forum observed that the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer)
Regulations, 2009 notified on 31 July. 2009 clearly provides that any
grievance arising out of application of section 135 shall not be considered
as complaint. The definition (e) under Regulation 2 reads as under:
(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum
seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of electricity by the
licensee. Provided that the following shall not be considered as the complaint.
(i) Any grievance arising out of applicant of sections
126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of the Act.”
The Forum concludes that being theft of electricity case under section
135 of Elect. Act. 2003 case bit in entertained by the Forum in view of
provisos in the Regulation as stated in Para 5 above.
6. With the above conclusion, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-27/2016
Date of Institution - 16.02.2016 Date of Order - 01.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Jagan Nah, SCO 15, Sector-26, Chandigarh
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Jagan Nath, submitted a representation dated Feb.16,2016 through
e-mail that the electricity bill for SCO No.15, Sector-26, Chandigarh for
the period Nov.2015 to Jan. 2016 for 2601 units was quite on higher side
as compared to his average consumption in the past. He also supplied
details of the last five bills, out of which three bills were issued on
average basis. He stated that in the last bill fixed charges/maintenance
charges of Rs.3000/- were added in the last bill. He desired details of the
same.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-27/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 17.2.2016 for comments along with consumption data with a
copy to the complainant. Simultaneously the date of hearing was also
notified as 26.2.2016.
3. On the date of haring on 26.2.2016, the complainant did not attend.
The RA present during the hearing stated that bills for the period August
to December 2015 were issued on average basis as the premises was
found locked. The bill issued on 9.2.2016 for the period December to
Jan. 2016 is infact for the consumption of six months with adjustment of
the bills issued on average basis in the past. The RA further stated that
on receipt of complaint, Shri Lakhwinder Sigh, J.E. was deputed to verify
the reading and to check the meter and other details. He visited the
premises on 15,16,17 and 20th Feb. 2016 but found the premises locked.
Despite his calling the complainant on his mobile he could not contact the
complainant. Thereafter the Sub Division conveyed the above position to
the complainant vide letter dated 26.2.2016. The RA supplied the copy of
the letter written to the complain along with report by J.E.
4. In view of the above, the complainant is requested to check the reading
himself and if he find the reading not matching with as indicated in the
last bill, he may contact the sub division for rectification of his bill. In
case the consumer feels that the meter is not working properly, he may
deposit the requisite fee with the sub division to get his meter tested.
The Nodal Officer is directed to get the meter checked and submit a
report of CGRF in that event. Further in case the complainant requests for
details of the bills issued details of fixed/maintenance charges of
Rs.3,000/-, the same may be provided to him to his satisfaction.
5. With above, the complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-61/2015
Date of Institution - 29.10.2015 Date of Order - 01.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Tej Parkash, House No.33, Sector-5,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Tej Parkash Singh, Ex-Minister Punjab stated that Kothi No.33,
Sector-5, Chandigarh, in which there are residing, was allotted to Late
Mrs. Jaswant Kaur W/o Late S. Beant Singh, Ex-Chief Minister Punjab,
mother of the complainant. This house was included in the list of MOU
between U.T. Chandigarh and Government of Punjab to be maintained by
Punjab PWD (B&R) under Orders dated 2.11.1995 of Supreme Court.
After his mother Mrs. Jaswant Kaur expired, the house was transferred in
his name on 25.11.2010 by, His Excellency the Governor of Punjab and
Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh. However, Due to communication gap the
Punjab P.W.D. (B&R) did not maintain the said house and did not pay the
water and electricity charges since 2010 till September 2013. During this
period security personal for Z+Z/Y security providing to the family did not
have any separate electricity meter and were drawing the electricity from
the residential house. Due to non payment of bills for this period by
Punjab PWD (B&R), the late payment surcharge continued to be levied
which was not in his knowledge. The Punjab PWD (B&R), neither made
the payment nor informed the complainant in time to make the payment
of the electricity bills. On receipt of information from the Electricity
Department that the bills have not been paid and the supply would be
disconnected, he made the payment in instalments to the tune of Rs.10
lacs to clear the outstanding dues for the period Nov. 2010 to Sept.2013.
On their pursuance a separate electricity meter was installed for security
persons on 25.9.2013 for which the payment is being made directly by
Punjab PWD(B&R). The Punjab PWD (B&R) also made the payment
towards the electricity consumed by Security persons from Nov. 2010 to
Sept. 2013 on proportionate basis by taking actual consumption for 1.5
months from 25.9.2013 to 10.11.2013. He concluded his application by
stating that due to miss/wrong communication the electricity bills for the
period Nov. 2010 to Sept. 2013 were not paid and attracted huge late
payment surcharge which has been recovered from them. He stated that
if he electricity bills were delivered at his residence directly/informed by
PWD (B&R) in time, the payment would have been made in routine
manner without levy of late payment surcharge. He prayed for waiver of
late payment surcharge from Nov. 2010 to Sept. 2013 and adjustment of
the same in future bills. It was also stated in the complaint that earlier
representation on this issue was made to SDO on 26th December 2014
and to Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh Administration through D.O.
letter dated 20th Jan. 2015 but no response was received.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-61/2015 was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1
vide letter dated 29.10.2015 for comments with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated
3.12.2015 forwarded the reply of AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 duly
countersigned by him. The SDO stated that the payment of electricity
bills in the said premises had been received in parts and that too after
due date, resulting into levy of late payment surcharge. The late
payment surcharge was levied as per rules/regulations. He also stated
that the late payment surcharge was revisited on receipt of letter dated
26.12.2014 from the complainant and adjustment of Rs.4000/- was
allowed through sundry allowance. He also enclosed copy of letter dated
22.1.2015 written to the complainant in this regard along with details of
amount of the bills raised, the payment made and the calculations of
payment surcharge for the period 10.1.2010 to o 10.9.2015.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 7.1.2016, as the complainant
did not appear, another opportunity was given by renotifying the hearing
on 9.2.2016. The complainant did not appear on 9.2.2016 even. The
case was listed for final hearing on 1.3.2016. On this date the
complainant along with his representative attended the hearing. It was
stated during hearing that bills were being delivered to SDO Electrical
Punjab, Mini Secretariat and thus it did not come to their notice that
payments were not being paid after his mother expired on 3.8.2010.
When they came to know this fact in Sept. 2013 they started making the
payment in instalment to clear the outstanding amount. The RA
representing the Sub Division stated that bills are being delivered
through Postal Department and were being delivered at the address in
the bill i.e. at Kothi No. 33, Secor-5, Chandigarh.
5. In response to query by the Forum, the complainant informed that Mrs,
Jaswant Kaur W/o Late Shri Beant Singh, Ex-Chief Minister Punjab was
given the status of Cabinet Rank Minister till she was alive.
6. The Forum is of the view that it was clear in the orders of the Punjab
Government that the status of Cabinet Rank Minister will be applicable till
Mrs. Jaswant Kaur is alive and not thereafter. This directly implies that all
such charges including water and electricity bills was to be borne by the
residents/users of the electricity and not by the Punjab Government.
From the submissions made by the Sub Division, it appears that the bills
were being delivered at the premises directly by the Postal Department.
The Forum also noted that on the representation dated 26.12.2014 made
by the complainant to the SDO and 20th Jan. 2015 to the Chief Engineer,
U.T., Chandigarh Administration, the Sub Division allowed the refund of
Rs.4000/- after overhauling the late payment surcharge levied by the
Computer on the basis of payment made by the complainant. The late
payment surcharge is applicable as per Tariff orders notified by the
Hon’ble JERC and recoverable along with amount of usage of electricity
from the consumer in case of late or non payment of the electricity bills.
In the present case the factual position is that electricity bills were not
paid in time and therefore attracted the late payment surcharge as per
Regulations.
7. The Forum however observed that full surcharge was levied even in
those cases where the payment was made after due date but within one
month of the due date which is not correct. The Tariff Orders issued by
Hon’ble JERC clearly provides that late payment surcharge is leviable @
2% per month. Thus whenever the payment was made after due date
but within one month of date, full amount of surcharge cannot be levied,
The surcharge in such cases is to be calculated @ 2% per month on the
UNPAID Amount.
8. In view of above, the Nodal officer is directed to revisit the amount of
late surcharge levied from 2010 onwards and re-calculate the same as
per provision of the Tariff Orders. The refund on this a/c be allowed in
the subsequent bills. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the
receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by
Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
9. With above observations and directions, the complainant stands
disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-54/2015
Date of Institution - 23.02.2016 Date of Order - 08.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Sunil Kumar. House No.6639/C, Sector-56,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Sunil Kumar resident of House No.6639/C, Sector-56, Chandigarh
requested for checking of his electricity meter as he apprehended that the
bill was on higher side compared to his load.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-54/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 6.10.2015 for comments/action taken report.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10 vide his letter dated
14.10.2015 submitted that the electricity meter was checked by
Shri Manoj Kumar, J.E. and he reported that the meter is in working
order. He also checked the connected load of the consumer as 0.980KW.
The AEE also confirmed that the bills raised to the consumer were as per
the readings recorded on the meter. He also supplied the consumption
data for last two years and report of checking by Shri Manoj Kumar, J.E.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 5.11.2015, but the consumer did not
appear. It was thought proper to give one more opportunity and case
was notified for hearing again on 26.11.2015. The consumer attended
the hearing and showed his dissatisfaction to the checking report and
desired to get installed check meter. The case was heard again on
21.1.2016, the SDO informed that as the consumer did not deposit the
requisite fee the check meter was not installed. The complainant prayed
for installation of check meter without charging any fee as a special case,
due to his pressing financial condition. The Forum directed the Nodal
Officer for installation of check meter by the Sub Division of their own
without charging any fee from the consumer as a special case and
submit report within 21 days.
5. On the next date of hearing on 8.3.2016, the complainant did not turn
up. The SDO supplied check meter report as per which the existing
meter consumed 44 units against 45 units by the check meter during the
period from 22.1.2016 to 8.2.2016. Thus difference of only one unit was
found in the consumption recorded by both the meters which was within
permissible limit of 3%. The Forum observed that the consumer is using
one cooler besides Refrigerator , T.V. and 2 Fans. The consumption for
cycle of 2 months is in the range of 172 to 502 units. The Forum is of
the opinion that this much consumption is possible with the appliances
being used by the consumer.
6. The Forum observing that the working of the meter is O.K.,as per check
meter report, dismiss the complaint.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by
the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs,
“Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-32/2016
Date of Institution - 23.02.2016 Date of Order - 08.03.2016
In the matter to Shri V.M.Rao, House No.5812B, Sector 38 West,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri V.M.Rao, resident of House No.5812B, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh
sought the clarification in the electricity bill issued on 23.2.2016
containing arrears of Rs.2589/-. Though return e-mail he was informed
that arrears are always on account of default in payment of last bill.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-32/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 26.2.2016 for comments. Simultaneously it was conveyed
that the complaint would be heard on 8.3.2016 in the office of CGRF.
3. The complainant through e-mail dated 4th March, 2016 stated that the
problem has been sorted out as the arrear amount appearing in his bill
pertain to previous month bill which he had not received at his end. He
further informed that he remitted the total due amount and that the
problem stands resolved.
4. On the date of haring on 8.3.2016, the complainant did not appear. The
SDO stated that the arrears amount was relating to the electricity bill for
the period 9/2015 to 11/2015 which was not paid by the consumer.
Consumer was provided the details on his visit to the sub division.
5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the consumer stands resolved,
considers the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-16/2016
Date of Institution - 27.01.2016 Date of Order - 08.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Jai Parkash Goel, House No.2402, Sector 50-C,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Jai Parkash Goel, resident of House No.2402, Sector 50-C,
Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 27th Jan. 2016 requested for
correction of his electricity bill. He stated that his residence electricity
bills dated 27.6.2015, 25.8.2015. 23.10.2015 and 23.12.2015 have been
issued on average basis. He visited the sub division and gave written
request for issuance of bills on reading but still his electricity bills
continued to be issued on average basis.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-16/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 29.1.2016 for comments, action taken report and the
consumption data for last three years. In the meanwhile, as requested,
the complainant submitted his complaint duly signed on 5.2.2016 in the
office of CGRF. The complaint was listed for hearing on 8.3.2016 vide
letter dated 16.2.2016 with directions to Nodal Officer to submit the reply
by 4.3.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 3.3.2016
submitted parawise comments. He submitted that the load of the
consumer was got checked vide ECR dated 15.2.2016 and the connected
load was found to be 7.155 KW. The meter was replaced vide MCO dated
15.7.2015 affected on 1.1.2016 being dead stop. He further stated that
as the meter was dead stop, average was being charged which would be
reviewed on the basis of future consumption as the past consumption is
on very lower side. He supplied consumption data of the consumer also.
4. On the date of haring on 8.3.2016, the complainant as well as RA of the
Sub Division No.9 were present. The RA stated that the dead stop meter
was replaced on 1.1.2016 and the bills issued during the year 2015 were
on average basis on this account. The complainant however stated that
the meter was replaced in the month of September 2015 and not on
1.1.2016. He also submitted that the AC as per ECR was installed in
the month of June 2015 and prior to that there was no AC in his house.
He supplied copy of Invoice dated 10.6.2016.
5. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, it was observed
that the meter became defective during the period 11/2014 to 1/2015.
