INDEX [] · Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518,...
Transcript of INDEX [] · Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518,...
-
1
ORDERS PASSED BY CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM FOR QTR. ENDING MARCH, 2013
INDEX
Sr. No.
Complaint No.
Orders of CGRF Page No.
1 341
Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518, Charan Singh Colony, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
1-10
2 347
Date of order – 02.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Mantun Kumar, # 2220 FF, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh
11-13
3 342
Date of order – 07.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Shanti Nath, SCO No.861, NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
14-20
4 346
Date of order – 15.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Babu Singh resident of House No.377, Main Market, Khejari, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh
21-27
5 352
Date of order – 15.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Haripal Krishan Sharma, H.No.35/1, Village-Palsora, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.
28-31
6 348
Date of order – 16.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. KDS Nagra resident of House No.2926, Sector 42-C, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.
32-35
7 343
Date of order – 21.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Anil Kumar resident of House No.2556, Sector 52-D, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.
36-42
8 351
Date of order – 21.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Parveen Jain (on behalf of Smt.Surinderjit Kaur), SCO No.8, Sector-17E, Chandigarh vs. Additional Superintending Engineer, Electy.„OP‟ Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
43-52
9 353
Date of order – 23.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Mahavir Lal, H.No.126, New Indra Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
53-57
10 354-374
Date of order – 30.01.2013 in the matter of Sh. Khushal Singh, resident of H.No.1142-A, BBMB Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh & others vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
58-73
-
2
11 375
Date of order – 01.02.2013 in the matter of Sh. K.K. Sharma resident of House No.5555, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.
74-81
12 350
Date of order – 04.02.2013 in the matter of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. P.D. Sharma resident of House No.1095, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
82-86
13 345
Date of order – 05.02.2013 in the matter of Smt. Savitri Devi W/o. late Sh. Swaran Singh, # 112, Attawa, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.
87-97
14 381
Date of order – 11.02.2013 in the matter of Sh.Jaskaran Singh Dhaliwal, (for Sh.Iqbal Singh) Ground Floor, SCO. 117-118, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh vs. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.1, U.T. Chandigarh.
98-106
15 378
Date of order – 13.02.2013 in the matter of Col. (Retd.) Ravi Kant Atreya Flat No.2522, Ground Floor, AWHO Flats, Sector 47C, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
107-109
16 382-385
Date of order – 18.02.2013
(I) In the matter of Sh. Jai Gopal Luthra resident of House No.2228, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.
(II) In the matter of Smt. Aruna Rani resident of House No.2234, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.
(III) In the matter of Sh. Sunder Singh resident of House No.2225, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.
and
(IV) In the matter of Sh. Parveen Kumar resident of House No.2191, Sector 19-C, UT, Chandigarh.
vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh
110-121
17 379
Date of order – 19.02.2013 in the matter of Smt. Amrit Kaur on behalf of Smt.Sant Kaur, SCO No.495-496, Sector-35C, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
122-136
18 376
Date of order – 22.02.2013 in the matter of Sh. Lajja Ram resident of House No.231, New Indra Colony, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
137-142
19 380 Date of order – 04.03.2013 in the matter of
143-150
-
3
Sh. S.K. Juneja, SCF No.311, New Motor Market, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh.
20 377
Date of order – 05.03.2013 in the matter of Warden, Girls Hostel No.8 represented by Sh.Narinder Kumar, SDE (E), Construction Office, Panjab University, Chandigarh vs. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.1, U.T. Chandigarh.
151-167
21 386
Date of order – 07.03.2013 in the matter of Sh. Rajeev Goyal, SCO 7-A, Sector-7, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh vs. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.1, U.T. Chandigarh.
168-179
22 387
Date of order – 18.03.2013 in the matter of Sh. Baldev Singh, S/o.late Sh.Mehar Singh, H.No.3218, Sector-35D, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
180-188
23 397
Date of order – 22.03.2013 in the matter of Sh. Kulbhushan S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Singh, Booth No.814, DMC, Sector-38-West, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chandigarh.
189-194
24 388-391
Date of order – 26.03.2013 in the matter of M/s Teri Oat Estates, SCO No.126, Sector-34A, Chandigarh vs. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.
195-204
-
4
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, Sh. S.K. Madan, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Member
and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.
Complaint No. - 341
Date of Institution - 12.11.2012 Date of Order - 02.01.2013
In the matter of Sh. Ram Bharose resident of House No.518, Charan Singh Colony, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
Sh. Ram Bharose resident of EWS House No.518, Charan Singh Colony,
Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh lodged a complaint regarding non-acceptance
of his application for change of category of the existing DMC/DS ground floor
connection to NRS and a new DS connection for first floor of his house by the SDO,
Elecy., „OP‟ S/D No.8, Manimajra UT, Chandigarh. This complaint was received and
diarised vide Diary No.856 dated 07.11.2012. It was stated that an electric
connection bearing A/c No.208/MA45/0033000W for a load of 0.560 KW was
sanctioned for DS purpose by UT, Electricity Department and since long, he has been
selling bidis, cigarettes, toffees etc. for running his small business as self
employment. But the Electricity Department has been sending him bill at
NRS/commercial rate under i.e. DMC category and he has been paying the bills at
the same rate regularly without any arrear against him at present.
He further mentioned that a notice bearing Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012
was received by him intimating that domestic connection was being misused by the
complainant and he was directed to remove the cause of misuse by the SDO
concerned. He enclosed the copy of the memo. under reference. In the end of the
complaint, he stated that he visited the office of the SDO, Elecy. „OP‟ S/D No.8,
-
5
Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh on 02.11.2012 and applied for change of category from
DS/DMC to NRS category for ground floor and a separate DS connection for first floor
of the house to meet the obligation of his commercial activities at the ground floor.
But his file was not accepted and therefore having apprehension for getting his
commercial activities stopped by the Department of Electricity, his request be
entertained so that he should continue to earn his livelihood.
A formal notice bearing Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-341/1231-32 dated
12.11.2012 was issued to the XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh with a
copy to the complainant fixing the case for consideration on 23.11.2012. The XEN
concerned was asked to send comments in view of the orders dated 27.07.2012 in
the matter of National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle
UT, Chd. and in the matter of Sh. Sham Singh Vs. XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2,
UT, Chandigarh as per order dated 28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum
respectively. Comments of the SDO concerned were received vide his office Memo.
No. 6299 dated 22.11.2012.
On 23.11.2012, the complainant appeared and he stated that he had been
running the small business and paying for electricity consumption at commercial rate
i.e. NRS category for the last 7 to 8 years. He was asked to submit his statement to
support this contention. On the other hand, Sh. Raja Singh, SDO appeared and he
informed that the notice to the complainant for seeking permission from the Estate
Office was issued in the light of the decision dated 27.02.2009 taken by the Finance
Department and the same was reiterated as per the commercial Instructions
No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 issued by the S.E., Elecy, „OP‟ Circle, UT, Chd. After
scrutinising the facts of the case, the following information was required to be
submitted by the SDO concerned:-
“
1. It should be intimated since how long the Deptt. of Electricity has been
charging the consumer at the rate of commercial category.
2. The Forum passed two orders i.e. orders dated 28.12.2011 & 27.07.2012 in
the matter of Sh. Sham Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Elecy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2
-
6
and in the matter of National Consumer Awareness Group (Regd.) Chandigarh
Vs. C.E./S.E., Elecy „OP‟ Circle UT, Chandigarh respectively. The answering
respondents were directed to ensure that all the DMC connections should be
converted to NRS category to avoid any misinterpretation and harassment to
the consumers because no DMC category has been provided in the Statutory
Act, Supply Code as well as the Tariff Order so far passed by the Hon‟ble
JERC. Besides, even the Tariff Order dated 16.07.2011 issued by the Hon‟ble
JERC Page 87 would indicate that where a portion of the dwelling is used
regularly for the conduct of a business, the consumption in that portion shall be
separately metered and billed under the appropriate Non Domestic Tariff.
Even in the Tariff Order 2012-2013 it has been directed that where a portion of
the dwelling is used for the mixed load purposes the connection shall be billed
for the purpose for which the tariff is higher. Since the consumer is already
paying for the higher tariff of NRS category, for the entire consumption, his
grievance appeared to be genuine and should looked into at the level of the
answering respondents. Therefore, a well considered reply should reach the
Forum by 04.12.2012 in view of the orders already passed by the Forum dated
28.12.2011 & 27.07.2012 and Tariff Orders dated 16.07.2011 and FY-2012-13
passed by the Hon‟ble JERC so that a speaking order was passed by the
Forum keeping in view the pleadings of the answering respondents.”
The case was thus fixed for further consideration on 05.12.2012.
On 05.12.2012, the complainant appeared. He was asked to specify the area
of the premises requiring residential and NRS connection respectively and he should
file a fresh application along with proof of ownership to the SDO concerned with a
copy to the Forum by 15.12.2012. Reply of the SDO concerned was received vide
his Memo. No.6430 dated 04.12.2012. He was asked to furnish the requisite form to
the complainant for seeking residential connection for his premises besides the NRS
connection as per procedure of the Department within 30 days from the date of
submission of his application under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The case
was thus adjourned for 18.12.2012.
-
7
On 18.12.2012, both the parties attended the proceedings. The complainant
stated that he had submitted a duly completed file for seeking a regular commercial
connection for ground floor as he has been getting the bills for DMC connection i.e. at
the commercial rate since long. The SDO concerned pointed out that the complainant
had not applied formally for the purpose vide his reply vide Memo. No.6589 dated
17.12.2012. The SDO was advised to entertain the application of the complainant as
and when the same was submitted by him because he had been paying for DMC
connection since long and the Forum had already passed a few orders in this
connection. Reference to the complaint No.287 filed by the National Consumer
Awareness Group, UT, Chd. was made which was decided by the Forum vide its
order dated 27.07.2012 to deal with such cases. Only the question remained to be
decided by the Forum was relating to application of commercial instruction
No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 issued by the S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle, UT, Chd. which
was referring to order dated 27.02.2009 issued by Chief Administrator, UT,
Chandigarh. One of the stipulations indicated in the order under reference deals with
allowing the use of ground floor for carrying out commercial activities but permission
is required to be obtained from the competent authority under whose control the
rehabilitation colony would fall. It was observed by the Forum that this condition
automatically got demolished as per decision dated 27.09.2010 held in the meeting
with Sh. Sanjay Kumar, IAS the then Finance Secretary, UT, Chd. The relevant
extract of the decision of this meeting is reproduced below for ready reference and
record:-
„Domestic misuse of connections by utilizing the residential connection
for commercial purpose unauthorisedly:- It was explained that some consumers
in the rural area of UT Chandigarh are facing problems for conversion of their
domestic connections to commercial use. Resultantly, they have started commercial
activities in residential area unauthorisedly. Such consumers are facing a lot of
inconvenience and hassles in absence of any guidelines for converting the use of
domestic connection to commercial use. This issue was duly discussed and it was
decided that UT Administration should allow conversion of these domestic
connections to commercial use. However, such connection will be converted and
-
8
allowed avoiding public nuisance as well as non-polluting and non-hazardous
commercial activities in the locality/area.‟
Running of a small shop like sale of bidis, cigarettes, grocery items etc. being a
commercial activity that could not be treated, by any stretch of imagination, as the
polluting and hazardous activity. Therefore, the issue involved in the complaint was
deferred for decision directing the complainant to submit the feedback relating to the
latest position of the action taken by the Estate Office in respect of order dated
27.02.2009 issued by UT, Administration. The case was adjourned for final
consideration and order on 02.01.2013.
Today on 02.01.2013, both the parties appeared for arguments. The
complainant relying upon his complaint vide Diary No.856 dated 07.11.2012 voiced
his grievances for non-sanction of separate connection for first floor for residential
purpose and for change of category from DMC/DS to NRS for ground floor to carry
out his small commercial activities like sale of bidis, cigarettes, toffees, grocery items
etc. He pointed out that his request was not accepted by the office and he was asked
to get no objection certificate from the Estate Office for use of premises for carrying
out the commercial activities. He narrated that he had been paying for DMC category
connection at commercial rate for the last 7 to 8 years. As such, he has been living
in the same premises and he rightly applied for use of the first floor for residential
purpose and the ground floor for commercial purpose to earn his livelihood of his
family as self-employment. He also stated that he had visited the office of the Estate
Office recently and brought to their notice the contents of order issued vide Endst.
No.11/6/106-UTFI(2)-2009/1175-1177 dated 27.02.2009 and this order is allowing
use of ground floors for self-employment purposes as per condition No.2 stipulated in
the order. But he conveyed to the Forum that the Estate Office of UT, Chandigarh
had informed him that no written permission could be given and such activities are
being carried out by so many residents of the colony without seeking such written
permission from the authority concerned. He also obliquely mentioned that even the
Tariff Orders so far issued by the Hon‟ble JERC were allowing such activity for NRS
activities. He invited attention to allotment of residential site No.518, Mauli Jagran
-
9
allotted to him by the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh vide their allotment
No.2122/NT(C) dated 03.10.1991 and thus he confirmed his ownership and
possession of the site under reference and reiterated his request that he should be
allowed to carry out his commercial activity to earn his livelihood as self-employment
and there is no formal ban to use such purposes as he was verbally told by the official
of the said Estate Office vide his application dated 02.01.2013 which was placed on
record.
Sh. Raja Singh SDO concerned admitted the fact that the complainant had
been earlier charged for DMC/NRS category and recently he was issued a notice vide
his office Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012 to stop misuse of his residential site. He
invited attention to his office Memo. No.6299 dated 22.11.2012 along with
Commercial Instruction No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 and copy of order dated
27.02.2009 issued by the Finance Department to allow such commercial activity for
self-employment purposes subject to written permission to be obtained from the
competent authority under whose control the rehabilitation colony would fall.
Attention was also invited to his office Memo. No.6430 dated 04.12.2012 as well as
Memo. No.6589 dated 17.12.2012 intimating that the complainant had not applied to
his office for seeking NRS connection against the premises under reference. He,
however, assured that application of the complainant for seeking NRS connection
would be considered after his formal application is received by his office in the light of
the orders to be passed by the Forum.
Sh. Ram Bharose-complainant being a poor fellow has rightly groused for not
allowing him to carry on the commercial activities at the ground floor and a separate
connection for the first floor for residential purpose separately. It is an established
fact on record that the complainant had been paying DMC tariff in respect of his DS
connection for a pretty long time and recently this connection has again being treated
as DS connection as per the facts contained in Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012
issued by the office of the SDO concerned. Copies of bill No.81853 dated
05.02.2012, No.10829 dated 05.04.2012, No.34911 dated 06.06.2012 and No.58917
dated 06.08.2012 as furnished by the complainant leave no doubt regarding charging
-
10
the complainant against DMC connection i.e. for commercial purposes rather than the
residential purposes.
Attention of the licensee was invited to the order dated 27.07.2012 and order
dated 28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum in the matters of National Consumers
Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT, Chd. and Sh. Sham Singh Vs.
XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh respectively. A perusal of these
orders would indicate that there is no consumer category named as DMC in existence
in the Tariff Orders so far issued by the Hon‟ble JERC. Even Electricity Act, 2003 and
Electricity Supply Code, 2010 do not have any mention about any such Domestic
Misuse Connection i.e. DMC. But it was noticed that domestic connections being
categorised as DMCs were being used for commercial purposes for the last many
years and the Department was recovering consumption charges on the appropriate
NRS Tariff since long. Therefore, the Department was/is not put to any financial loss
by such usage. Therefore, the licensee was directed that as per orders dated
28.12.2011 and 27.07.2012 consumers whose consumption was being charged
under DMC category and who were regularly paying for consumption charges as per
the higher tariff of commercial/NRS category should not be treated under any
unauthorised use of electricity as there was no financial loss to the Department. The
licensee was thus directed to instruct all the SDOs concerned of the Electricity
Department not to issue such wrong and unjustified notice of unauthorised use of
electricity to DMC category consumers unnecessarily causing harassment to them.