Thereafter bills were being issued on the basis of average (1480 units)
from March 2015 onwards with meter status code ‘D’ with same reading
as 12336 (new and old). The next bill for the period 7/2015 to 9/2015
was issued with new reading as 96, but on average basis for 1480 units
with meter status code ‘F’ (meter at site different as per record). The
next bill from 9/2015 to 11/2015 was also issued on ‘F’ Code with new
reading as 341. The consumption data confirmed that the meter was
replaced in the month of September 2015 as stated by the complainant
and not on 1.1.2016. The ECR also showed that among the connected
load there was one AC of 2 ton capacity besides Microwave, Refrigerator,
Geyser etc, in the total load of 7.155 K.W. The complainant further
stated that AC was of capacity 1.5 ton and not 2 ton as per the Invoice
dated 10.6.2015 provided by him.
6. On the basis of the analysis of the consumption data, the Forum
concludes that the meter was replaced in the month of Sept.2015 and
not on 1.1.2016, as stated by the Sub Division. Further as AC was
installed by the consumer on or around 15th June 2015, the Nodal Officer
is directed to get overhaul the account as under:-
Sr.No. Period Basis of Overhauling
1. 11/2014 to 15.6.2015 On the basis of consumption
recorded during the corresponding period in the year
2013-2014 i.e. from 11/2013 to15.6.2014
2. 15.6.2015 to date of
MCO in Sept. 2015 (Date of MCO is to be
ascertained as per record).
On the basis of future
consumption to be recorded during the corresponding period
in the year 2016.
3. From date of MCO onwards
On the basis of actual reading recorded by the replaced meter.
Compliance in respect of Sr. No.1 and 3 be reported within 21 days
after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed
by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. The complaint stands disposed with the above directions
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-30/2016
Date of Institution - 22.02.2016 Date of Order - 08.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Prince Sharma, House No.157-A, DRDO
Residential Colony, Sector-42A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Prince Sharma, Deputy Director, resident of House No.157A, DRDO
Residential Colony, Sector 42-A, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated
22nd Jan. 2016 stated that the electricity meter installed at his residence
is not working, as the reading is same as per the last bill issued. He
requested for checking and replacement of the defective meter.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-30/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 24.2.2016 for comments and taking appropriate action.
Simultaneously the case was listed for hearing on 8.3.2016 with copy to
the SDO and the complainant.
3. On the date of haring on 8.3.2016, the complainant did not appear. The
RA appearing on behalf of the Sub Division No.9 stated that MCO had
already been issued and expected to be executed in a day or so. He was
directed to submit the details after affecting the MCO.
4. The Forum observing that MCO has already been issued and the meter
would be replaced shortly as per the request by the complainant,
considered the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-12/2016
Date of Institution - 20.01.2016 Date of Order - 10.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Yogesh Kumar, House No.517A, Sector 31-A,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Yogesh Kumar, resident of House No.517A, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh
vide his e-mail dated Jan. 20, 2016 lodged a complaint about the problem
being faced by him in respect of Power availability in the morning.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-12/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2
vide letter dated 22.1.2016 for comments/action taken report with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 4.2.2016
addressed to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 with a
copy to CGRF stated that the complaint regarding the Power supply by
the consumer was redressed to his satisfaction. He also enclosed a letter
by the complainant in this respect.
4. The Forum observing that the complaint of the consumer has already
been redressed to his satisfaction, considers the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-55/2015
Date of Institution - 05.10.2015 Date of Order - 10.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Manpreet Singh, Director, TBRL, House No.771,
Sector 29-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Manpreet Singh, resident of House No.771, Sector 29-A, Chandigarh,
vide his letter dated 5.10.2015 stated that his bills for the period
7.7.2014 to 7.7.2015 were prepared on fictitious readings.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-55/2015, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2
vide letter dated 06.10.2015 for supplying para-wise comments/action
taken report with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated
5.11.2015 submitted that the bills of the consumer were issued on
average basis being ’F’ Code wrongly put in the meter blank during the
period 7.9.2014 to 7.1.2015. The electricity meter of the consumer was
replaced on 23.6.2014 being defective. He further stated that the
account of the consumer has already been overhauled as per actual
consumption by the meter and a sum of Rs.8005/- has been refunded, to
be reflected in the bills to be issued in the month of December 2015.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 24.11.2015, the complainant
raised that his bills were not being issued properly as per his complaint
made to the CGRF.
5. The Nodal Officer vide letter dated 26.11.2015 was directed to submit
specific response to the issues raised by the complainant regarding the
old and new meter reading in the 3 bills as mentioned in his
representation. A reminder in this respect was also issued o n
11.12.2015.
6. The AEE through his letter dated 12.1.2016 clarified that the account of
the consumer has already been overhauled and an amount of Rs.8005/-
was adjusted. He also confirmed that the complainant who was residing
in Government Accommodation paid the revised bill of Rs.34740/- on
16.10.2015.
7. The Case was again listed for hearing on 10.3.2016, the complainant did
not attend. The RA of the Sub division present during the hearing
supplied a copy of letter dated 24.2.2016 written by the complainant
requesting for issuance of NDC as he surrendered the Government
Accommodation. The details of the account overhauled on the basis of
actual reading were also supplied. He also supplied consumption data of
the consumer wherein it was noted that most of the bills were issued on
L-Code. The bills for the period 7/2014 to 1/2015 were issued on F’ Code
through on oversight as stated by the RA during the hearing.
8. Considering the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed to
his satisfaction, the complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-01/2016
Date of Institution - 01.01.2016 Date of Order - 10.03.2016
In the matter to Prop. Bajrang Fastenersm Plot No.181/21,
Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Prop. Bajrang Fasteners, Plot No. 181/21, Industrial Area, Phase-1,
Chandigarh vide his representation received in the office of CGRF on
1.1.2016 submitted that his industrial plot was lying vacant since long
and only chowkidar was residing yet he received electricity bills of the
factory on average basis from 3/2015 to 8/2015 @ Rs.4000/- Per Month.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-01/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide
letter dated 05.1.2016 for supplying para-wise comments/action taken
report with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 9.2.2016
addressed to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 with a
copy to CGRF stated that the electricity bills to the complainant were
issued on ‘D’ Code for the period 3/2014 to 8/2015, with average @ 149
units per month. However, during the period 3/2015 to 8/2015 average
was increased to 4000 units per month in view of the connected load of
the consumer. When the consumer challenge the bill, his premises was
got verified to be lying vacant as per report dated 11.2.2016. He further
stated that very low consumption was observed after replacement of the
meter on 16.7.2015. Accordingly on the basis of verification report and
the consumption of the replaced meter, the electricity account of ther
consumer was overhauled w.e.f. 7.3.2014 to 16.7.2015 on the basis of
future consumption from 7/2015 to 12/2015 i.e. @ 528 units per month.
A sum of Rs. 58750/- has been adjusted on account of overhauling to be
reflected in the next bill. He also supplied copy of SJO, MCO and the
consumption data for last three years.
4. On the date of hearing on 10.3.2016, the complainant did not appear.
The RA of the Sub Division reiterated written submission.
5. The Forum observing that the account has already been overhauled after
physical verification, considers the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-58/2015
Date of Institution - 20.10.2015 Date of Order - 10.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Davinder Kumar, House No.170, Phase-I, Ram
Darbar, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Davinder Kumar, resident of House No.170, Phase-I, Ram Darbar,
Chandigarh vide his e-mail dated Oct. 20, 2015 stated that he visited the
office of the Sub Division on 9.10.2015 and requested for change of his
faulty meter which was not replaced till filing of the complaint.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-55/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide
letter dated 21.10.2015 for parawise comments/action taken report with
a copy to the complainant. Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated
time, reminder was issued to 17.11.2015 followed by reminders dated
11.12.2015 and 14.1.2016.
3. The complaint was listed for hearing on 10.3.2016, the consumer did not
attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the
meter had already been replaced on 24.11.2015. He supplied a copy of
MCO and forwarding the letter written to the office of S.E. Electy. ‘OP’
Circle, U.T., Chandigarh in this regard.
4. The Forum observing that the grievance of the consumer had already
been redressed, considers the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-91/2015
Date of Institution - 29.12.2015 Date of Order - 10.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Vimal Gupta, ASCO Optical Ind., 0508,
Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Vimal Gupta of M/s ASCO Optical Ind, 0508, Industrial Area, Phase-
2, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 29th December, 2015 stated that
though he made payment of the bill on due date yet surcharge was levied
in the next bill.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-91/2015 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide
letter dated 04.1.2016 for parawise comments/action taken report with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The complaint was listed for hearing on 10.3.2016, the consumer did not
attend. The RA present on the behalf of the Sub Division supplied a copy
of written reply dated 9.3.2016 wherein it was admitted that the
surcharge was wrongly added by the Computer for the bills issued for the
period 24.9.2015 to 24.10.2015 and 24.10.2015 to 24.11.2015 though
the payments were made within due date. He further submitted that
amount of surcharge -Rs.150 +136=Rs.286/- has been adjusted
manually through Sundry Charge and Allowance Register after discussion
with the Incharge Computer Cell and the refund will be reflected in the
electricity bill to be issued in the month of April 2016.
4. On the basis of written reply and oral submissions during the hearing by
RA, the Forum observes that the grievance of the complainant has
already been redressed with preparation of Sundry allowance amounting
to Rs.286/-to be reflected in the bill to be issued in the month of April
2016. With these observations, the Forum considers the complaint as
disposed. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to keep a watch that
the computer also do not adjust wrongly picked up surcharge on its own
in near future.
. “The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by
the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-09/2016
Date of Institution - 18.01.2016 Date of Order - 11.03.2016
In the matter to Dr. G.D. Bansal, House No.2177, Sector-15,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Dr. G.D. Bansal, resident of House No.2177, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated 18.1.2016 stated that his electricity meter got
burnt in June 2014. The meter was changed after he deposited the cost
of meter as Rs.1550/- on 10.6.2014 on the advice of the Sub Division.
However, subsequently in the bill dated 8.10.2015 a sum of Rs.1550/-
has again been added towards the cost of the burnt meter. He requested
for refund of amount charged twice. He enclosed copy of bill and the
letter written to the Sub Division.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-10/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 20.1.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to
the complainant. The complainant also submitted written complaint on
25.1.2016 as requested by the Forum.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 vide his letter dated 9.3.2016
submitted that the burnt meter of the consumer was replaced on
13.12.2014. As per request of the consumer, refund entry of Rs.1550/-
was duly passed by his office. It came to notice, however, that meter of
the consumer was earlier changed on 12.10.2013 as burnt when the cost
of meter was not charged when replaced. The Internal Auditor,
therefore, asked to Ledger Keeper for overhauling of the account and the
refund was not allowed. He also supplied copy of both the MCOs and
consumption data of the consumer.
4. The Case was listed for hearing on 11.3.2016, the consumer did not
appear. The SDO reiterated his written submissions. The Forum
observed that the cost of meter charged in the bill pertains to the cost of
the burnt meter, replaced on 12.10.2013 and thus charging by the sub
division is in order. Further from the consumption data it was observed
that for the period 8/2013 to 10/2013, no average was charged to the
consumer. Also during the period 6/2014 to 10/2014 average was
charged, but for the period 10/2014 to date of MCO i.e. 13/14 /14 no
average was charge for the burnt meter remained in operation. The
Forum, therefore, agrees with the Sub Division that the account of the
consumer is required to be overhauled for the period burnt meter was
replaced (during 2013 and also during 2014), on the basis consumption
recorded in the past for the corresponding period
5. With the above, complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-10/2016
Date of Institution - 18.01.2016 Date of Order - 11.03.2016
In the matter to Smt. Manjit Kaur, Assistant Manager, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, SCO 37-38, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt.Manjit Kaur, Assistant Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, SCO 37-38, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through e-mail
dated 18 Jan. 2016 stated that the electricity bill for November to
December 2015 has not been delivered to them which may delay the
payment before due date.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-10/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 20.1.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to
the complainant. The case was listed for hearing on 11.3.2016 with the
request to the Nodal Officer to ensure submission of the reply by 8th
March 2016 vide letter dated 23.2.2016.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 vide his letter dated 9.3.2016
submitted that the bills of the group were generated on 22.1.2016
which was delivered to the consumer. Confirmation on telephone of the
same was obtained on 27.1.2016. He stated that the complaint was
premature as it was made before the generation of the bill.
4. On the date of hearing on 11.3.2016, the complainant did not appear.
The Forum observing from the written reply of the Sub Division noted
that complaint was premature and also that bill was delivered before the
due date.
5. With above, the complaint is dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-24/2016
Date of Institution - 08.02.2016 Date of Order - 14.03.2016
In the matter to Smt. Inderjit Kaur, House No.341, Sector 35-A,
Chandigarh.
……..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Inderjit Kaur, resident of House N0. 341, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh
through her representation dated 8.2.2016 stated that the house where
she was residing is in the name of her father who passed away on 7th
Sept. 1978. One three phase electricity connection is already existing in
the name of her father. However, they are two legal heir of her father’s
property and residing at same house in separate portions. A Civil suit is
pending in the court regarding share percent of the said property. She
applied for a new electricity connection for the same house which was
refused by the SDO. She further stated that she also approached Lower
Court for grant a new connection. She enclosed letter of AEE Sub/Division
No. 7 and the information sought under RTI with the application.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-24/2016, was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide
letter dated 9.2.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to
the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7 vide his letter dated 17.2.2016
submitted that one number three phase electricity connection is already
existing in the said house. As per rules of the department only one
connection can be released for one floor as per instructions circulated
vide letter dated 12.1.2001. The site was also got checked and found
that there is only ground floor existing at the premises, as such the
second electricity connection could not be released for the ground floor.