Rather a direction was issued to the licensee that all such DMC electricity consumers
of UT, Chandigarh who were paying the electricity charges as per tariff applicable for
commercial/NRS category be advised to get necessary formalities completed for
conversion of their DMC connections to commercial category to avoid any scope of
ambiguity and misinterpretation of the provisions and consequent harassment to the
consumers. The compliance of such orders passed by the Forum on 27.07.2012 in
the matter of National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle
UT, Chd. was to be made within four months from the receipt of this order. But it has
been observed surprisingly that instead of ensuring compliance of such orders
passed by the Forum the consumers are being harassed by issuing a notice by the
-
11
licensee/Nodal Officer/SDO concerned like Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012. The
Forum conveys its displeasure directing the licensee to ensure the compliance of the
orders dated 27.07.2012 and 28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum in the matters
of National Consumers Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT, Chd.
and Sh. Sham Singh Vs. XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh without
further loss of time failing which provisions of Section 142 coupled with Section 146 of
the Electricity Act would be invoked against the defaulting officers/officials of the
Department.
In the present case, the complainant is thus being unnecessarily harassed to
the extent that he should be charged against NRS category as he has been already
paying against NRS for a pretty long time. In order to substantiate this contention
attention of the licensee is invited to page 87 of the Tariff Order dated 16.07.2011
issued for the year 2011-12 and Tariff Order dated 07.05.2012 issued by the Hon‟ble
JERC in respect of Tariff for the year 2012-13. The relevant extracts of these orders
as on page 87 and on page 198 respectively are reproduced below for clinching the
issue. These are as follows:-
Applicability of Domestic Category (DS) – Tariff Order for 2011-12
Note (i) “Where a portion of the dwelling is used regularly for the conduct of a
business, the consumption in that portion shall be separately metered
and billed under the appropriate Non Domestic Tariff. Private dwelling.”
Applicability of Domestic Supply (DS) - Tariff Order for 2012-13
Note (i):- “Where a portion of the dwelling is used for the mixed load purposes the
connection shall be billed for the purpose for which the tariff is higher.”
A combined perusal of the Tariff Orders issued by the Hon‟ble JERC would
manifestly indicate that the consumer who is already paying for the commercial
activity i.e. NRS category should not be put to any harassment as the same is
permissible under both the Tariff Orders quoted above. This must be complied with in
respect of all such categories without further loss of time by Electricity Department.
-
12
Coming to the application submitted by the complainant for his new
residential/domestic connection for first floor of his house and allowing to pay for NRS
category for ground floor to carry out commercial activities as a self-employment, he
should be allowed to pay for commercial activity/NRS category for his connection as
he has already been paying for the same and therefore, the notice issued vide
Memo. No.4326 dated 09.08.2012 should be withdrawn forthrightly failing which
it would amount to non-compliance of the orders dated 27.07.2012 and
28.12.2011 already passed by the Forum in the matters of National Consumers
Awareness Group Vs. C.E./S.E. Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT, Chd. and Sh. Sham Singh
Vs. XEN, Elecy., „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
Attention is also invited to the decision taken in the meeting held on
27.09.2010 under the Chairmanship of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, IAS, the then Finance
Secretary wherein it was decided that UT, Administration should allow conversion of
these domestic connection to commercial use providing such connection should not
have polluting and hazardous commercial activities in the locality/area. The relevant
import of this decision is reproduced below for facility of ready reference and record:-
“Domestic misuse of connections by utilizing the residential connection for
commercial purpose unauthorisedly:
It was explained that some consumers in the rural area of UT Chandigarh are
facing problems for conversion of their domestic connections to commercial use.
Resultantly, they have started commercial activities in residential area unauthorisedly.
Such consumers are facing a lot of inconvenience and hassles in absence of any
guidelines for converting the use of domestic connection to commercial use. This
issue was duly discussed and it was decided that UT Administration should allow
conversion of these domestic connections to commercial use. However, such
connection will be converted and allowed avoiding public nuisance as well as non-
polluting and non-hazardous commercial activities in the locality/area.”
Therefore, in the light of the Tariff Order dated 16.07.2011 for the year
2011-12 and Tariff Order dated 07.05.2012 for the year 2012-13 already issued
by the Hon‟ble JERC the order dated 27.02.2009 issued by UT, Administration
-
13
requiring written permission to be obtained from the Competent Authority does
not carry any merit and hence this order dated 27.02.2009 should be suitably
amended by the UT, Administration. Accordingly, the Commercial Instruction
No.31/2012 dated 05.09.2012 issued by the S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle UT,
Chandigarh does not have its own legs to stand in view of the Tariff Orders
dated 06.07.2011 and 07.05.2012 & hence these instructions should also be
withdrawn and be re-issued in accordance with the Tariff Orders already issued
by the Hon‟ble JERC as well as the orders issued by the Forum as quoted
above. Therefore, the issue relating to allowing him to use the first floor for his
residential purpose is concerned, his application be sanctioned for DS
connection in respect of first floor accordingly allowing him to use his ground
floor as NRS connection separately. With these findings and directions, this
complaint is treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, shall have the option or liberty to prefer
appeal/representation against this order before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC
for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor),
Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09811163943, E-mail id- [email protected], within one month from the date
of receipt of this order.”
A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of C.E./S.E. and XENs being the Nodal Officers with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room
after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(I.P. Gupta) (S.K. Madan) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Member, CGRF Chairman,CGRF
mailto:[email protected]
-
14
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, Sh. S.K. Madan, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Member of the Forum.
and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.
Complaint No. - 347
Date of Institution - 04.12.2012 Date of Order - 02.01.2013
In the matter of Sh. Mantun Kumar, # 2220 FF, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……………….Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, U.T. Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
Sh. Mantun Kumar, # 2220 FF, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Manimajra,
Chandigarh submitted a complaint dated 30.11.2012/3.12.2012 to the Forum for
release of a new connection for 1st floor of his house, which was diarized vide
Diary No.897 dated 3.12.2012. A notice was issued to the Executive Engineer,
Electy. „OP‟ Divn.No.2, U.T. Chandigarh with a copy to the complainant vide
Memo.No. CGRF/Comp-347/2012/1315-16 dated 4.12.2012 fixing the case for
consideration on 18.12.2012.
Both the parties appeared on 18.12.2012. The complainant stated that
he was not granted electricity connection for the first floor. He drew attention to
his complaint dated 3.12.2012 and this was accompanied with allotment letter of
transit site No.2220 in Vill-Mauli Jagran vide Memo.No.4087/ALC issued by the
Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh in response to application dated 23.07.1997 of
Sh. Rajinder, father of Sh. Mantun Kumar. A perusal of the allotment letter
showed that the site was allotted for a period of 5 years and its condition No.5
further stipulated that the licensee should not sublet, assign or otherwise part with
-
15
possession of the transit site or any part thereof in favour of any person
whatsoever. Evidently as per above Clause, no documentary proof was
produced by the complainant to defend his case for grant of connection because
the site was allotted to Sh.Rajinder S/o. Sh.Basu Dev, Jhuggi No.814, Labour
Colony-31, Chandigarh. He was directed to show the ownership in his favour or
bring his father alongwith him to proceed further with the complaint.
Sh. Raja Singh, the SDO appeared. He submitted his reply vide
Memo.No.6590 dated 17.12.2012 which was placed on record. He raised a valid
question regarding the ownership of the complainant. The case was adjourned for
further consideration on 2.1.2013.
Both the parties appeared today. Sh. Rajinder S/o.Basu Dev, being
father of the complainant also attended the proceedings. He stated that the site in
question was allotted to him by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh vide
Memo.No.4087/ALC dated 17.12.1997. Accordingly, he has been in possession of
site since 1997 and has raised two storeyed building over the premises under
reference. The complainant was asked to show his ownership but he simply
mentioned that he had applied only for the connection for 1st floor of the house
constructed on the site. But legally he did not have any entitlement of ownership as
the site was allotted to his father by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The SDO
concerned relied upon his comments of Memo.No.6590 dated 17.12.2012 and stated
that connection could be given to Sh.Rajinder being legal occupant and not to son of
Sh.Rajinder, being the present complainant as he did not have any right of ownership
of the site under reference.
Facts of the case have been gone through carefully. Prima facie, the
complainant has failed to prove his ownership of the site/plot under reference
because this plot was allotted to his father Sh.Rajinder S/o.Sh.Basu Dev by the
Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh in 1997. Sh. Rajinder could seek second connection
if desired by him. But the present complainant has no legal status to seek electricity
connection separately as per his complaint dated 03.12.2012 lodged with the Forum.
The Forum has no justification to prolong the proceedings.
-
16
In view of the above facts, this complaint is accordingly dismissed
without any cost to the party. However, the father of the complainant could seek
second connection, if a valid sanctioned building plan is submitted to the SDO
concerned for the purpose.
A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record and one copy be
sent to all concerned with a copy to complainant for compliance wherever required.
File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(I.P. Gupta) (S.K. Madan) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Member, CGRF Chairman, CGRF
-
17
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, Sh. S.K. Madan, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Member
and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.
Complaint No. - 342
Date of Institution - 22.11.2012 Date of Order - 07.01.2013
In the matter of Sh. Shanti Nath, SCO No.861, NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh..
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
This complaint dated 21.11.2012 was lodged by Sh. Shanti Nath, SCO No.861,
NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh. It was alleged that the electricity meter installed
for A/c No.208/MA42/0826007 had not been working since 23.02.2011. He also
mentioned that the defective meter was not replaced despite repeated requests made
to the SDO concerned and hence he preferred to submit this complaint to the Forum
for redressal of his grievances. The complaint was accompanied with copy of original
complaint dated 01.06.2011 made to the SDO concerned followed by reminder dated
24.08.2011 in this regard. Copies of bills No.76930 dated 17.01.2012, No.5891 dated
22.03.2012, No.29963 dated 21.05.2012, No.53950 dated 21.07.2012 and No.77968
dated 21.09.2012 were also enclosed along with the complaint as documentary proof
showing nil consumption coupled with negative payments (not to be paid) by the
complainant-consumer.
It was treated as a formal complaint No.342 and notice was issued to the XEN,
Elecy. „OP‟ Division No.2, UT, Chandigarh with copy to the complainant vide office
Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-342/2012/1274-75 dated 22.11.2012 fixing the case for
consideration on 06.12.2012.
-
18
On 06.12.2012, the complainant could not turn up despite repeated calls given
to him and thus it was decided to issue him notice for appearance failing which ex
parte proceedings would be launched against him.
Sh. Raja Singh, SDO concerned appeared and he submitted his reply vide
Memo. No.6431 dated 04.12.2012 intimating that a new meter was installed vide
MCO No.2/170 dated 27.11.2012. It was noticed that the MCO was not got signed
either from the consumer or his legal heir. The main reason attributed to delay in
replacement of defective meter No.CHEP-27632 was the shortage of meters in his
sub-division as stated by the SDO concerned. After going through the reply and facts
made available on the record, the following directions were given to the SDO
concerned and the complainant:-
“
1. Reasons for delay of two years for non-replacement of meter. In case there
was acute shortage of meters in Sub-Division of Manimajra, detail of meters
installed from October, 2010 to November, 2012 may please be placed on
record for record.
2. Why „Z‟ Code continued w.e.f. December, 2010 onwards, when the meter was
defective? Why zero consumption was shown and the bills were issued
showing nil consumption instead of having the bills issued on average basis to
the consumer. Reasons for this negligence be reported.
3. The complainant earlier submitted two complaints dated 01.06.2011 and
24.08.2011 to the SDO concerned. If it was so, why not the officials of SDO
office concerned had looked into these complaints for timely replacement of
the defective meter of the complainant. What action was taken on these
complaints received by the respondents. In case no action was taken by the
respondent-SDO, he should inform who is responsible for dereliction of duty
from December, 2010 onwards.
4. The complainant has sanctioned load of 20 KW therefore there has been a
huge revenue loss to the Department of Electricity for issuing bills with zero
amount rather showing negative billing as per bill No.5891 dated 22.03.2012,
bill No.29963 dated 21.05.2012, Bill No.53590 dated 21.07.2012and bill
No.77968 dated 21.09.2012 respectively. The office of the SDO especially the
RA, LDC and the Audit Branch of his office are squarely responsible for this
delinquency and revenue loss to the Deptt. Names of the concerned defaulting
officials be indicated along with action taken against them so far, if any.
-
19
5. Before the case for charging the consumer on average basis is considered by
the Forum, the SDO concerned should justify the observations already made
above and to send the requisite information of the total assessed amount to be
charged from the consumer on the basis of the consumption shown against
billing cycles of 6/10-8/10 to 10/10-12/10. “
The case was adjourned for further consideration on 19.12.2012.
On 19.12.2012, the complainant-Sh. Shanti Nath appeared. Letter dated
17.12.2012 received from the complainant intimating that his case had been resolved
was also seen. It was observed that observations made on the last date of hearing
i.e. 06.12.2012 were submitted during the course of hearing vide sub-divisional office
memo.No.6607 dated 18.12.2012 and therefore for examination of the reply on
merits, the case was adjourned for further consideration and order on 02.01.2013.
On 02.01.2013, Sh. Ahasan Hussain appeared on behalf of Sh. Shanti Nath
Bansal without producing any authority letter. He submitted copy of his identity card
and the same was placed on record. But this identity did not lead anywhere for
proving the fact that Sh. Ahasan Hussain was authorized by the complainant,
therefore he was asked either to produce the authority letter from Sh. Shanti Nath
Bansal otherwise Sh. Shanti Nath should come on the next date of hearing.
Sh. Raja Singh, SDO appeared. He invited attention to his Memo.No.6607
dated 18.12.2012. It was found that the officials concerned like- meter reader, J.E.
concerned and officials of the Audit Branch were squarely responsible for not
performing their duties as „Z‟ Code continued from December,2010 to
December,2012 without any justification ignoring the consumption actually made by
showing it nil causing a great revenue loss to the Department. As per the overhauling
detail of account, the amount of recovery was worked out to Rs.74,967/-.
Interestingly, Sh. Ahasan Hussain who appeared on behalf of Sh. Shanti Nath Bansal
on 02.01.2013 confirmed that 3-4 reminders were given to the JE concerned/office of
the SDO concerned. He also assured to submit copies of such reminders to the
Forum by 04.01.2013. The case was thus adjourned for 07.01.2013 for final
consideration and order with direction that compliance of the observations referred
above, should be made by both the parties by 4.1.2013.
-
20
On 07.01.2013, both the parties appeared and the case was taken up for
arguments. The complainant drew attention to his complaint dated 21.11.2012 and
reiterated his grievance for non-replacement of his defective meter for A/c No.
208/MA42/0826007 since 23.02.2011. He argued that this grievance was also
brought to the notice of the SDO concerned vide his first complaint dated 01.06.2011
followed by reminder dated 24.08.2011. But no action was taken by the answering
respondent-SDO, the complainant alleged. Attention was also drawn to five bills No.
76930 dated 17.01.2012, No.5891 dated 22.03.2012, No.29963 dated 21.05.2012,
No.53950 dated 21.07.2012 and No.77968 dated 21.09.2012 showing nil
consumption and negative payments (not to be paid) by the consumer-complainant.
He confirmed that the new meter No.CHEP-57938 was installed with a reading of
00007 units by replacing the defective meter No.CHEP-27632 at reading of 60474
units on 28.11.2012. He made it clear that any document for replacement of his
meter was not got signed either from him or from his any legal heir/family member.
He admitted the fact that he is ready to make the actual payment for the electricity
consumed by him and requested for some instalments in keeping in view the huge
amount to be paid by him on account of the negligence of the officials concerned
belonging to the office of the answering respondent-SDO. Today, complainant-Sh.
Shanti Nath Bansal also submitted an application dated 07.01.2013 to inform that he
had written a letter for change of his defective electricity meter to the SDO concerned
on 01.06.2011 and again sent a reminder on 24.08.2011. Thereafter, he had sent his
employee several times to the office of the SDO concerned for getting the meter
replaced. But meter was replaced after lapse of about two years, the complainant
pointed out.