He also informed that a case is pending for adjudication in the Hon’ble
Court of Shri Paramjit Singh, Additional District & Session Judge,
Chandigarh to install two separate electricity connection at the premise
with next date of hearing on 17.3.2016.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 14.3.2016, the complainant besides
her brother Shri Sukhdev Singh, The other legal heir of said property
appeared. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.7 re-iterated his written
submissions that 2nd electricity connection cannot be allowed at the same
floor and also that the case is already in the Court. The brother of the
complainant agreed to withdraw the case from the Court in case
department agrees to release the connection in favour of his sister. He
stated that her sister was living in separate portion and as such the new
electricity connection be released in her name for proper accounting for
which he has no objection.
5. The Forum noting that the complainant was living in a separate portion
and was one of the legal heir of the said house, directs the Nodal Officer
to release the connection in favour of the complainant provided the case
in the Court for release of 2nd connection is withdrawn. The new
connection be released after fulfilling the various formalities provided
under Regulations 3.5(3) of the Supply Code Regulations. The consent of
Shri Sukhdev Singh, brother of the complainant, other legal heir
regarding no objection may also be obtained.
6. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-34/2016
Date of Institution - 03.03.2016 Date of Order - 16.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Gautam Ranjan Das, House No.629, Sector 32-
A, Chandigarh.
……..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Gautam Ranjan Das through his e-mail dated 3rd March, 2016 stated
that he was to get the refund of stands security against his previous
electricity connection at House No.629, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh. The
payment was not being made due to non availability of cheque for the
last two weeks.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-34/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 10.3.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy
to the complainant. Simultaneously the complaint was notified for
hearing on 16.3.2016.
3. On the date of hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant did not attend.
The SDO stated that refund of security deposit has already been released
to the consumer through cheque on 14.3.2016. He also showed the
receipt of the same by the consumer. The complainant through e-mail
dated 16.3.2016 also confirmed that the problem was being resolved.
4. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already
been redressed, consider the complaint disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-19/2016
Date of Institution - 01.02.2016 Date of Order - 16.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Anil Salwan, Manager of RBI, Flat No.656A,
Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.
……..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Anil Salwan, Manager, RBI through his complaint dated 1.2.2016
pointed out wrong generation of electricity bill of Flat No.656A, RBI
Colony, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. He submitted that the meter was
changed and in the current bill, the corresponding units of old meter were
added where as the previous bill was prepared on average basis.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-19/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide
letter dated 03.02.2016 for comments/action taken report along with
consumption data with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div. No.6 vide his letter dated 17.2.2016
submitted that the meter of the said flat was replaced on 6.11.2015. He
further stated that bill for the period 28.10.2015 to 28.12.2015 will be
revised on the basis of future consumption recorded by the new meter as
past consumption data is not available. He also conveyed that connected
load was checked and found to be 4.130 KW.
4. During the hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant did not attend. The
SDO present during the hearing, stated that the account of the consumer
will be overhauled on the basis of future consumption. The Forum from
the consumption data, observed that since December 2013 the bills were
prepared either on Nil consumption or average consumption as the meter
was found to be dead stop.
5. The above proposal by the SDO regarding overhauling of account on the
basis of future consumption is accepted in the absence of past
consumption data. The Nodal officer is directed to get the A/c overhauled
when sufficient data of the replaced meter becomes available. The
complainant is also requested to pay current bill subject to adjustment at
later date.
6. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-66/2015
Date of Institution - 09.11.2015 Date of Order - 16.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Gulshan Arora, Booth NO.309, Sector 32-D,
Chandigarh.
……..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Gulshan Arora, tenant of Booth NO.309, Sector 32, Chandigarh
through his complaint dated 9.11.2015 stated that in Jan. 2014, he
changed the trade from Baker’s to Garments (General Shop). In the bill
with issue date 22.10.2015 he was charged an amount of Rs.40,566/- on
account of overhauling of his account for the period meter remained
defective. He stated that his consumption after change of trade w.e.f.
Jan.2014 was much less as compared to the consumption recorded during
the period Baker shop was there . He stated that overhauling on the
basis of the prior consumption is not in order and requested for reworking
out the charges.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-66 of 2015, was
forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 3 vide letter dated 10.11.2015 for comments/action taken
report along with consumption data for last three years with a copy to
the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div. No.6 vide his letter dated 19.11.2015
submitted his comments that the meter which became defective on
26.11.2013 was replaced on 28.9.2015 being dead sop. Thereafter the
account was overhauled w.e.f. 26.11.2013 to 28.9.2015 on the basis of
previous consumption recorded during the period November 2012 to Nov.
2013. He supplied copy of MCO and consumption data.
4. On the date of hearing on 13.1.2016, the Complainant stressed that his
electricity consumption during his change business was quite on lower
side as compared to the consumption when he was running a Baker’s
shop and thus charging on that basis is not justified. The SDO was
directed to verify the statement of the complainant about change of his
business and also the load and position of AC(s) in the shop. The
necessary directions were conveyed to the Nodal Officer vide letter dated
15.1.2016. n the mean time, the complainant vide his letter dated
22.1.2016 submitted an affidavit regarding change of his trade w.e.f.
Jan. 2014 duly attested by the Notary.
5. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 9.3.2016 submitted the ECR
dated 25.1.2016 regarding the checking of the load and stated that the
load was found within sanctioned load.
6. On the next date of hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant as well as
Shri Madan Mohan who recently took over the charge of Sub Division
No.6, from Shri Krishan Verma, were present. Shri Madan Mohan stated
that he would ascertain the date of change of business from the
neighbours/meter reader and in case contention of the complainant is
found true, the account of the complainant would be overhauled in two
parts as under:-
For the period prior to change of business, the account during the
period meter remained defective, would be overhauled on the basis of
consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the recent past.
Further for the period after change of business, the account up to the date
of MCO would be overhauled on the basis of future consumption recorded
by the meter, for the corresponding period.
7. On the basis of above, the Forum directs the Nodal Officer to take
further action as per verification of the actual date of change of business
and get the account overhauled on the lines of suggestions made by the
SDO and convey the factual position within 21 days to the Forum. The
complainant is also requested to make the payment of Rs.20,000/-
towards sundry charges levied in the bill issued on 22.10.2015 subject to
the adjustment at a later date.
8. Complaint is disposed with the above directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-13/2016 Date of Institution - 21.1.2016 Date of Order - 16.03.2016 In the matter to Shri Ramesh Lal, SCO 32, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.
……..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Ishwar Chand on behalf of Shri Ramesh Lal through his complaint dated
21.1.2016 stated that the electricity bill was received on 16th Jan. 2016 for
Rs.41021/- for SCO No.32, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh which included sundry
charges. On contacting the Sub Division, it was conveyed that the meter was
defective for the period 8.4.2013 to 6.6.2015 and after replacement the account was
overhauled on the basis of average consumption for the period 8/2012 to 8/2013.
He enclosed copy of the bill and notice received from the sub division.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-13/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated
27.1.2016 for comments/action taken report along with consumption data with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div. No.6 vide his letter dated 4.2.2016 submitted that
the dead stop meter was replaced on 6.6.2015 and the account during the period
meter was defective (for the period 8.4.2013 to 6.6.2015) was overhauled on the
basis of previous consumption from 8/2011 to 8/2012. Accordingly an amount of
Rs.3609/- was debited to the consumer through sundry charges. On A/c of less
recovery.
4. On the date of hearing on 10.2.2016, both the SDO and the complainant were
present. Representative of the complainant stated that they were not aware that the
meter were defective and were under the impression that mechanical meter was
being replaced with electronic meter. They also contested that continuation of
defective meter for such a long period. The SDO attributed the delay in replacement
of meter to non availability of meters and shortage of staff. He also stated that the
consumer never approached the Sub Division for replacement of meter. The details
of overhauling were provided to the complainant who sought time to study the
consumption.
5. Thereafter the case was notified again for hearing on 16.3.2016. The complainant
did not attend. The Forum observed that overhauling of the account should have
been from 10/2012 to 6.6.2015 on the basis of one year consumption recorded
during the period 10/2011 to 10/2012.
6. The Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled on the basis of
observations made by the Forum as above. Compliance reported within 21 days
after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble
JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. Complaint is disposed with the above directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-20/2016
Date of Institution - 02.02.2016 Date of Order - 16.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Tejinder Singh Bagga, House No. 315, Sector
49-A, Chandigarh.
……..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Tejinder Singh Bagga, resident of House No. 315, Sector 49-A,
Chandigarh through his representation dated 2.2.2016 stated that his
meter became defective on 2nd June 2015 as he noted that the reading
was same. He brought it to the notice of the SDO concerned for taking
further action. Till his meter was changed, he was receiving the bill on
average basis which he was paying regularly. Simultaneously the matter
was pursued with the Sub Division for replacement of meter. For the bill
issued on 24.1.2016 after replacement of meter the sundry charges were
levied amounting to Rs.16104/-. Further the meter was changed for
which neither he was contacted nor any information was given to him. In
view of the facts that he constantly pursued with the department for
replacement of the defective meter and the payment of the bills issued on
average basis, he preyed that sundry charges amounting to Rs.16104/-
should not be charged to him. He also pointed out that during this
period his son moved out and also consumption was neglible although
the bills were issued on average basis.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-20/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 03.02.2016 for comments/action taken report along
with consumption data for last three years with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div. No.6 vide his letter dated 9.2.2016
submitted parawise comments that the dead stop meter was replaced on
14.12.2015 and the account of the consumer was overhauled for the
period 26.2.2015 to 14.12.2015 on the basis of consumption recorded
during 2014-15 @ 585 units per month. An amount of Rs.16014/- was
debited on account of less charging as per Hon’ble JERC norms.
4. On the date of hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant reiterating his
written submissions stated that they were away on L.T.C for 15 days to
Andaman & Nocobar Islands, as such average for the period they were
away should not be charged. Subsequently he provided the Office Order
with regard to sanctioning of LTC in his favour from 15.6.2015 to
30.6.2015 issued by Deputy Director Administration, P.G.I., Chandigarh.
With regard to delay in replacement of meter despite pursuance by
complainant, the SDO stated that meter could not be changed due to non
availability of the meters/shortage of staff. He stated that the sundry
charges were levied after overhauling the account with the average
worked out on the basis of corresponding period in the recent past.
5. The Forum on the basis of the LTC sanctioned order provided by the
complainant, directs the Nodal Officer not to charge the average for the
period 15.6.2015 to 30.6.2015 when the complainant was on Earned
Leave for availing LTC. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the
receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by
Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
6. Complaint is disposed with the above directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-37/2016
Date of Institution - 09.03.2016 Date of Order - 21.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Anurag, S/o Shri Darshan Chand, SCF No.25,
Sector 27-C, Chandigarh..
……..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Anurag through his representation dated 9.3.2016 submitted that a
false theft case has been implicated against his electricity connection on
his NRS connection at SCF No.25, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh. He stated
that business of sweets is being running at the shop for last 40 years and
there has been no act of mischief on their part with regard to the
electricity connection. His connection was checked on 5.11.2015 and the
load was found within sanctioned load. The meter was removed on the
plea that seals were not found in order. The meter was checked in the
Lab on 16.2.2016 and the accuracy was found O.K. After opening the
meter it was pointed out that the seals are tempered with and an
additional wire was found inside the meter. He showed his innocence and
stated that the meter was installed outside their premises and they have
not played with the meter and refuted the allegations of the department.
They also prayed for setting aside the penalty.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-37/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 11.3.2016 for comments/action taken report along with
consumption data with a copy to the complainant. Simultaneously the
hearing of the case was fixed for 21.3.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div. No.3 vide his letter dated 17.3.2016
submitted that the appeal is not maintainable as the assessment notice is
made due to theft case. The Chandigarh Administration, Home
Department Notification vide No. 8/7/2-1H(8)-2011/17800 dated
3.10.2011 has designated the courts of all the Additional Session Judges
in Union Territory of Chandigarh as Special Courts for the Union Territory
of Chandigarh for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences
referred to in section 135 to 139 of Electricity Act-2003. On the basis of
above, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the date of hearing on 21.3.2016, the complainant as well as SDO
were present. SDO relied upon the notification dated 3.10.2011 and
pressed for dismissing the complaint. The complainant with regard to
Regulations notified by Hon’ble JERC that the grievance relating to theft
under Section 135 of the Electricity Act are not to be treated as complaint
showed his dis-satisfaction and that the provisions of the Act against the
consumer interest are not fine.
5. The Forum observed that the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer)
Regulations, 2009 notified on 31 July. 2009 clearly provides that any
grievance arising out of application of section 135 shall not be considered
as complaint. The attention was drawn towards definition (e) under
Regulation 2 which reads as under:
“(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of
electricity by the licensee. Provided that the following shall not be considered as the complaint. (i) Any grievance arising out of
applicant of sections 126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of the Act.”
In view of above Forum concludes that it has no jurisdiction in the
present case.
6. With above observations, the case is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-89 of 2015
Date of Institution - 22.12.2015 Date of Order - 21.3.2016
In the matter Shri Ravinder Mohan Wahee, SCO 6-7, Sector 17-B,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.04, UT, Chandigarh. 3. The A.O. Haryana Slum Clearance Board, Bays No.11-14,
Sector-4, Panchkula.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Ravinder Mohan Wahee, Manager of M/s Harman & Sons, SCO 6-7,
Sector 17-B, Chandigarh vide his representation dated 22.12.2015 stated
that his firm is running a tailoring shop at the above mentioned premises
which is owned by Shri G.K. Garg. All the electricity connections in the
building are, however, in the name of Shri Suresh Chand. His firm was
getting Power Supply from a separate meter A/c No. 104/1743/7053GP2.