Sh. Raja Singh, SDO concerned invited attention to the comments submitted
by him vide his office Memo. No.6431 dated 04.12.2012 followed by his office Memo.
No.6607 dated 18.12.2012 and argued that the meter No.CHEP-27632 was found
defective since December, 2010 and the same could not be replaced due to
non-availability of meters in his sub-division. Ultimately, the defective meter
was replaced on 28.11.2012 vide MCO No.170/002 dated 27.11.2012. Attention
was also drawn to the consumption data meant for the complainant informing that the
-
21
connected load of the consumer is 20 KW. Regarding reasons for quoting „Z‟ Code in
the meter blank, the SDO pointed out that Sh. Sat Pal Singh, Meter Reader was
responsible for this gross negligence and his explanation was sought. Referring to
the statement of Sh. Amit Dhingra, J.E.(GSC), the SDO mentioned that from
January, 2011 to November, 2012 his office received meagre supply of only 200
three phase meters and the same were installed against MCOs to clear the
backlog of defective meters upto the year 2010. He further stated that the MCO
No.59/1057 dated 31.01.2012 was issued earlier which could not be got
materialised due to non-availability of three phase meters. A copy of this MCO
was also enclosed for ready reference of the Forum. Concludingly, he informed that
the overhauling detail of the account has been worked out showing recovery of
Rs.74967/- for the period of 23.12.2010 to 28.11.2012. He thus requested that the
complaint may now be filed as the defective meter had since been replaced and the
account of the consumer was overhauled.
Facts of the case are indeed interesting to note that the complainant had
played his proactive role to lodge his first complaint for replacement of defective
meter vide his complaint dated 01.06.2011 vide which he mentioned that the meter
No.CHEP-27632 had not been functioning since 23.02.2011 as per the bill received
by him on 22.05.2011. A reminder was issued by him on 24.08.2011 and later on his
employee also visited the office of the SDO concerned several times for replacement
of defective meter No.CHEP-27632. It has been regretfully noticed that the
answering respondent could not replace the defective meter between December,
2010 to November, 2012 only on the ground that the three phase meters were not
available in his office. He clarified that only 200 three phase meters were
received during period of about two years and the same were installed against
MCOs issued to clear the backlog of defective meters upto the year 2010. This
issue regarding the acute shortage of meters has been repeatedly brought to
the notice of the Licensee/S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle, UT, Chandigarh but this case
under reference manifestly indicates that the authorities have not been able to
purchase the meters on which the revenue collection of the Department is
based. The concerned authorities are once again reminded to look into the
-
22
seriousness of this problem and arrange the desired quantity of meters to replenish
their central and sub-divisional stock rather than to allow the revenue loss to incur for
the Electricity Department and continued inconvenience and harassment to the
consumers for want of the required meters. Clause 7.3 of the Electricity Supply Code
does not permit forcing the consumer to purchase his meter till he is willing to do so.
Therefore, the entire responsibility has been cast on the Licensee to supply new
meters/metering equipment wherever required ensuring metered supply of electricity
to the consumer and correct & regular revenue collection for the Department. But
the case in hand speaks voluminously for inordinate delay in making
arrangement of sufficient meters even to change the faulty defective meters of
the consumers besides touching upon the case for replacement of mechanical
meters. Therefore, the authorities must pay their immediate attention to this
burning issue as per the various orders already issued by the Forum in this
regard failing which proceedings under Section 142 coupled with Section 146 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 would be invoked.
A perusal of the facts of this case would also make it amply clear that the
officials of the sub-divisional concerned like J.E./LDC/R.A. and the Audit Wing are
squarely responsible for allowing the „Z‟ Code to continue for two years showing nil
consumption, despite the fact that the connected load of the consumer is 20 KW.
Interestingly, bills No.76930 dated 17.01.2012, No.5891 dated 22.03.2012, No.29963
dated 21.05.2012, No.53950 dated 21.07.2012 and No.77968 dated 21.09.2012 as
produced by the complainant along with original application/complaint would further
indicate that the consumer has been required not to pay any bills because the bills
indicated negative payable amounts. This further clearly shows that the officials
concerned even could not prepare the „exception list‟ to detect the serious lapse by
way of allowing the continuation of the „Z‟ Code about more than two years showing
nil consumption throughout. A copy of the consumption pattern of the complainant-
consumer is attached herewith as part of this order which evidently reveals the
inefficiency and lackadaisical attitude of the defaulting officials. Therefore, the
officials concerned must face major penalty so that such gross negligence should not
be allowed to be repeated by them. Keeping in view the seriousness of the matter,
-
23
copy of this order should also be sent to Finance Secretary, UT, Chandigarh with a
copy to C.E./S.E., Elecy. „OP‟ Circle.
As the defective meter No.CHEP-27632 has since been replaced vide MCO
No.170/002 dated 27.11.2012 affected on 28.11.2012 there is no justification to
prolong the proceedings. However, as per the account overhauling detail submitted
by the SDO concerned, the complainant has to pay now Rs.74967/- w.e.f. 23.12.10 to
28.11.12 @ 771 units per month on the basis of the previous consumption w.e.f. 6/10
to 12/10, the consumer is allowed to pay the same amount in three equal instalments
to be paid with three bi-monthly bills in view of his verbal request made to the Forum
today during the course of hearing. In case the amount is not paid, he will have to
pay the interest on the amount not deposited till the final payment made by him. The
defaulting officials should also be asked to pay the amount of interest on the arrears
of Rs.74967/- which was otherwise to be paid as per the consumption by the
complainant regularly but was not paid due to the serious negligence of the officials
concerned. This interest should be worked out and be recovered from them to make
up the revenue loss caused to the Department either negligently or intentionally by
such defaulting officials. With these findings and directions, this complaint is
accordingly treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, shall have the option or liberty to prefer
appeal/representation against this order before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC
for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor),
Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09811163943, E-mail id- [email protected], within one month from the date
of receipt of this order.”
A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of Finance Secretary/Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer and XEN
being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer-complainant for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(I.P. Gupta) (S.K. Madan) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Member, CGRF Chairman,CGRF
mailto:[email protected]
-
24
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.
Complaint No. - 346
Date of Institution - 03.12.2012 Date of Order - 15.01.2013
In the matter of Sh. Babu Singh resident of House No.377, Main Market, Khejari, UT, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
Sh. Babu Singh resident of House No.377, Main Market, Khejari, UT,
Chandigarh preferred this complaint dated 29.11.2012 and the same was diarised
vide Diary No.892 dated 30.11.2012. He stated that he had a bill showing
consumption for Rs.26,000/- whereas his consumption decreased as his two brothers
got their own connections w.e.f. 12.12.2011. He thus requested that his bill should be
rectified in view of his low consumption w.e.f. 12.12.2011. This complaint was
accompanied with copies of bills dated 19.01.2012, dated 24.03.2012, No.64145
dated 23.05.2012, No.28424 dated 23.09.2012 and No.60517 dated 23.11.2012.
Considering the documentary proof and contents of the complaint, it was treated as a
formal complaint No.346 and notice was issued to the XEN, Elecy. „OP‟ Division No.4,
UT, Chandigarh with a copy to the complainant vide Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-
346/2012/1310-11 dated 03.12.2012 fixing the case for consideration on 17.12.2012.
On 17.12.2012, both the parties were present. The SDO concerned submitted
his reply vide Memo. 11611 dated 13.12.2012 which was placed on record. After
going through his reply he was directed to supply the consumption data of the
consumer w.e.f. April, 2010 onwards with copy of MCO vide which the meter was
changed along with details of overhauling the sundry charges amounted to
Rs.25808/-. He was also asked to accept the current charges from the consumer and
-
25
recovery of sundry charges be affected only after taking the final decision by the
Forum. The case was adjourned for further consideration on 03.01.2013.
On 03.01.2013, both the parties attended the proceedings. The complainant
clarified that he did not have any problem for consumption after the installation of the
newly installed meter in the month of June, 2012 onwards. But he, however,
questioned the sundry charges of Rs.25808/- which were wrongly shown in bill
No.60517 dated 23.11.2012. He also pointed out that his two brothers, namely, Sh.
Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh had already got their separate electricity
connections in the month of December, 2011. Thus he logically mentioned that his
consumption should have been much less than the earlier consumption when he was
living with his two brothers. After hearing both the parties and going through the
documents placed on record by them, the SDO was asked to furnish the following
information to appreciate the contents of the complaints: -
“
1. He may recheck his office record in the light of the bills dated 24.03.2012 and
dated 23.09.2012 meant for Sh. Harminder Singh and bill dated 23.09.2012
meant for Sh. Narinder Singh as they got separate connections in the month of
December, 2011.
2. List of appliances should be furnished by the complainant to appreciate the
consumption pattern.
3. The SDO concerned should recalculate the average consumption after
appreciating the bills being paid by the two brothers of the complainant so that
the revenue loss is properly assessed before any final order is passed by the
Forum.”
The case was adjourned for final consideration and order on 08.01.2013.
On 08.01.2013, both the parties appeared. Reply submitted by the SDO
concerned vide Memo. No.153 dated 07.01.2013 was seen. It was noticed that the
load of one meter was divided amongst three connections on 12.12.2011 not on
12.12.2012 as recorded in the memo. under reference. The SDO was thus asked to
charge the consumer from 20.02.2012 to the replacement of the defective meter i.e.
upto 08.06.2012 vide MCO No.570/196 dated 30.05.2012 which was affected on
08.06.2012. Accordingly, the average earlier worked out by the SDO concerned
-
26
received along with memo. under reference was to be suitably revised and the
complainant was to be informed under Clause 8.1(11) of the Supply Code. The case
was adjourned for final computation of the payment to be made by the consumer for
charging him on average basis w.e.f. 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012 i.e. 1620+573+117 =
2310/6 = 385 units per month and the consumer be charged @ 385 units per month
from the period from 20.02.2012 to 08.06.2012. Thereafter, he was to pay as per the
actual consumption based on the newly installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618. The
case was adjourned for final order on 15.01.2013 after overhauling the account of the
consumer as per the direction given above.
Today i.e. on 15.01.2013, Sh. S.K. Madan, Member, CGRF was on leave. Sh.
Babu Singh-complainant and Sh. Zile Singh, SDO concerned were present. The
case was taken up for arguments. Sh. Babu Singh-complainant reiterated the
contents of his complaint dated 29.11.2012 and argued that the bill No.60517 dated
23.11.2012 showing sundry charges of Rs.25808/- was wrongly prepared because
his consumption had drastically come down in view of two connections already
sought by his two brothers namely Sh. Harminder Singh for A/c No.
309/KZ11/050702W and Sh. Narinder Singh having A/c No.KZ11/050701U against
their connected load of 1.54 KW and 1.98 KW respectively. He mentioned that he
had no problem to pay for his actual consumption against the consumption as per his
newly installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618 w.e.f. 08.06.2012 onwards but the payment
relating to Rs.25808/- as sundry charges was not acceptable to him being wrongly
prepared. He also placed on record that the new meter No.CHSPVT-27618 was
installed on 08.06.2012 with reading of 00006 units and till today the total
consumption as per his meter as gone upto 1611 units between 08.06.2012 to
15.01.2013. He thus very logically pointed out that his consumption pattern after
change of the meter w.e.f. 08.06.2012 would indicate that his consumption pattern
has gone considerably down and therefore he should not be compelled to pay
unreasonable amount of Rs.25808/- as shown in the bill No.60517 dated 23.11.2012.
Having relied upon comments bearing Memo. No.11611 dated 13.12.2012
followed by Memo. No.11724 dated 21.12.2012, Memo. No.153 dated 07.01.2013
-
27
and Memo. No.326 dated 15.01.2013, the SDO concerned argued that as per ledger
record of his office electricity bill for the period 20.08.2012 to 20.10.2012 was
Rs.2022/- plus surcharge of Rs.1111/- including amount of Rs.25808/- as sundry
charges. He also invited attention to the consumption pattern of the consumer and
the half margin note No.58 dated 18.09.2012 and stated that the average for the
period 20.12.2011 to 08.06.2012 was charged on the basis of consumption shown
w.e.f. 25.04.2011 to 20.10.2011 i.e. 2838+1992+1620 = 6450/6 = 1075 units per
month and accordingly the consumer was charged for Rs.25808/- and the same
amount was reflected as sundry charges in bill No.60517 dated 23.11.2012. The
SDO further mentioned that he was not aware of two connections given on
12.12.2011 to Sh. Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh brothers of the
complainant Sh. Babu Singh. He, however, admitted the fact that the consumption of
the consumer had gone down after billing cycle of 20.12.2011 onwards which could
be attributable to the new connections given against accounts No.
309/KZ11/050702W and No. KZ11/050701U released Sh. Harminder Singh and Sh.
Narinder Singh respectively.
His attention was drawn to bill No.29785 dated 24.03.2012 and bill dated
23.09.2012 issued for Sh. Harminder Singh and bill dated 23.09.2012 issued for Sh.
Narinder Singh against the respective accounts having connected load of 1.54 KW
and 1.98 KW respectively and the half margin note dated 18.09.2012 vide which the
consumer was asked to pay @ 1077 units per month by taking into consideration
the consumption w.e.f. 20.04.11 to 20.10.11 whereas practically consumption of
573 units meant for billing cycle of 20.10.2011 to 20.12.2011 was not taken into
consideration whereas the average worked out was based on the consumption meant
for billing cycles of 25.04.2011 to 20.10.2011 excluding the billing cycle of 20.10.2011
to 20.12.2011. The SDO, however feigned his ignorance about the calculation part
simply stating that it was done by the Audit Wing of his office and he could not look
into the nitty and gritty of computations made for working out the average. He further
relied upon the MCO No.570/196 dated 30.05.2012 which was materialised on
08.06.2012 by removing the dead stop meter No.CHSE-12193 and installing the new
meter No.CHSPVT-27618 at the premises of the complainant. However, the SDO
-
28
could not produce the copies of SJOs meant for release of two new electricity
connections meant for two brothers of the complainant. But he only admitted the fact
that these connections were released on 12.12.2011 and not on 12.12.2012 as
wrongly mentioned by him in his office Memo. No.153 dated 07.01.2013.
Concludingly, he submitted that the average as directed by the Forum was worked
out w.e.f. 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012 i.e. 1620+573+117 units = 2310/6 = 385 units per
month and the consumer would be now charged w.e.f. 20.02.2012 to 08.06.2012 on
account of the faulty functioning of the meter No.CHSE-12193 which was removed
on 08.06.2012 vide MCO No.570-196 dated 30.05.2012. The total payable liability of
the consumer was accordingly worked out for Rs.2337/- vide which the overhauled
account sheet as attached along with office Memo. No.326 dated 15.01.2013. He
thus requested that the complaint may accordingly be deserved to be filed as the
correct liability of the consumer was worked out to the tune of Rs.2337/-.
Facts of the case along with the documentary proof as submitted by the
complainant as well as the comments/submissions made by the answering
respondent-SDO have been gone through carefully. History of this case dates back
to the original connection for joint account No.409/KZ51/085500K which was being
used by three brothers i.e. Babu Singh the complainant and other two brothers Sh.
Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh till 12.12.2011. The connected load for this
connection was 3.44 KW and the common meter No.CHSE-12193 was replaced only
on 08.06.2012on account of its malfunctioning/dead stop vide MCO No.570/196
dated 30.05.2012 installed a new meter No.CHSPVT-27618. It is an admitted fact on
record that two brothers, namely, Sh. Harminder Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh have
got their new connections on 12.12.2011 and accordingly the consumption pattern of
the consumer-complainant went drastically down as per consumption pattern of the
consumer-complainant. However, the answering respondent and the Audit Wing
could not take note of this development for release of two different connections for
two brothers of the consumer-complainant and they thought on their own that the
consumption of the consumer-complainant had gone down due to some other
reasons including malfunctioning of the meter.