In the bill for the period June 2015 to August 2015 sundry charges
amounting to Rs.1,76,631/- were added which he submitted that does
not belong to them.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-89 of 2015 was
forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for supplying
parawise comments vide letter dated 23.12.2015 with a copy to the
complainant. Due to non receipt of comments within stipulated time
reminder was issued on 14.1.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 vide his letter dated
27.1.2016 submitted parawise comments on the representation of the
complainant. He submitted that the electricity connection bearing A/c
No. 1743/705412U in the name of Shri Suresh Chand was disconnected
due to non payment of electricity bill and after serving a notice dated
7.8.2015, the outstanding amount of Rs.1,76,631/- against this
connection was transferred to the one out of two Accounts
(1743/7043G2) of the complainant as both electricity connections are in
the name of Shri Suresh Chand. The ACD available with the Sub Division
was adjusted before transferring the amount. The complainant failed to
make the payment and the connection bearing A/c No. 1743/7043G2
was temporarily disconnected in view of provision of Regulations 9.2(10)
of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations. Thereafter the defaulting
amount was transferred to another account in the same name which is
being used by the complainant namely Shri Ravider Moihan Wahee. He
prayed for dismissal of the complaint as amount was transferred in line
with the Supply Code Regulations and the Commercial Instruction dated
16.5.2013 of the Electricity Department.
4. In the meanwhile, the complainant vide his letter dated 29.1.2016
requested for acceptance of current consumption charges and not to
disconnect his electricity connection. The Nodal Officer was accordingly
directed to accept the current consumption charges only vide letter dated
1.12.2016. Simultaneously the case was listed for hearing at the earliest
possible date i.e. 4.2.2016 for taking a final view. The hearing was
postponed to 12th Feb. 2016 as the concerned SDO conveyed his inability
to attend the hearing on 4th Feb. 2016 due to his pre-occupation in some
court case.
5. On the date of hearing on 12.2.2016, the complainant as well as RA of
the Sub Division No.4 were present. The complainant briefly conveyed
the following facts.
That the building consists of basement, ground floor, first floor, 2nd
floor and 3rd floor with electricity connections as detailed below, all in the
name of Shri Suresh Chand.
Basement - One independent connection.
Ground Floor -Three Independent connection including 2 connections belonging to that of the complainant.
1st,2nd & 3rd floor -All floors with independent connections were occupied by one tenant namely Haryana Slum
Clearance Board, Haryana Government Department.(herein after mentioned as ‘Board’).
6. He stated that Board handed over possession all the floors during March
2015 after shifting their own building in Panchkula and vacating the
same.
The RA of the Sub Division further stated that all the three
connections feeding electricity to ‘Board’ on 3 floors were disconnected
due to non payment of the electricity bills. The ACD was adjusted to
clear the defaulting amount in respect of 2nd floor and 3rd floor. The
defaulting amount of the first floor, however, could not be cleared even
after adjusting the ACD and was transferred to one of the electricity
connection at Ground floor in the name of same consumer but being
used by the complainant. He further elaborated that the meter of the 1st
floor was found defective and account was overhauled w.e.f. 19.2.2014
to 24.4.2015 on the basis of past consumption before transferring the
amount. He also informed that Board through their letter dated
22.1.2016 has offered to clear the defaulting amount from 1.7.2014 to
13.3.2015 pertaining to them stating that they had paid the electricity
bills up to June 2015. It was further stated in the letter that the above
electricity connection pertains to 3 parties i.e. ‘Board’, Premi Tea Stall
and M/s Harmon & Sons and therefore, the bill pertaining to ‘Board’ may
be conveyed to them. The RA supplied a copy of letter from the Board.
The above position as stated by the ‘Board’ that the electricity
connection was feeding to 3 tenants was contrary to the facts narrated
by the complainant. It was, therefore, thought proper to make ‘Board’
as party in the case.
7. The case was notified to be heard again on 25.2.2016 with directions to
Nodal Officer to check and confirm the factual position about the
connection as stated by the complainant. The necessary directions were
issued vide letter dated 16.2.2016 with copy to the Accounts Officer of
the ‘Board’ with the request to make it convenient to attend the hearing
on 25.2.2016 to work out all the details of outstanding amount of the bill.
8. On 25.2.2016, the Accounts Officer as well as Care Taker of the Board
attended the hearing besides the complainant and the SDO ‘OP’ Sub
Division No.4. The Accounts Officer informed that they shifted in their
own building at Panchkula and vacated the rented accommodation in
Sector-17 on 12.4.2014 but the physical possession was not handed over
and the case was put up to Haryana Government for permission. The
Haryana Government was considering shifting of some other offices of
the State Government to this building vacated by the Board. In between
the owner moved the Court for vacation/physical possession on the plea
that the allotting the premises to some other Government Department
would be subletting. The physical possession of the building was
ultimately handed over on 15.3.2015 after the Court Order on the
application by the owner. The A.O. stated that the electricity bills up to
30.6.2014 amounting to Rs.15495/- were paid by them in August 2014
and since the all floors were vacant from April 2014 onwards the
electricity consumption would be almost nil.
9. The SDO stated that the meter of the First Floor was found defective
(display defective) in April 2015 and accordingly the account was
overhauled from the date the bills were issued on average basis i.e. from
19.2.2014 to 24.4.2015 (Date of MCO) on the basis of consumption
recorded during the period 2/2013 to 2/2014. He also supplied a copy of
MCO and basis of charging and the consumption data from 19.4.2013 to
19.4.2015.
10. On the facts, as stated by the complainant and Accounts Officer of Board,
it appears that there was practically no consumption of electricity on any
of the first, 2nd or 3rd floor of the building once the Board shifted their
office to Panchkula. Thus it appeared that the overhauling done by the
Licensee of the account does not appear to be right action. The only
recoverable amount after June 2014 (Date up to which the electricity bill
was paid) could be of minimum/fixed charges and meter rental and other
rentals, if any. The SDO, however, requested for granting week’s time
to study the case stating that he took over the charge of the Sub Division
recently on transfer.
The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 during hearing of another case on
21.3.2016 agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Forum as stated in
Para 10 above.
16. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate the charges
to be recovered from Haryana Slum Clearance Board in line with the
inference drawn in Para 10. The charges debited to the Account of the
complainant are set aside. The compliance be reported within 21 days
after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed
by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
11. With these observations and directions, the complaint is considered as
disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
17. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-72 of 2015
Date of Institution - 26.11.2015 Date of Order - 21.3.2016
In the matter Prof. Satish Kumar Soni, House No.659, Sector-12,
PEC, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.04, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Asso. Prof. Satish Kumar Soni, Department of Mechanical Engg., PEC
University of Technical, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated Nov. 26,
2015 stated that his electricity bill for his residence (House No.659,
Sector-12, PEC Campus, Chandigarh) issued in the month of September
2015 amounting to Rs.12626/- was quite on higher side. He challenged
the meter and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.500/- with the concerned
Sub Division. A check meter was installed and it was observed that the
meter installed at his residence was 197% fast. The SDO, however,
refused to overhaul the account and sent the meter for further testing in
the Lab. He requested for charging the bill as per the check meter
report.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-72 of 2015 was
forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for supplying
parawise comments vide letter dated 27.11.2015 with a copy to the
complainant. In the meanwhile the complainant submitted written
complaint duly signed along with the receipt of fee of Rs.500/- and the
representation to the SDO.
3. The Nodal Officer, Xen. i.e. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated
18.1.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the concerned SDO ‘OP’
Sub Division No.4 duly countersigned. In the reply the SDO stated that
the complainant challenged the meter on 28.8.2015 and a check meter
was installed. The disputed meter was found to be fast by 197.14% and
was replaced vide MCO dated 19.9.2015. Thereafter the meter was sent
to M&P Lab as per advice of the Internal Auditor posted in his office. The
meter was tested in the presence of the consumer on 13.10.2015 and
was found to be working O.K. with errors within permissible limits. He
enclosed consumption data of last three years, copy of MCO and M&P Lab
report.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 25.2.2016 when the complainant
reiterated his written submissions stating that the account should have
been overhauled on the basis of check meter report. The SDO could not
attend the hearing and the hearing was continued to 25.2.2016. The
complainant expressed his inability and stated that he has no further
submissions to make in this case.
on 25.2.2016, the facts of the case were deliberated with the SDO
and his attention was invited to the Supply Code Regulations No.7.5(2)
reproduced below:-
7.5(2) “A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter,
if he doubts its accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his consumption, stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the
licensee along with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the meter within 30 days of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards of
Performance of Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary testing of
meters can be carried out at the premises of the consumers through electronic testing equipment.”
(i) In case the meter i found O.K., no further action shall
be taken.
(ii) In case the meter is found fast/slow by the licensee, and the consumer agrees to the report, the meter, shall
be replaced by a new meter within 15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to the month in which the
dispute has arisen shall be revised in the subsequent bill as per the test results. In case meter is found to
be slow, the additional charges may be recovered in
instalments not exceeding three, if the consumer shows
his inability to pay at a time.
5. The SDO, however, requested for granting week’s time to study the case
stating that he took over the charge of the Sub Division recently on
transfer.
The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.4 during hearing in another case on
21.3.2016 though did not dispute the check meter report but expressed
his reservation of giving relief to the complainant in view of subsequent
check of meter in the Lab.
6. The Forum is of the view that once the meter was found to be running
fast as per check meter report, the action should have been taken as per
Regulations 7.5(2) (ii) of the Supply Code Regulations. Once the
consumer agreed with the report, his bills for previous 3 months prior to
the month in which dispute arisen should have been revised as per the
test report.
With regard to contradictory reports of Check Meter and the Lab, the
Forum is of the view that Check Meter Captures the meter reading
jumping event whereas such events may not get noticed as the meter is
tested for short duration.
18. In view of above and the provisions in the such Regulations 7.5(2)(ii) of
Supply Code the bills of the consumer be revised as per provisions of the
Supply Code . Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of
the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as
per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
19. With above directions, the complaint stands dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
20. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-90/2015
Date of Institution - 23.12.2015 Date of Order - 22.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Meharban Singh, SCO 1050, Sector 22-B,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Meharban Singh, SCO 1050, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 23.12.2015 made a complaint regarding wrong inflated bill sent to
them by the Electricity Department. He also requested that his
connection should not be disconnected till the decision by the Forum.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-90/2015, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1
vide letter dated 04.01.2016 for supplying para-wise comments/action
taken report with a copy to the complainant. Directions were also issued
for not to disconnect the connection till the disposal of the complaint.
3. Subsequently Shri Meharban Singh vide his letter dated 4.2.2016,
received in the office on 5.2.2016, submitted detailed representation that
the electricity department demand of electricity bill for Rs.5,55,175/- is
wrong for which they approached the concerned Sub Division. From the
contents of the representation, it appears that demand was on account of
charging due to wrong application of the meter multiplier after
replacement of CT/PT meter in Feb.2014. It was also pointed out that
their connection stands disconnected despite the orders passed by the
CGRF. This complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP
Division No.1 for comments as the reply to the earlier representation
dated 4.1.2016 was not received by the Forum. Due to non receipt of
reply to Forum’s letter dated 4.1.2016, reminder was issued on 9.2.2016
while enclosing the complaint dated 04.02.2016 by the consumer.
4. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 vide his letter dated
23.2.2016 submitted that the complainant has also filed the case in the
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh vide
Complaint NO.53 of 2016 for the similar relief and therefore, the
complaint is not maintainable as per CGRF Regulations. He enclosed
copy of the application filed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh.
5. The complaint was listed for hearing on 22.3.2016, the consumer as well
as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No. 1 were present. The consumer admitted
that they had moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II,
U.T. Chandigarh for the relief. They were informed that since they have
approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, U.T., the
CGRF can not entertain the complaint. The complainant preferred to
pursue the complaint filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressa
Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh.
6. With above observations that the complainant has already approached
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , U.T., Chandigarh, the
CGRF can not entertain the complaint, the complaint stands disposed
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-38 of 2015
Date of Institution - 02.09.2015 Date of Order - 22.3.2016
In the matter Shri Dinesh Prashar, House No.737, 2nd Floor, Sector-
22, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.01, UT, Chandigarh. 3. Shri Rakesh Prashar, House No.1030, Sector-37, Chd.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Dinesh Prashar, resident of House No.737, 2nd floor, Sector 22-A,
Chandigarh vide his representation dated 2.9.2015, received in the office
of CGRF on 3.9.2015 made a complaint against the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division
No.1 and Shri Rakesh Prashar, resident of House No.1030, Sector 37-B,
Chandigarh. The complainant stated that he was in possession of 2nd
floor of the House No.737, Sector 22-A Chandigarh. The first floor was in
the possession of Shri Rakesh Prashar. The ground floor is occupied by
Shri Pawan Prashar. All the three floors had separate electricity meter
and separate account for each floor. Shri Rakesh Prashar (Respondent
No.3) occupant of 1st floor shifted to House No.1030, Sector 37-B,
Chandigarh about ten years back. He stopped making payment of his
electricity connection at first floor and the electricity connection was
disconnected by the electricity department on account of default in
payment. In the bill issued on 8.4.2015 the defaulting amount of Shri
Rakesh Prashar was added to the complainant’s bill amounting to
Rs.1,13,897/- . The matter was taken up with the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division
No.1 stating that the amount relates to Shri Rakesh Prashar who is
running a Juice Bar in Shop No.28, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh and at
present residing at House No.1030, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh. The matter
was taken up with the SDO for transferring the amount to the account or
Shri Rakesh Prashar, the defaulter. However, no action was taken by the
SDO and the applicant was forced to approach Permanent Lok Adalat.
The Electricity department submitted in the Permanent Lok Adalat that
the amount was transferred in line with the Sales Manual Instruction 179
as both electricity connections are existing in the name of Smt. Sant
Kaur. Shri Rakesh Prashar was also impleaded who appeared on
22.07.2015 and admitted his possession of the first floor, though he
accepted his liability but pointed out faults in the meter reading. The
Permanent Lok Adalat, however, dismissed the application of the
applicant vide order dated 17.8.2015.
Thereafter the applicant approached the Pb & Hr. High Court through
CWP No.17860 of 2015. The Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order
dated 28.8.2015 stayed the recovery of amount and disconnection of
electricity for 15 days/ till filing an application to the CGRF. In view of
above background that the complainant prayed that the disputed amount
relating to Respondent No.3 i.e. Shri Rakesh Prashar be set aside and
further name of the electricity connections existing in the name of Smt.
Sant Kaur be corrected in the record as Smt. Sant Kaur is fictitious name,
the property belongs to Lt. Shri Satkam Prashar. He also prayed for
refraining the electricity department from disconnection of his supply.
2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-38 of 2015 was
forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for supplying
parawise comments vide letter dated 04.09.2015 with a copy to the
complainant. Due to non receipt of reply, a reminder was issued to the
Nodal Officer for supplying comments on the application within five days
for taking further action vide letter dated 14.10.2015. Further reminder
was issued on 2.11.2015 with the directions to submit the following
details specifically
a) Reply along with comments on applicants letter submitted on
2.11.2015. b) Not to disconnect the supply.
c) As the person not residing since 2001, then how the bill became R.70,000/-.
d) Why the connection was not disconnected when the consumer first became defaulter.
e) Whether bill on reading. f) 50% of disputed amount not being got deposited in view of c&d above.
Only current bill amount to be deposited.
Subsequently the case was notified for hearing on 16.11.2015.
3. On 16.11.2015, the complainant and his sister and SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division
No.1 were present. The reply submitted by the SDO was deliberated and SDO
was directed to supply additional information.
i) Last 5 years consumption of all the floors.
ii) PDCO date of the first floor. iii) The period along with amount, the first floor occupant was
defaulter. iv) Load of the first floor,
v) Units of old meter (26356 units were added at the time of MCO in
the bill for the period 3/2013 to 5/2013 of the first floor. How these units when the previous bills were being issued on ‘Z’ code on same
reading/one unit.
It was also decided that the 3rd respondent (Occupant of first floor) invited for hearing.
vi) To confirm in April 2013 all the meters were replaced (Mechanical to
Electronic).
The necessary directions were issued vide letter dated 18.11.2015
with a copy to Shri Rakesh Prashar (Respondent No.3, House No.1030, Sector
37-B, Chandigarh) for making it convenient to attend the next date of
hearing.
4. Shri Rakesh Prashar through his letter dated 25.11.2015 admitted that he is a
co-owner of the house and is in possession of entire first floor of the said
house. He shifted his residence to Sector-37 in Nov. 2001 and since then
living there. He submitted that h no one was living on the first floor and the
electricity bills being received on the basis of fixed charges and meter rentals
were paid up to 10.3.2013. However, the bill received on 7.6.2013 was
prepared on the basis of a new replaced meter for the consumption of 88
units only but included energy charges of Rs.1,15,782/- for the old meter.
The next bill was current consumption charges of Rs.6486/- besides the
arrears of previous bill. The next bill dated 12.10.2013 was for current
consumption charges of Rs.4118/- with a total amount of bill of Rs.72,188/-
and so on. Subsequently the meter was got removed. On the basis of bills
issued up to 10.3.2013, he submitted that on one was residing on the first
floor.
5. The reminder was issued to the Nodal Officer on 11.12.2015 for submitting
the details as the proceeding of the last hearing on 16.11.2015.
6. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 vide his letter dated 22.12.2015 submitted
the consumption details of all the three connections along with sanctioned
load and arrears etc., copy of PDCO for connection of first floor. He also
confirmed that all three meters were electronic.
7. The case was taken up for hearing on 11.2.2016, the complainant as well as
SDO along with his RA were present but Shri Rakesh Prashar did not attend.
It was noted that copies of MCOs issued during period 3/2013 to 5/2013 were
not supplied by the SDO. He was directed to provide the copies of the MCOs
and details of the units charged at the time of issuance of next bill after
effecting the MCO.
8. Thereafter the case was notified for hearing on 22.3.2016 with copy to Shri
Rakesh Prashar to make it convenient to attend the hearing. The SDO vide
his letter dated 18.3.2016 supplied the copies of MCOs as discussed in the
last hearing. He also stated that the final readings of old meter were
intermingled in the MCO effected on 29.4.2013 which were corrected
subsequently in the month of August 2015 and revised bill of Rs.53124/- in
respect of A/c No. 2253/0737/01 (2nd floor) was issued to the complainant.
On the next date of hearing on 22.3.2016, owner of the first floor namely Shri
Rake sh Prashar did not attend. The SDO stated that all the accounts of the
said house have already been overhauled and the defaulting amount pertains
to the electricity consumption as per readings recorded by the meter. During
the hearing, it also came to the notice that the complainant along with his
brother Shri Rakesh Prashar (To whom the defaulting amount pertains as per
such division) are running a joint shop in Sector-22 market namely Prashar
Juice Bar, Shop NO.28, Sector 22, Chandigarh.
9. Observations:
From the consumption data, copies of MCOs and PDCO supplied by the
Sub Division, the following observations have been made.
i) Connection No.2253/0737/02 with Meter No. CHSE 1627322 for First Floor –owner Shri Rakesh Prashar.
a) From 10.1.2010 to 10.9.2012 the bills were prepared on same
reading 14141 with meter status O.K. b) During the period 9/2012 to 11/2012, the consumption was only 1
unit where after again uptill March 2013 no consumption was recorded on the meter. The reading on 10.3.2013 was 14142.
c) The mechanical meter was replaced with electronic meter on 29.4.2013 along with meter of other connection for 2nd floor
belonging to the complainant. d) AT the time of MCO, the readings of the meter removed from first
floor and 2nd floor got intermingled and the reading of old meter of
2nd floor was entered against the meter of first floor and vice-a–versa with the result that though the meter of 2nd floor was removed
at reading of 14152 (the same reading as on 14.3.2012) yet due to mentioning of reading of meter of 2nd floor as 40498 instead of
14142 actual reading of First Floor, 26356 units 26356 (40498-14142=26356) were debited to the account of first floor (thereby
issuing the bill for around Rs.1 lac.) to Shri Rakesh Prashar. Thereafter he stopped making payment of his electricity bill due to
receipt of such huge bill though he was not living on that floor. e) From the consumption data as supplied by the Sub Division in
respect of first floor and 2nd floor it appears that electricity consumption of first floor was being booked to the 2nd floor and vice-
a-versa and continued from the date of MCO (29.4.2013) to 10.3.2014. This is apparent from the past consumption of both the
accounts. Thus in another words the intermingling of readings could
not be detected till 10.3.2014. f) In view of intermingling from initial reading of new meter -4 as on
29.4.2013 to 4973 as on 10.3.2014, consumption of 4969 units belonged to the complainant though booked against electricity
connection for first floor in the name of owner of the first floor (4973-4=4969).
g) On the other hand the consumption from meter reading 8 as on 29.4.2013 to 262 as on 10.3.2014 i.e. (262-8=254 units ) belonged
to first floor and not 2nd floor. h) As per PDCO dated 4.2.1014, the reading of the meter at the time of
effecting PDCO in respect of first floor was only 5232 as on 5.2.2014.
Copies of the consumption data in respect of first floor and 2nd Floor,
MCOs of first floor and 2nd floor and PDCO are placed at Annexure A, B, C, D
& E respectively.
On the basis of above observations, it is seen that during the period
29.4.2013 to 10.3.2014 the total units booked to electricity connection for
2nd floor were 254 units against 4969 units which were actually consumed
but booked to electricity connection of 1st floor due to intermingling of
reading. In view of above observations, the actual consumption of the first
floor after replacement of meter on 29.4.2013 to date of PDCO is calculated
as under:-
Meter reading at the time of PDCO =5232
Initial reading of MCO = 004
Total Consumption =5228
The extra consumption booked to 1st floor though consumed by 2nd floor=4969-254 =4705(as per ‘f’ & ‘g’ above)
Actual consumption required to be booked
to 1st floor=5228-4705=523 units = 523
Simultaneously 4705 units are required to be debited to the
Account of 2nd floor for the period 29.4.2013 to 3.5.2014 due to
intermingling of reading.
10. Decision:
On the basis of above observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul
the account i.e. 2253/0737/01Y for 1st floor and 2253/0737/02A for 2nd
floor from 29.42013 onwards. The outstanding amount in respect of
electricity connection bearing A/c No. 2253/0737/02A for 2nd floor be debited
to the electricity connection in the name of Prashar Juice Bar, Sector-22,
Chandigarh. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the
order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per
relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
The Nodal Officer is also directed to check/verify the name of the
electricity/connection from record/documents to be supplied by the
complainant and effect change of name in case of any discrepancy.
11. With above directions, the complaint is disposed.
21. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
DA/Annexure A, B, C , D &E.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-35/2016
Date of Institution - 04.03.2016 Date of Order - 23.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Pankaj Arora, Flat No.1706B, RBI Colony,
Sector-44B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Pankaj Arora, Resident of House No. 1706, R.B.I. Colony, Sector 44-
B, Chandigarh through his complaint dated 2nd March 2016, received in
the office of CGRF on 4.3.2016, submitted that his bill for Flt No. 1706 B,
Sector 44-B for the period 25.11.2015 to 25.01.2016 was prepared on
inflated reading i.e. 8901 against the meter reading of 1338 units as
found on date.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-35/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4
vide letter dated 08.03.2016 for supplying para-wise comments/action
taken report with a copy to the complainant. Simultaneously it was
indicated that the case would be heard on 23.3.2016.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 21.3.2016
submitted that the bill was corrected after verification of the reading with
adjustment of Rs.35490/- to be reflected in forthcoming bill to be issued
on 20.4.2016. He also stated that revised bill was sent to the consumer
on 17.3.2016 and enclosed copy of same.
4. On the date of hearing on 23.3.2016, RA, on the behalf of the ‘OP’ Sub
Division No.9, submitted the written reply stating that the reading was
got verified on 15.3.2016 and the bill was revised from Rs.35862/- to
Rs.4158/-. He also corrected the bill brought by the complainant and
desired that the revised amount of Rs.4158/- be paid before 30th of the
March 2016. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to ensure that
requisite advices are sent to Computer Centre so that the next bill
prepared is correct.
5. Observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been
redressed , complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SHRI R.L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.) MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 628 Date of Institution - 12.9.2014 Date of Order - 23.3.2016 In the matter M/s Punjab Waste Plant Co. Pvt. Ltd., 92, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Jagdish, Managing Director, Punjab Waste Plant Co. (P) Ltd., 92, Industrial
Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh vide his application dated 12.9.2014 submitted that he
received a notice from the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 on dated 21.8.2014 for Rs.
4,93,608/- on account of short assessment for the period 27.5.2012 to 30.4.2014.
The amount was included in the bill dated 3.9.2014. The Short assessment was
revised to Rs.6,98,991/- vide revised Notice dated 9.9.2014. Simultaneously the
provisional notice dated 21.8.2014 was cancelled by the Sub Division. On
contacting the Sub Division they were told that the short assessment was on
account of Blue Phase CT not contributing to the load. They showed their ignorance
to CT/PT and working of energy meter and requested for withdrawal of the amount.
In the mean time, SDO was also requested to allow them to pay the current
consumption charges. The complainant also stated that they were being charged
meter rent of Rs.500/- P.M. though the meter was provided by them. The request
was also made on this account not to charge meter rent hence forth and refund the
amount already charged. The notice issued by the Sub Division, Copy of the bills
and representation made to the Sub Division were attached along with the
representation.
2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy.
‘OP’ Division No.2 for examined and submission para wise comments vide letter
dated 22.9.2014..
3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 17.10.2014
duly countersigned by the Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’ Division No.2 submitted
the written reply as under:-
a) The Electricity Connection of the complainant was checked by team constituted
for the purpose on 15.7.2014. During testing it was found that Blue Phase CT of
11 KV meter was not contributing to 100% Energy recorded by the meter. The
accuracy test conducted on the meter at site showed that the meter was slow by
32.26% (First instance) and 31.72% in the subsequent instance. The retrieved
MRI data confirmed the exact date and time since when the failure had occurred
as 27.5.2012.
b) A Provisional Notice was issued on 21.8.2014 for depositing a sum of Rs.4,93,608/-
on account of short assessment from 27.5.2012 to 30.4.2014 due to non
contribution of Blue Phase CT of 11 KV meter(as per MRI data). However, later on
a calculation mistake was detected and a revised notice was served on 9.9.2014 to
pay a sum of Rs.6.98.996/-.
c) Regarding charging of Meter rent, he stated that the record would be checked
and amount would be refunded in case it is found that meter belonged to consumer.
d) The SDO submitted that the department had only charged the legitimate and
lawful amount for which the consumer had already used the electricity. He also
enclosed the copy of notice issued to the Complainant, copy of MRI data, Copy of
calculation sheet, copy of ECR and Report of M/s YMPL.