-
29
A careful perusal of the half margin note dated 18.09.2012 as produced by the
answering respondent along with his office Memo. No.11724 dated 21.12.2012 would
reveal that the average was worked out as 1077 units on the basis of consumption
taken for billing cycle of 20.04.2011 to 20.12.2011. But strangely enough,
consumption was taken for working out the average in respect of billing cycle of
25.04.2011 to 20.10.2011 only excluding the period meant for billing cycle 20.10.2011
to 20.12.2012. After a thoughtful consideration of the facts of the case, the Forum
has come to the conclusion that since two brothers of the complainant got two
different connections w.e.f. 12.12.2011, the consumption of the consumer has rightly
decreased from the billing cycle 20.12.2011 onwards and therefore, the consumer
was not required to be charged @ 1077 units per month which was the joint
consumption of three brothers till 20.12.2011 and therefore, the Audit Wing and the
answering respondent could not appreciate the background of this development and
thus wrongly charged consumer by way of showing the sundry charges of Rs.25808/-
in bill No.60517 dated 23.11.2012. As such, the SDO concerned was directed by the
Forum vide its direction given on 08.01.2013 that the consumer should be charged for
the period w.e.f. 20.02.2012 to 08.06.2012 on the basis of average to be considered
for the billing period 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012 i.e. 1620+573+117 = 2310/6 = 385
units per month and accordingly the account of the consumer has been overhauled
by working out the liability of Rs.2337/- to be actually paid by the consumer as per the
copy of the account attached with Memo. No.326 dated 15.01.2013 submitted by the
SDO concerned.
This average @ 385 units has also been found correct keeping in view the
consumption of the consumer w.e.f. 08.06.2012 i.e. the date of replacement of dead
stop meter No.CHSE-12193 by installing a new meter No.CHSPVT-27618 vide MCO
No.570/196 dated 30.05.2012 which was effected on 08.06.2012. As per this newly
installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618 with reading of 00006 units, the consumption of
the consumer was reported as 1611 units on 15.1.2013 and therefore, the total
consumption of the consumer w.e.f. 8.06.2012 to 15.01.2013 is worked out to 1605
units which approximately comes to 229 units per month whereas his average
consumption comes to @ 385 units per month on the basis of consumption for the
-
30
period of 25.08.2011 to 20.02.2012. Now as the consumer has been rightly charged
@ 385 units for paying total liability of Rs.2337/- for the period 20.02.2012 to
08.06.2012 and he should be informed to pay this amount as per the account to be
overhauled under Clause 8.1(11) of the Electricity Supply Code. He will pay for the
period w.e.f. 08.06.2012 to till date as per the actual consumption of the newly
installed meter No.CHSPVT-27618. With these findings and directions, this complaint
is accordingly treated as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, shall have the option or liberty to prefer
appeal/representation against this order before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC
for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor),
Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09811163943, E-mail id- [email protected], within one month from the date
of receipt of this order.”
A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer and XEN being the Nodal
Officer with a copy to the consumer-complainant for compliance wherever required.
File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(I.P. Gupta) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Chairman, CGRF
mailto:[email protected]
-
31
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.
Complaint No. - 352 Date of Institution - 10.12.2012
Date of Order - 15.01.2013
In the matter of Sh. Haripal Krishan Sharma, H.No.35/1, Village-Palsora, Chandigarh.
……………….Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, U.T. Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order Sh. Haripal Krishan Sharma, resident of H.No.35/1, Village-Palsora, U.T.
Chandigarh preferred his complaint dated 05.12.2012 regarding removal of hanging
wires and to restore their connection at the previous place. He referred to his
correspondence vide letter dated 01.02.2012 followed by his letters dated
10.05.2012, 04.06.2012 and 14.09.2012 in order to pursue his complaint with the
S..D.O., Electy. „OP‟ Divn.No.9, Sector-43, Chandigarh. He further intimated that the
connection of the hanging wires was made at remote distance of 60-70 ft.
extraneously due to which his house had to suffer low voltage and frequent power
cuts in the summer season of 2012. He thus requested that since he had retired
being a Govt. employee and senior citizen, hence his grievance should have been
resolved on priority basis. But the needful was not done by the Department and
hence, he had to lodge the complaint for redressal of grievance.
This complaint was treated as a formal complaint No.352 taking into
consideration the status of complainant being a senior citizen and in view of his
previous correspondence made with the SDO concerned for solution of his problem.
Accordingly, a notice was issued to the Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn.No.4
-
32
with copy to the complainant vide Memo.No. CGRF/Comp-352/2012/1334-1335
dated 10.12.2012. The case was fixed for consideration by the Forum on 27.12.2012.
On 27.12.2012, the complainant attended the proceedings. Sh. Zile Singh,
SDO concerned could not appear as he was on leave and he was represented by
Sh.Gurnam Singh, SDO. The SDO was directed to submit action taken report on
various complaints made by the complainant since Feb., 2012 to the answering
respondent i.e. SDO concerned as the reply vide Memo.No.11716 dated 21.12.2012
submitted by the SDO was found to be quite sketchy and could not highlight the
remedial action which was required to be taken to solve the problem relating to
voltage fluctuations and the power cuts as were faced by the complainant in the
summer season of 2012. The case was adjourned for detailed reply of the SDO
concerned by 07.01.2013 and it was listed for further consideration on 09.01.2013.
On 09.01.2013, the complainant appeared and he pointed out that he had lodged
his first complaint with the department on 01.02.2012 followed by complaint dated
10.05.2012, 04.06.2012 and 14.09.2012. In the intervening period of 19.05.2012 to
27.05.2012, two persons of Electricity Department came and they shifted the wires
connecting at some distance of about 60-70 ft. and consequently, he started
experiencing low voltage coupled with frequent power cuts in the last summer
season of 2012. Thereafter, he could not face any problem till date. Sh. Zile Singh,
SDO, Electy. Sub Divn. No.9 attended the proceedings and he referred to his
Memo.No.137 dated 07.01.2013 intimating that the shifting was done on 14.5.2012,
connecting the wires from Ckt.I to Ckt.II which was having less load than Ckt.I and it
was technically correct. The SDO, however, brought to the notice of the Forum that
village-Palsora could face low voltage and power cuts in the ensuing summer of 2013
and in anticipation of this, he had already moved the case for purchase of transformer
of 300KVA. As such, he would like to submit the details thereof to eradicate the
problem of low voltage on last year pattern and in interest of the consumers of the
village. The case was thus adjourned for final consideration and order on
15.01.2013.
-
33
Today i.e. on 15.01.2013, Sh.S.K.Madan, Member, CGRF was on leave. The
complainant could not attend the proceedings. He had stated during the course of
last hearing held on 09.01.2013 that he had no problem at present and he only
desired that he should not face any problem of low voltage in the coming summer
season of 2013. As such, he was exempted for appearance. Sh.Zile Singh, SDO
appeared. He referred to his communication bearing No.137 dated 07.01.2013
followed by his Memo.No.310 dated 14.01.2013 and he argued that the problem of
hanging of wires being faced by the consumer was solved by shifting the same at
right destination on 14.05.2012. He admitted the fact that the village-Palsora could
face problem of low voltage and frequent breakdowns of supply in the coming
summer season of 2013. In case, one more transformer was not added to augment
and rationalize the distribution of supply to the residents of the village, he pointed out.
He thus placed on record that the estimate for purchase of new transformer of
300KVA for village-Palsora had since been sent to the C.E.office vide S.E.office
memo.No.7364 dated 27.8.2012 and he thus pleaded that in case the new
transformer is made available, the basic problem of low voltage and frequent
breakdowns of supply would be solved on permanent basis.
Facts of the case have been seen carefully. In fact, the complainant started
grousing in view of the non-communication made to him by the office of SDO
concerned in respect of his original complaint dated 01.02.2012 followed by his
subsequent reminders dated 10.05.2012, 04.06.2012 and 14.09.2012 for redressal of
his grievance.