4. In the mean while the complainant vide his letter submitted in the office on
31.10.2014, further submitted that all the seals were found intact at the time of
checking, working of CT/PT unit was found O.K as per ECR report. The testing done
on 15.4.2014 was not done as per installation and operation of Meter Regulations
2006. Further MRI data as supplied was incomplete and does not disclose the Blue
CT short at all during the period 27.5.2012 to 30.4.14. The Managing Director of the
Co. also stated that CT/PT was damaged in May 2014 and was replaced with a new
unit by the Department during May 2014 itself. He requested for the MRI data taken
before the replacement of meter if any. He also based his argument that there was no
error in connections of CT supply to the meter and no such temper was ever detected
in the retrieved MRI data. Thus establishing that only accuracy of the meter is at
dispute, he therefore, requested for testing of the meter in Lab. The consumer also
stated that they made the payment of the short assessment charges in the month of
September 2014.
5. The complaint registered as Complaint No.628 was listed for hearing on 30.12.2014.
The complainants as well as Nodal Officer along with concerned SDO and RA of the
Sub Division were present. During deliberations, the presence of representative of the
testing agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case was thereafter notified
for hearing on 3.3.2015, on which date the Nodal Officer, the complainant as well as
representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the representative of meter
manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not make himself available for the
hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL also desired for some more time to study
the MRI data. The Nodal Officer was requested to contact the representative of the
Meter Manufacturer and intimate the convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-
ordinating with representation of M/s YMPL. During hearing the representative of the
complainant desired that the meter lying with the Sub Division be also got tested in lab
for accuracy. Necessary directions were issued vide letter dated 18.3.2015. The XEN
Elect. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide his letter dated 14.05.2015 submitted that the mater
laying with the AEE Elect. ‘OP’ Sub Division No. 5 was tested on 30.04.2015 in the
presence of the consumer representative. He enclosed test results, the meter was
found slow by 35.73%. Inference was drawn that it was on account of Blue Phase CT
not contributing.
6. The case was again notified for hearing on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF. The
complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 along with RA of
the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL who carried out the
checking and representatives of the Meter Manufacturer were present.
7. The representative of the complainant stated that CT/PT unit got damaged on
6.5.2014 was replaced on 15.7.2014, the billing during this period was done on
average basis. At the time of checking on 15.7.2014 it was observed that one CT (Blue
Phase) not found contributing. The meter was replaced and was sealed for testing
and was subsequently tested in the lab and found to be slow with Blue Phase CT not
contributing. The representative of the complainant stated that probably meter (Blue
Phase CT) became defective when CT/PT unit got damaged on 6.5.2014. He further
agreed that the MRI data provided by the Sub Division does not show any event that
Blue Phase CT was missing during the period 23.8.2001 to 12.2.2014 as per event
type ‘CTF’. The MRI data only shows CT reversal and current unbalance from time to
time. Shri Malik, representative of the testing agency i.e. M/s YMPL stated that as per
MRI data Blue Phase CT of the meter stopped contributing on 27.5.2012 and the
event continued thereafter which was also found at the time of testing in the Lab. He
did not agree with the opinion of the complainant representative that the defect
occurred when external CT/PT unit got flashed on 6.5.2014.
The Nodal Officer supplied the consumption data and stated that consumption
data shows that the consumption increased subsequently after replacement of the
meter on 15.7.2014. On the request by the representative of the complainant the
Nodal Officer was directed to supply MRI data downloaded from the meter from time to
time including the downloaded data along with load survey with a copy to the
complainant. Mr. Yogesh of M/s Secure Meter joined the discussion and stated that
Blue Phase CT of the meter stopped contributing w.e.f 27.5.2012 and continued
thereafter as clear from the MRI data. He also ruled out the possibility of meter CT
getting set right intermittently after 27.5.2012. He also ruled out the possibility of only
Blue Phase CT of the meter getting damaged due to flash of external CT/PT on
6.5.2014. He stated that in that even all the CT of the meters would have got
damaged.
8. On submissions of the details by the concerned sub division, the complaint was listed
for hearing on 8.12.2015 along with other similar cases. The complainant
representative, Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2, AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.5 and AEE
Enforcement were present. The MRI data/consumption data was deliberated but no
conclusion could be drawn during the hearing. It was decided to discuss the MRI data
with Nodal Officer and AEE Enforcement and representative of Testing agency/ Meter
Manufacturer for taking a final view.
9. The complainants as well as concerned SDO were present during the next hearing on
27.1.2016. With regard to the complainant’s submission that meter was supplied by
them and as such charging of meter rental is not in order, the SDO stated that meter
belonged to the department which is also clear from the Meter No. i.e.
CHET0465/CED01205. Had the meter was provided by the consumer, the Code would
have been “CHPVT-0-465” and not “CHET0465/CED01205. It appeared that the initial
meter belonged to the department but replaced meter after checking by Enforcement
Wing might have been provided by the consumer. The SDO was directed to check
the factual position and not to charge any rental in case the meter belonged to the
consumer. With regard to downloading of MRI data from the meter, the SDO stated
that the meter was checked for the first time in May 2014 after installation. The MRI
data was not taken at the time of replacement of CT/PT unit in May 2014. The
technical expert of the consumer stated that load survey was not taken by the
department at the time of downloading of MRI data.
SDO pointed out that the consumption data shows that consumption
increased substantially after replacement of meter due to installation of a correct
meter. The representative of the consumer was asked to supply their authenticated
production data for the last 7-10 years. The consumer promised to supply the details
within 10 days. The SDO was also directed to supply the up to date consumption
data. The technical experts of the consumer specifically stated that there is no
increased in consumption after replacement of meter rather it has declined in certain
months where as the consumption increased in some months. He also agreed that
the conclusion could be drawn once the consumer supplies the consumption data for
the previous years.. He also raised the issue that the secure make meter are not as
per approved specification of the PSPCL or any other agency in India. He insisted for
30 days load survey. He pointed out that the temper data do not specifically mention
Blue Phase CT missing on any date in the record from 2001 to date.
10. In view of the technical expert insisting for load survey, the Nodal Officer was directed
to supply the fresh load survey and MRI data vide letter dated 2.2.2016 followed by
reminder on 29.2.2016, The matter was also taken up with the consumer to supply the
details of the production data as discussed in the hearing.
11. The consumer vide his letter dated 8.2.2016 demanded some more time to submit
data. Vide their letter dated 11.2.2016, he only supplied the Power consumption data
for last five years stating that it will not in the interest of justice to co-relate their power
consumption to their yarn production in Kilogram in view of the following:
i) That they produce shoddy/wool waste yarns and the production depends on
thickness of yarn as they produce yarns of different thicknesses.
ii) Suppose they produce 4 metric count (that means 4 meters yarn per gram), the
production will be more i.e. double as compared to 8 metric count (8 meters of
yarn per gram) and triple as compared to 12 metric count. They produce
different yarns from 3 metric count to 12 metric count.
iii) They produce yarns from wool waste, woollens Rage etc.& a number of
preparatory machines are associated with the production. If the wool or waste is
loose, it requires less preparatory and if it is hard, it has to be opened and then
spun. A lot of power is used in preparatory machines.
iv) They also export some items & have packing/pressing machines, which
consume electricity when there is order.
12. In view of above reply by the complainant it is not possible to co-relate the
production with consumption of the electricity. We, therefore, focused on the
“Cumulative Temper Status Report” downloaded through MRI and he consumption
data annexed as Annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.
On the perusal of the Temper Status Report (Annexure ‘A’), we observe
that the current in B phase became ‘0’ (Zero) on 27.5.2012 and continued except
for figure of ‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’ amps during brief spells during the period 1.7.2013 to
18.10.2013 on ‘3’ occasions at 9.46.23 hrs. on 1.7.2013, 1.11.46 hrs. on 14.9.2013
and at 19.01.11 hours on 18.10.2013, though in between recorded events, the
current in Blue phase was zero. On these 3 occasions, the current in blue phase
was very very less as compared to currents in other phases (1 amp. against 17
amp., 3 amps against 7 amps and 2 amp against 7 amps). Thus practically the
current in blue phase was negligible and contributing very little in recording of the
consumption. This clearly established that the blue phase was not contributing in
recording of the full electricity being consumed since 27.5.2012, and continued till
testing of the meter by the team on 15.7.2014.
It has also been observed from the consumption data (Annexure ‘B’) that
considerable increase in consumption was observed after the deficiency in the
meter was set right at the time of testing/checking during July 2014. The increase
in consumption after July 2014 onwards was consistent as compared to
consumption recorded in the past since 2011.
13. Decision:
On the basis of inference drawn in the above Para No.12, the Forum concludes that
Blue Phase CT stopped contributing to recording of 100% energy by the meter
w.e.f. 27.5.2012 and continued till date of checking on 15.7.2014 when it was
observed that the meter was recording less by 31.72%. The subsequent checking
of the meter and also the consistent increase in consumption after replacement of
correct meter support the above conclusion. The Forum, therefore, is of the view
that the short assessment worked out by the ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 is in order.
The complaint finds no merit and is thus dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
14. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-47/2015 Date of Institution - 27.09.2015 Date of Order - 28.03.2016 In the matter to Smt. Tapati Chakraborty, House No.6306, Rajiv Vihar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Tapati Chakraborty, resident of House No.6306, Rajiv Vihar, Manimajra, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated 27 Sept., 2015 stated that the input voltage of the electricity supply
being received at her residence is in the range of 257-270 volts which is much above the
rated voltage to be supplied. Some appliances got damaged.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-47/2015 was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for para-wise comments
vide letter dated 29.09.2015 with a copy to the complainant. A reminder was also
issued on 14.10.2015 and 17.11.2015.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8, vide his letter dated 16.11.2015
submitted the reply stating that concerned area in-charge visited the site 2/3 times
in the morning (9 AM to 10 AM) and checked the voltage in the presence of the
complainant, the same was found in the range of 230-240 volts which is
permissible limit of the rated voltage to be supplied. He also stated that the
allegations levelled by the complainant regarding damaged of appliances due to
over voltage are not correct, as the whole society is fed from 1000 KVA Transformer
from tubewell feeder emanating from 66 KV BBMB. No such complaint from any
other residents of the society has been received. In case some appliances got
damaged that may be due to internal fault in the wiring.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.12.2015 vide letter dated 30.11.2015
with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on 15.12.2015, the
complainant stated that she was observing high voltage during evening hours. The
SDO of Sub Division No. 8 was present during the hearing reiterated his written
submissions.
On the next date of hearing on 28.03.2016, the complainant did not attend. The
RA present on behalf of Sub Division No. 8 provided the details of Voltage checked
on 17.03.2016 and on 23.03.2016 as under:
Date R Phase Y Phase B Phase
17.03.2016 242V 244V 247V
23.03.2016 at 2:45 P.M 240V 242V 241V
The premise was found locked, as such the complainant could not be contacted
on them details.
5. The Forum observing that the voltage being supplied to the complainant was within
permissible limit of the rated voltage, does not find any merit in the complaint.
Further no other person from the society has lodged similar complaint. Complaint
stands disposed with the above observations.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND
SHRI R.L. MITTAL, MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 629
Date of Institution - 15.10.2014 Date of Order - 23.03.2016
In the matter M/s Golden India Steels (P) Ltd., Plot No.128,
Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Saroop Singh, Director, Golden India Steels (P) Ltd., Plot No.128,
Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh vide his representation dated
15.10.2014 made a representation against the final notice issued by SDO,
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 for Rs. 4,38,555/- due to short assessment for
the period 17.7.2012 to 17.7.2014. He submitted that his electricity
connection was checked vide ECR No.46/522 dated 17.7.2014. On the
basis of ECR and MRI data, the notice for short assessment was issued
by the SDO. He stated that the company does not agree with the
assessment and he challenged the assessment notice raising following
objections.
i) The test was not done as per the installation and operation of
meters Regulations 2006 issued by the CEA. The temper shown in
the MRI data as “CTS” for a while and restoring after small time is
no temper in the light of appended schedule III-2(i) to these
regulations. The CTs cannot remain shorted for four years
continuously.
ii) It was the duty of Licensee to install a correct meter and maintain it
through periodical testing as per Clause 7.4 of the Supply Code
2010.
iii) As per ECR, the meter was tested at site for accuracy with the
Standard Reference Meter and found to be within limits. It has
not been displayed that how the meter has been tested in isolation
to the CT/PT without disturbing the TTB.
iv) He raised suspicion that the connection of CT has been disturbed at
TTB during the testing itself.
v) The short assessment has been made in a hypothetical way. The
meter was found O.K and CT /PT also been tested separately found
OK then it is the only disturbance of TTB which confused the
testing party for which consumer cannot be penalized.
He, therefore, prayed that the assessment notice be
stayed till the pendency of their complaint. He enclosed Copy of ECR
Report, Notice issued by the SDO, MRI data and applications made to the
concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5.
2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’
Division No.2 were called vide letter dated 22.10.2014.
3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 submitted para-wise
comments vide letter dated 18.12.2014 duly countersigned by the
Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’ Division No.2. He stated that the electric
connection at the premises was checked on 17.7.2014 by the team
constituted for the purpose of Onsite Testing and checking of 11 KV
CT/PT equipment and meters by the third party (NAB Accredited Lab).
During testing it was found that Red, Yellow & Blue Phase CTs were not
contributing to 100% energy being recorded by the meter. The testing
was carried out as per provisions contained in Supply Code Regulation,
2010 notified by Hon’ble JERC. The retrieved MRI data showed that the
defect was continuing w.e.f. 16.8.2008. Accordingly, his office issued a
notice asking the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.4,38,555/- on
account of short assessment w.e.f. 17,7,2012 to 17.7.2014 due to non
contribution of Red, Yellow & Blue Phase CTs. The MRI data was
retrieved both before and after conducting the test. With regard to the
complainant plea that he cannot be penalized, the AEE submitted that he
has not been penalized but the notice has been issued for charging of
actual units consumed by the complainant during the period in reference.
Onsite Testing/Checking was carried out by the department with M/s
YMPL (third party) and during testing it was noticed that electric
connection was not contributing to actual energy being used by the
complainant. The AEE enclosed copy of Notice, MRI data,
Consumption/ECR Report and Report of M/s YMPL.
4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.629 was listed for hearing
on 30.12.2014 along with other similar cases. The complainants as well
as Nodal Officer along with concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 were
present. During deliberations, the presence of representative of the
testing agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case was
thereafter notified for hearing on 3.3.2015, the Nodal Officer, the
complainant as well as representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the
representative of meter manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not
make himself available for the hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL
also desired for some more time to study the MRI data. The Nodal Officer
was requested to contact the representative of the Meter Manufacturer
and intimate the convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-ordinating
with representation of M/s YMPL. Necessary directions were issued vide
letter dated 18.3.2015. A reminder was also issued on 30.7.2015.
5. Thereafter the case was again heard on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF.
The complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5
along with RA of the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL
and representatives of the Meter Manufacturer were present. Shri R.L.
Mittal, Independent Member was on leave. The concerned AEE explained
that all the 3 screws phases were found semi-tightened at TTB at position
No.1,4 & 7 thereby resulting into less contribution of the electricity
recorded by the meter. As per downloaded MRI data, defect occurred in
2008 but the charging was done for 2 years in view of Section 56 (2) of
the Electricity Act 2003. Shri Yogesh representative of M/s Secure Meter
from the data opined that it is apparent that the defect occurred in 2008.
The complainant stated that they are doing the job of coil cutting with
load of 303 KW. The coil is lifted from trucks and then put on un-coiler
before the machine is set the heavy motor load is required for lifting of
coils and its cutting. He stated that out of the total time of 2-3 hours
taken for the whole process, the electricity is consumed for only about 25
minutes for lifting/cutting of the coils. At the maximum 3 coils can be cut
in a day. He pointed out that their consumption pattern has not under
gone any major change after the testing when the noticed defect was
removed. The Nodal Officer was asked to supply complete downloaded
data of the complainant.
6. On the next date of hearing on 8.12.2015, the complainant as well as
Nodal Officer along with AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 and AEE Enforcement
were present . The representative of M/s YMPL who conducted the
testing did not attend. The MRI/Consumption data was analysed.
However, no conclusion could be drawn from the data supplied by the
concerned Sub Division. It was decided that the MRI data would be
discussed with representative of M/s YMPL and AEE Enforcement in the
presence of Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 The AEE Enforcement stated that the
continuation of the event could have been from the date of last checking
of the premises. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer was requested to
confirm/intimate whether it was first checking/testing of the meter or
earlier inspection prior to that data was undertaken. He was directed to
supply details in the later case.
7. On the next date of hearing on 19.1.2016, the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 ,
AEE Enforcement along with RA were present. During the hearing the
AEE stated that no checking of the premises was carried out earlier. The
consumption data as well as MRI data was seen but no agreement could
be reached on the date of continuation of the defect.
8. From the MRI data it was observed that on 16.8.2008 (the date being
specified by the Licensee as occurrence of the fault), the event of ‘ND”
(Neutral Disturbance) was found to have occurred which was restored on
16.8.2008 itself after about 10 hours. The occurrence of event of ‘CTS’
(CT short) occurred at regular intervals since 19.10.2012 and was
restored after some hours/days/months. On Close scrutiny it was noted
that during these events the current in particular phase was quite on
lower side as compared to current in other two phase. This implies that
full current was not being fed into the meter and thus the meter did not
record full quantum of power being drawn. As in some cases, the event
continued for months together, the occurrence of event on A/c of
unbalancing of the load drawn was ruled out in such cases. The
Consumption data from 2007 to 2015 did not show much variation
particularly in the year 2012 onwards. The consumption after setting
right the defect also did not show any substantial increase during the
later part of the year 2014 or in year 2015. The complainant insisted that
their business was more or less, same during all these years and offered
to submit the Sales Tax Certificate in support of his statement. The Nodal
officer was also requested to supply fresh MRI data/load survey vide
letter dated 2.3.2016 followed by a reminder on 29.2.2016 but the same
has not been received despite reminder.
9. In response to CGRF letter dated 02.02.2016 followed by 29.02.2016, the
complainant vide his letter dated 02.03.2016 submitted financial
transactions in respect of two firms- M/s G.I. Steels and M/s GMP Steels
(P) Ltd. which were incorporated after splitting of the original Company
namely Golden India Steels (P) Ltd. between two brothers. The quarter
wise total sales for the period 2013-14 onwards as supplied along with
the electric consumption is indicated below:-
Period Total sales (Rs)
Year Quarter G.I. Steels. ‘A’
GMP Steels ‘B’
Total A+B
Electricity consumption
2013-1
4
1st 1601525 2956928 4558453 19130
2nd 1602624 1342685 2945309 29960
3rd 2512445 1356762 3869207 13360
4th 3321498 1232231 4553729 23460
2014-1
5
1st 1800296 1041271 2841567 20570
2nd 2447650 965257 3412907 25910
3rd 1732054 1655650 3387704 27650
4th 3023222 1279648 4302870 18740
2015-1
6
1st 2655032 1347003 4002035 23040
2nd - 1543692 - 21430
3rd - 1493069 - 10870
The above compilation shows lot of variation in total sales vis-a-vis
power consumed. To analyse further we tried to co-relate/analyse the
above with the MRI date. From the MRI data, attached as Annexure A, we
observed that the event of ‘CTS’ (CT Short) occurred on following
instances and continued for more than a month:
a) From 19.10.12 to 21.11.2012 – 39 days
b) From 08.12.12 to 05.04.2013 – 117 days
c) From 05.08.13 to 27.10.2013 – 83 days – spread over 2nd and 3rd
quarter of 2013-14.
d) From 23.01.14 to 23.03.2014 – 58 days – during 4th quarter 13-
14.
For the events at (a) & (b), the sales data has not been furnished so
we focus on the events as per & (c) and (d). The occurence of these
events during 2nd/3rd quarter of 2013-14 and 4th quarter of 2013-14
indicating that full current was not being fed to the meter, explains to
some extent the reasons for comparatively less consumption of
electricity during these quarters though total sales were quite higher
during these quarters. However, no conclusion can be drawn due to
huge variation in figure of sales vis-a-vis consumption during
particular quarters. It is also possible that figures of sales may not
relate to consumption of electricity of a particular quarter but the
electricity consumed in the previous quarter(s).
10. Conclusion & Decision:
The checking & testing report of CT/PT and meter clearly shows that the
screws of TTB at position No.1,4 & 7 were found semi-tightened and
thus showing errors as “Large CT ratio error in R&Y Phase and over
current error in B Phase.” The accuracy results were found within
permissible limits after opening of the screws at position No.1,4 & 7 of
TTB i.e after removing the defect of large CT ratio error and current
error.
The MRI data establish that full current was not being fed to the
meter at various times resulting into less recording/registering of
electric consumption. Such events were recorded as CTS (C.T. Short)
with Occurrence and Restoration of the event and duration. The event
continued since 19.10.2012 as per data in the Cumulative Tamper
Status Report downloaded with MRI attached as Annexure “A”.
In view of above, we are of the view that the short assessment
needs to be reworked out only for the period when the meter was not
registering full consumption as per “Cumulative Tamper Status Report
(Annexure A). It has also been noted that the data includes period as
small as 37 minutes which could be on A/c of current imbalance as
well. We are therefore, of the view that all such period which are less
than 1 day be excluded while working out revised short assessment.
In the above back ground, the short assessment for
Rs.4,38,555/- (83700 units) is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to
recalculate the short assessment for the occurrences of the event ‘CTS’
recorded in the Cumulative Tamper Status Report where the duration of
the event is more than 24 hours. Compliance be reported within 21 days
after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed
by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
11. With the above directions and decision, complaint is considered as
disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
12. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-07/2016 Date of Institution - 18.01.2016 Date of Order - 28.03.2016 In the matter to ShriRaj Kumar Gandhi, Gandhi Service Station, Opposite 5 Peer, Near Vishkarma Mandir, Mansa Devi Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Raj Kumar Gandhi through his complaint received in the office of CGRF on
18.1.2016 submitted that electricity connection was not being released for the
recently constructed temporary shed for the Service Station at Mansa Devi Road,
Manimajra though the A&A Form etc. were deposited on 26.3.2014. He further
stated that a letter was recently received from the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8,
Manimajra that decision on his case will be taken only after the decision of CGRF in
another case. The applicant stated that the case of Shri Rajesh Mahajan has been
decided in his favour but the electricity connection has not yet been provided to the
applicant on the basis of CGRF decision in that case. He further stated that he has
already one service station at Manimajra with valid electricity connection for which
he is paying the bills regularly.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-07/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated
20.01.2016 for supplying para-wise comments/action taken report with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 4.2.2016 confirmed
that as per CGRF order the temporary connection to Shri Rajesh Mahajan has
already been released. The complainant was requested vide letter dated 28.1.2016
to attend to his office for taking further action on his application. He also informed
that since one electricity connection at site already exists in the name of the
complainant, 2nd connection may not be allowed.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 28.3.2016, the complainant as well as RA
of the Sub Division were present. The RA agreed to provide temporary NRS
connection to the applicant but the applicant requested for regular permanent
connection. The Forum is of the view that temporary connection is for specific
purposes which are temporary in nature. The complainant is requesting for a
connection which is of permanent nature . The RA also raised the issue to
safeguarding the dues of electricity department. The complainant stated that he has
three more connections in the area and in case of default the amount may be
transferred to any of these connections. He also promised to supply the details of
the connections to the Sub Division.
5. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to release regular NRS connection to
the applicant after fulfilling the formalities as provided in the Supply Code. The
details of the existing three connections in the name of consumer may also be had
for transferring the outstanding amount to those accounts in case of default by the
consumer in payment of bills against this connection. Compliance be reported within
21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by
Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
6. With above directions, the complaint is disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-04/2016
Date of Institution - 08.01.2016 Date of Order - 29.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Atul Gandhi, House No.62, Sector-2,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Atul Gandhi, resident of House No.62, Sector-2, Chandigarh through
his complaint received in the office of CGRF on 8.1.2016 submitted that
his bill on the basis of meter reading during the year 2015 were quite on
higher side as compared to bills issued during 2014. He also supplied
comparative statement of the bills issued during the year 2014 and 2015.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-04/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1
vide letter dated 11.1.2016 for comments along with consumption data
with a copy to the complainant.
3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated
15.2.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division
No.2 duly countersigned. The AEE in his reply stated that the meter of
the complainant remained defective for the period 3.7.2015 to 8.1.2016
during which average @ 10225 units were charged bi-monthly. The
defective meter was replaced on 8.1.2016 and the account was
overhauled on the basis of past consumption. He supplied last three
years consumption, copy of MCO and SJO.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 24.2.2016, but complainant
could not make it and requested for adjournment stating that he was
struck on the way while coming back from Delhi.
5. The case was subsequently notified for hearing on 29.3.2016, the
complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The
complainant raised that bill issued during May to July 2015 for 20006 was
very much on higher side as compared to his average bill in the range of
5000-6000 units before the meter became defective. The RA stated that
the consumption during the period Jan. to May 2015 was on lower side
and pointed out that the higher consumption during May to July 2015
could be on account of accumulation. The Forum after considering the
aspects of accumulation felt that the consumption of 20000 units (3 times
the highest consumption in the past) was on very very higher side as
compared to average consumption in the past. The accumulation of
reading as pointed out by RA could not be more than 5000 units and thus
gap of about 9000 units could not be explained. On the other hand the
meter becoming defective thereafter suggest that the reading in May
2015 could be on account of inflated or meter becoming defective.
After deliberations, it was agreed that the account of the consumer may
be overhauled from Jan. 2015 to date of MCO i.e. 8.1.2016 on the basis
of consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2014.
6. The Forum on the basis of above directs the Nodal Officer to overhaul the
account of the consumer for the period Jan. 2015 to Jan.2016 on the
basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2014.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order
failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per
relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. With above directions, complaint is disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-28/2016
Date of Institution - 17.2.2016 Date of Order - 29.03.2016
In the matter to Smt. Shivinder Kaur, House No.30, Sector 2A,
Chandigarh..