After hearing both the parties, the complainant admitted the fact during the
course of hearing held on 09.01.2013 that he had only faced problem of low voltage
and frequent power cuts during the last summer and after shifting the wires from
Ckt.1 to Ckt.2, he could not face such problem in this regard. But his main concern
remained for not replying to his repeated complaints by the SDO concerned. He
further apprehended that he would face problem of low voltage coupled with frequent
breakdowns of supply in the coming summer season of 2013 and therefore, the
concerned SDO should assure him un-interrupted quality supply of electricity in the
coming summer season. Basically, the problem for removal of hanging wires over the
-
34
house of the complainant was sorted out by the SDO concerned on 14.05.2012 and
therefore, the main grievance of the complainant thus stood resolved in May, 2012.
Therefore, the problem relating to make the electricity supply un-interrupted to the
consumers/residents of the village-Palsora, the department is directed to look into the
request of XEN, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, U.T. Chandigarh for purchase of one more
transformer of 300 KVA for village-Palsora which has since been sent to the
C.E.office vide S.E.office memo.No.7364 dated 27.8.2012. Since, the summer
season would start from April, 2013 onwards, the licensee (C.E.) should ensure to
accord the necessary approval for purchase of one more transformer in the larger
interest of the consumers of village-Palsora so that the new transformer is installed by
31.03.2013 to solve the problem on permanent basis.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, shall have the option or liberty to prefer
appeal/representation against this order before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC
for the state of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd floor),
Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09811163943, E-mail [email protected], within one month from the date
of receipt of this order.”
A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record and one copy be sent
to the licensee/S.E./XEN concerned with a copy to complainant for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(I.P. Gupta) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Chairman, CGRF
mailto:[email protected]
-
35
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, Sh. S.K. Madan, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Member
and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.
Complaint No. - 348 Date of Institution - 04.12.2012
Date of Order - 16.01.2013
In the matter of Sh. KDS Nagra resident of House No.2926, Sector 42-C, UT, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Electy. „OP‟ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. „OP‟ Sub-Divn. No. 9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
Sh. KDS Nagra resident of House No.2926, Sector 42-C, UT, Chandigarh
submitted his representation dated 05.11.2012. It was diarised by the Forum vide
Diary No.874 dated 20.11.2012. The main grievance lodged in the representation
was against excessive charging for the last six months. He enclosed a copy of latest
bill No.33962 dated 07.10.2012 showing consumption of 2398 units for Rs.10107/-
against the billing cycle of 10.07.2012 to 10.09.2012. Before this case was to be
treated as a formal complaint, its copy was sent to the Executive Engineer, Electy.
„OP‟ Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh for comments with a copy to the complainant vide
Memo. No.CGRF/Comp-Misc-V/2012/1269-70 dated 21.11.2012. Comments of the
SDO concerned were received vide his office Memo. No.11417 dated 03.12.2012
along with consumption pattern of the consumer. Thereafter, it was treated as a
formal complaint No.348 and notice was issued to the complainant with a copy to the
XEN concerned fixing the case for consideration on 14.12.2012 vide Memo. No.
CGRF/Comp-348/1313-14 dated 04.12.2012.
On 14.12.2012, repeated calls were given to secure the presence of the
consumer/complainant but he could not turn up. However, it was thought desirable to
-
36
give him one more opportunity for appearance to serve the ends of justice failing
which ex parte proceedings would be launched against him.
Sh. Zile Singh, SDO concerned attended the proceedings. He furnished his
comments vide his office Memo.No.11417 dated 3.12.2012 intimating that the meter
No.CHEP 04136 was got checked by the concerned J.E. on 1.12.2012 and as per his
report, the functioning of the meter was reported „OK‟. He justified that the consumer
was rightly charged and in case the consumer was having any grievance, he should
have deposited the challenge fee for checking of the meter on any working day.
Reference was also invited to the consumption pattern sent along with the memo.
under reference. It was noticed that the consumption pattern of the consumer for
summer of 2012 was comparable to the consumption for summer season of 2011.
After hearing the SDO and going through his reply under reference, he was asked to
furnish the following information:-
“
1. He should get the functioning of the meter duly checked by installing a check
meter for period of 15 days so that possibility of its mal-functioning is ruled out.
2. He should also get the copy of list of appliances of the consumer to ascertain
the consumption pattern of the consumer.
3. The check meter should be installed in the presence of the consumer so that
he should also have the knowledge of getting the accuracy of meter checked
for a period of 2 weeks.
4. Capacity of the meter No.04136 has been reported as 10-20 Amps which
seems to be doubtful. He should ascertain it keeping in view the connected
load of the consumer i.e. 6.680KW whereas installed capacity of the meter is
worked upto 4.6 KW as stated by the SDO concerned.”
The case was slated for further consideration on 03.01.2013.
On 03.01.2013, Sh. K.D.S. Nagra-complainant and Sh. Zile Singh-SDO
concerned attended the proceedings. The SDO concerned drew attention to his
communication vide office Memo. No.11807 dated 31.12.2012 and the same was
scrutinised. It was noticed that the documents/information like report of check
meter, copy of SJO dated 21.12.2012, list of appliances of the complainant were still
to be supplied to the Forum for passing the final order. The case was adjourned for
final order on 16.01.2013.
-
37
On 16.01.2013, the case was taken up for arguments. Repeated calls were
given but the complainant could not turn up. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were
launched against him. Sh. Gurpreet Singh, J.E. appeared on behalf of SDO
concerned as the SDO was away to attend some urgent official work. The JE
concerned submitted one Memo. No.359 dated 16.01.2013 intimating that the
consumption of the consumer between 10.05.2011 to 10.11.2011 = 5838 units and
10.05.2012 to 10.11.2012 = 6254 units which was almost corresponding to the
summer season of 2011 with summer season of 2012. He further stated that the
check meter was installed on 24.12.2012 w.r.t. the SJO No.89/725 dated 21.12.2012
and it was removed on 08.01.2013. The test result showed that the consumption of
the installed meter No.CHEP-04136 and the check meter No.CHEP-59177 was
almost the same i.e. 125 units between period 24.12.2012 to 08.01.2013. He also
stated that the consumer had already paid all the electricity bills which were due
against him. He thus requested that the complaint be accordingly filed.
Facts of the case have been seen in view of the contents contained in
complaint dated 05.11.2012 which was duly accompanied with bill No.33962 dated
07.10.2012 indicating consumption of 2398 units for the billing cycle of July-
September, 2012. Consumption pattern of the consumer as supplied along with
Memo. No.11417 dated 09.12.2012 submitted by the SDO concerned has been
carefully scrutinised. A perusal of this consumption pattern would indicate that the
consumption for the billing cycle 10.07.2012 to 10.09.2012 was 2398 units which was
stated excessive by the complainant in his complaint, whereas the consumption for
the same billing cycle for the previous year was found still higher i.e. 2412 units.
Moreover, the consumption of 6633 units for the period Nov.2011 to Sept.2012 is
much less than consumption of the complainant for the period Nov.2010 to Sept.
2011 which is 7178 units. As such the contention of the complainant regarding
excessive consumption recorded by the meter is not proved correct. Even the
consumption shown as per check meter No.CHEP-59177 as well as already installed
meter No.CHEP-04136 was found the same i.e. 125 units between the period
24.12.12 to 08.01.2013 vide SJO No.725/89 dated 21.12.2012. All these facts
manifestly indicate that the functioning of the meter is correct and accurate and
-
38
therefore, the complaint of the consumer that he was excessively being charged in
the past could not find any merit. Besides, the consumer was heard in person on
03.01.2013 who verbally conceded that his consumption could be on the higher side
due to installation of three ACs in his premises under reference. As such, comments
given by the SDO do have their own merits and hence, the same have been relied
upon by the Forum. Accordingly, the complaint has found to be devoid of merit and
hence the same is dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, shall have the option or liberty to prefer
appeal/representation against this order before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC
for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor),
Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09811163943, E-mail id- [email protected], within one month from the date
of receipt of this order.”
A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of 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.
(I.P. Gupta) (S.K. Madan) (R.L. Kalsia) Member, CGRF Member, CGRF Chairman,CGRF
mailto:[email protected]
-
39
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
Before Sh.R.L.Kalsia, IAS (Retd.) Chairman, Sh. S.K. Madan, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Member
and Sh. I.P. Gupta, IA&AS (Retd.) Member of the Forum.
Complaint No. - 343
Date of Institution - 23.11.2012 Dat