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Smt. Shivinder Kaur, resident of House No.30, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh
through her complaint dated 17.2.2016 submitted that the electricity
department incorrectly charged the average consumption for the period
3.1.2014 to 15.1.2015 for the first floor, as the first floor was vacant
from year 2012 till September 2015. She also stated that while taking
the average, summer peak months were considered. Notice for
Rs.1,65,635/- issued by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2 was attached.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-28/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1
vide letter dated 18.02.2016 for comments and also to verify the
occupancy status of first floor of the house as per the statement of the
complainant. The complainant was also directed to make payment of
Rs.50,000/- besides current cycle charges. Simultaneously the case was
notified for hearing on 29.3.2016.
3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated
9.3.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2
duly countersigned. The AEE in his reply stated that the complainant did
not inform the Sub Division about the portion of the first floor being
vacant from June 2012 to September 2015. He further submitted that for
charging the average for the period meter remained defective (1/2014 to
1/2015), future consumption from 5/2015 to 11/2015 was taken has
pointed out by the Internal Auditor. On the basis of consumption, he
further stated that it appeared that the meter remained defective from
September 2012 but the average was charged only for one year, keeping
in view the provision of Section 56 of the Electricity Act. With regard to
charging on the basis of future consumption, he submitted that since
reliable past data was not available, the I.A. suggested charging on future
consumption basis. He supplied photo copy of last four years
consumption, MCO, half margin and notice issued to the consumer. He
also confirmed that as per orders of the CGRF, the complainant made
payment of Rs.50,000/- plus current cycle charges.
4. On the date of hearing on 29.3.2016, the complainant’s husband as well
as RA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant submitted a
letter indicating the vacancy position of first floor as under:-
1. Ashoo vacated on = June 2012
2. Renovation & minor repair = July 2012 to Nov.2012 3. Self-occupied for marriage of Son =December 2012 to Feb.2013.
4. House Vacant = March 2013 to August 2014. 5. Occupied by Mr. Doabia = September 2014 to till date.
6. Reported damage meter on = December 2014 and meter was installed in the month of Dec.
2014.
The complainant’s husband also provided photo copy of the Lease
Deed in support of above dates and a letter asking the tenant Ashoo to
vacate the first floor on 30th June 2012 as per Lease Deed dated 11th
Jan.2012 supplied by them.
5. The Forum after co-relating the consumption with the statement of the
complainant noted that consumption dropped sharply from around 3000-
4000 units to 100-200 units w.e.f. September 2012 onwards. As per
MCO
dates 15.01.2015, the dead stop meter was removed at reading of
4751. This reading as per consumption data was existing on 03.03.2013.
Thus meter become dead around this period.
As per details provided by the complainant vide letter dated
29.03.2016, the First Floor, was self occupied for marriage of her son up
to Feb. 2013. As per Lease Deed the first floor was again let out w.e.f.
1.9.2014.
6. On the basis of above observations, the earlier overhauling on the basis
of half margin is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the
account of the consumer as under:-
i) Thus from 3/2013 to 8/2014 - Account be overhauled on the basis
of consumption recorded during the period 9/2012 to 3/2013.
ii) From 9/2014 to 15.1.2015 – on the basis of future consumption
recorded during the corresponding period 9/2015 to 1/2016.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the
order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per
relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. With above directions, the complaint is disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-38/2016
Date of Institution - 14.03.2016 Date of Order - 30.03.2016
In the matter to Shri Ram Mehar, House No. 2783, Sector 25-D,
Chandigarh,
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Ram Mehar, resident of House No.2783, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh
through his complaint dated 5.1.2016 received in the office of CGRF on
14.3.2016 stated that earlier the electricity connection was provided
through Contractor Shri Mishra. On the termination of contract of
Shri Mishar in October 2014. request was made for connections by
Electricity Department. When approached for NOC, Shri Mishra intimated
that Rs.3,06,223/- is outstanding. Stating that he has very lower income
on day to day basis, he requested for waival off the penalty and offered
to pay on the basis of meter reading from October 2014 on wards.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-38/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1
vide letter dated 15.03.2016 for supplying para-wise comments and other
details with a copy to the complainant. Simultaneously it was indicated
that the case would be heard on 30.3.2016.
3. The complainant visited the office of CGRF during last week and pointed
out that he received a notice from the Sub Division under Section 135
and on his request the original assessment amount was reduced to
around Rs.20,000/-.
4. The complainant was informed that case falls under Section 135 i.e. theft
for electricity and CGRF has no jurisdiction to entertain his complaint.
5. On the date of hearing on 30.3.2016, consumer did not attend. When
contacted on telephone, the SDO informed that the office was taking
action against the consumer for lodging FIR as he was drawing electricity
through a direct connection i.e. indulging in theft of electricity. He also
stated that consumer had not made any payment.
6. The Forum observed that the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer)
Regulations, 2009, notified on 31 July 2009, clearly provides that any
grievance arising out of application of section 135 shall not be considered
as complaint. The definition (e) under Regulation 2 which reads as under:
“(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of
electricity by the licensee. Provided that the following shall not be
considered as the complaint. (i) Any grievance arising out of applicant of sections 126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of
the Act.”
In view of above Forum concludes that it has no jurisdiction in the
present case.
7. With above observations, the case is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND
SHRI R.L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.) MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 631
Date of Institution - 31.10.2014 Date of Order - 31.03.2016
In the matter M/s Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers’ Fed.
Ltd., Plot No.177, Milk Plant, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. General Manager, Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producers’ Fed. Ltd., Plot
No.177, Milk Plant, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through
application received in the office of CGRF on 31.10.2014 representated
against the notice by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 for short
assessment for R s.75,33,406/-. In the application it was stated that
their electricity connection was checked by the department on 22.7.2014
and thereafter initial assessment notice amounting to Rs,63,43,944/- was
served on 21.8.2014 stating that the Blue phase terminal at TTB Position
No.7 was found semi-tightened and thus the meter was found slow by
24.31%. Subsequently the amount was revised to Rs.75,33,406/- . The
issue was taken up with the concerned SDO on 17.9.2014, which was
replied by the SDO on 10.10.2014 without providing any relief. The
applicant raised the issues on method of testing, the non tempered seal,
MRI data which only indicate current unbalance Blue Phase etc. and
challenge the short assessment as per notice dated 9.9.2014. The ECR
report, notices issued by the sub Division and their representation to the
SDO were enclosed with the application.
2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examining and submission of para wise
comments vide letter dated 17.11.2014.
3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated
18.12.2014 duly countersigned by the Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’
Division No.2 submitted the written reply as under:-
e) The Electricity Connection of the complainant was checked vide ECR
dated 22.7.2014 by team constituted for the purpose on site testing
of 11 KV CT/PT meter.. During testing it was found that Blue Phase CT
of 11 KV meter was not contributing to 100% Energy recorded by the
meter. The accuracy test conducted on the meter at site showed that
the meter was slow by 24.31% . The retrieved MRI data confirmed
the continuation of the defect since 14.6.2011.
f) A Provisional Notice was issued on 5.9.2014 for Rs.63,43,944/- which
was revised to Rs.75,33,406/- on account of short assessment w.e.f.
30.6.2012 to 22.7.2014 due to non contribution of Blue Phase CT. He
also stated that checking of 11 KV CT/PT unit and meter has been
carried out with the assistance of NABL accredited Lab (M/s YMPL)
and enclosed test report in this regard. He also confirmed that
checking was done on load/burden ranging from 5% to 120% as per
CEA guidelines stating that the department adopted the set procedure
as laid down in the rules. Short assessment of 1457139 units was
worked out on account of less contribution by Blue Phase as per MRI
data. The meter was checked with Accu-check to ascertain the
accuracy. He enclosed ECR Report, MRI data and the results of the
testing besides calculations of short assessment etc.
4. The complaint, registered as Complaint No.631, was listed for hearing on
30.12.2014 along with other similar complaints. The complainant as well as
Nodal Officer along with concerned SDO and RA of the Sub Division were
present. During deliberations, the presence of representative of the testing
agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case was thereafter
notified for hearing on 3.3.2015, the Nodal Officer, the complainant as well
as representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the representative of
meter manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not make himself
available for the hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL also desired
some more time to study the MRI data. The Nodal Officer was requested to
contact the representative of the Meter Manufacturer and intimate the
convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-ordinating with
representation of M/s YMPL. Necessary directions were issued vide letter
dated 18.3.2015. A reminder was also issued on 30.7.2015.
5. The case was again notified for hearing on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF.
The complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5
along with RA of the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL
who carried out the checking and representatives of the Meter
Manufacturer were present.
6. The SDO reiterated written submissions. The representative of the
complainant stated that the MRI data showed Blue Phase unbalance which
was resetting occasionally and was not continuous as clear from the MRI
data. He therefore argued that charging for the whole period by the Sub
Division was not in order as the defect was not continuous.
7. On submissions of the details by the concerned sub division, the complaint
was listed for hearing on 8.12.2015 along with other similar cases. The
complainant representative, Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2, AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.
No.5 and AEE Enforcement were present. The MRI data/consumption data
was deliberated but no conclusion could be drawn during the hearing. It
was decided to discuss the MRI data with Nodal Officer and AEE
Enforcement and representative of Testing agency/ Meter Manufacturer for
taking a final view.
8. The complainant was present during the hearing on 29.1.2016 but the SDO
did not attend. When contacted on phone, he requested for exemption as
he was tied up with some other official work. The representative of the
Company stated that their connection was checked on 21.5.2007 and was
found to be in order including accuracy of the meter. The technical expert
of the complainant raised that the meter of M/s Secure Meters is not on
approved panel of Punjab. Further in their case, the accuracy of CT/PT unit
and meter were found O.K. when checked independently. The temper data
as per MRI does not disclose any temper on the part of the consumer or
otherwise. He also insisted for load survey.
The complainant was requested to supply the production data for last
6-7 years for co-relating with consumption data.
The consumer promised to supply the details within 10 days. The SDO
was also directed to supply the up to date consumption.
9. In view of the technical expert insisting for load survey, the Nodal Officer
was directed to supply the load survey and MRI data taken a fresh. The
matter was also taken up in writing with the consumer supply the details
of the production data as discussed in the hearing. The load survey/fresh
MRI has not been received despite reminder and waiting for more than
one month.
10. The complainant supplied the production data for 2007-08 to 2014-15
vide letter dated 8.2.2016. The production data was co-related with the
consumption but no definite conclusion could be drawn as lot of variation
was observed in the ratio of Production in Litre per unit of electricity. The
compiled statement is placed at Annexure ‘A.
Left with no option we again focussed on the MRI downloaded
“Cumulative Tamper Status Report”. It has been observed that this report
captured, occurrence and restoration of only one event, namely ‘CUNB-B’
i.e. Load in balance in B phase. During the period 14.6.2011 to
22.7.2014, this event occurred for 50 times and restored after some time
ranging from as small as 5 minutes of 106 days, 14 hours and 12 minutes.
11. During all these occasions the current in B-phase was found to be quite o
n lower side as compared to current in other two phases though the
voltage in all three phases were same. The temper report is placed at
Annexure B.
12. This implies that full current was not being fed into the meter and thus
the meter did not record full quantum of power being drawn. As in some
cases, the event continued for months together, the occurrence of event
on A/c of unbalancing of the load drawn was ruled out in such cases. The
Consumption data from 2007 to 2015 during corresponding months did
not show much variation. The consumption after setting right the defect
also did not show any appreciable increase during the later part of the
year 2014 or in year 2015.
13. We have also tried to compare the consumption during corresponding
previous months when event CUNB_N was occurring more than 30 days
as detailed below:-
From 21.6.2011 to 5.10.2011 - 106 days 14 hrs. 12 minutes.
From 4.8.2013 to 5.9.2013 - 32 days 1 hr. 17 minutes.
But no conclusion could be drawn as lot of variation was observed.
14. Conclusion & Decision:
In the detailed report of the checking & testing of CT/PT and meter it was
observed as under:-
“ The CT/PT unit has been checked by R-ø instrument and found the
error at Blue phase as large CT Ratio Error. The TTB thereafter opened up by removing seals (at position 3 & 4 i.e. Seals S/S AO
13418 and paper seal S.No.54 Book No.256 and found that screws on TTB at position No.7 of Blue Phase is semi tightened (which should be
fully opened/loose AO13418.
□ O O O
R 1 2 3
□ O O O
Y 4 5 6
□ O O O
B 7 8 9
For contributing 100% energy consumption to Meter).
For further analysis, meter has been checked with HT Accu-check meter as in found condition and found as (-) 24.31% slow.
Thereafter the screws of TTB at Position 7 is opened/loose for
checking the CT accuracy and results are found within permissible limits.”
The MRI data establish that full current was not being fed to the
meter at various times resulting into less recording/registering of electric
consumption. Such events were clearly recorded as CUNB-B with
Occurrence and Restoration of the event and duration for which the event
continued since 14.6.2011 as per data in the Cumulative Tamper Status
Report downloaded with MRI attached as Annexure “B”.
In view of above, we are of the view that the short assessment
needs be reworked out only for the period when the meter was not
registering full consumption as per “Cumulative Tamper Status Report
(Annexure B). It has also been noted that the data includes period as
small as 5 minutes which could be on A/c of current inbalance as well. We
are therefore, of the view that all such period which are less than 1 day,
be excluded while working out revised short assessment.
In the above back ground, the short assessment for
Rs.75,33,406/- is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate
the short assessment by calculating the total duration by totally the
occurrences of the event ‘CUNB-B’ recorded in the Cumulative Tamper
Status Report where the duration of the event is more than 24 hours.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order
failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per
relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
15. With the above directions and decision, complaint is considered as
disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
16. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF