TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN
19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377
Email : [email protected]
Web site : www.tneo.tn.nic.in
BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI
Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman
A.P. No. 86 of 2013
Tmt. A.C. Beeyamma,
Al Ajeesya Plastics,
2/16B, Palakkadu Main Road,
Sunnambu Kalavai,
Kuniamutur,
Coimbatore 641 008.
..
Appellant
(Rep by Thiru. M.Gulsar Ahemed
& Thiru. M Mohamed Ali)
Vs.
Superintending Engineer,
Coimbatore EDC / South,
TANGEDCO,
Tatabad,
Coimbatore – 641 012.
33... Respondent
(R. Subramanian, EE/O&M/
Kuniamuthur)
Date of hearing : 3.12.2013
Date of Order : 29 .1. 2014
The above appeal petition came up for final hearing before the
Electricity Ombudsman on 3.12.2013. Upon perusing the above appeal petition,
counter affidavit and after hearing both sides, the following order is issued by the
Electricity Ombudsman.
1
ORDER
1.
Prayer of the Appellant :
The Appellant prayed to set aside the
orders of CGRF of Coimbatore
EDC/South.
2
Brief History of the case :
2.1
The Appellant is the owner of LT Industrial service connection No. 266-008-
497. The above service is coming under the jurisdiction of the respondent.
2.2
The Assistant Executive Engineer/Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the
Appellant’s service connection on 3.12.2012 and reported that one phase is open
circuited. The AE/Athupalam inspected the service on 4.10.2012 and found that the
‘B’ phase current is missing. The meter was replaced on 21.11.2012 and sent for
test.
2.3
The MRT informed that ‘B ‘ phase current missing and data could not be
retrieved in CMRI report and bill may be claimed as per field conditions.
Accordingly, the licensee issued a demand notice for a short fall amount for the
period from 1.7.2012 to 25.12.2012 on 15.3.2013. The short fall amount claimed is
Rs.2,02,469/2.4
Aggrieved over the above demand, the Appellant filed a petition before the
CGRF of Coimbatore EDC/South on 1.5.2013.
The CGRF fixed the short fall
amount as Rs.1,03,842/- for the period from 2/2012 to 20.11.2012 based on the
average consumption of the subsequent assessment period after fixing the new
meter.
2.5
Aggrieved by the order of the CGRF, the Appellant filed this appeal petition
before the Electricity Ombudsman.
3. Contention of the Appellant :
The appellant has contended the following in the appeal petition.
2
(i)
The AEE/APTS/Tiruppur inspected the meter and informed that ‘B’ phase
current is missing . As all the motors were in service, the AEE/APTS was requested
to clarify, how the motors could run if ‘B’ phase current is missing. But, there was no
answer. The above facts was neither recorded in the meter card nor a notice was
given on the above to the consumer.
(ii)
The service was inspected by AEE/Pothanur on 12.10.2012 while conducting
mass raid and he has entered the check reading in the meter card.
(iii)
No officer has not inspected the meter from 13.10.2012 to 20.11.2012.
(iv)
On 21.11.2012, the foreman changed the meter stating that the meter is
defective. The foreman informed that testing charges alone has to be paid and
insisted to give a letter for changing the meter.
(v)
The consumption pattern before and after changing the meter in the above
service connection is same.
(vi)
During 2/2012, he was asked to pay development charges for utilising the
load more than the sanctioned load based on the meter reading . Hence, it is a proof
that the meter is working all right.
(vii)
The assessment status was recorded as normal from 6/2011 to 4/2012 in the
computer and in no month it was recorded that the meter was defective.
(viii)
After 5 ½ months from the date of changing the meter, the AE/Aathupalam
sent a demand notice for
Rs.2,02,459/- towards average
consumption due to
missing of current in one phase.
(ix)
The breakup details for the demand requested was sought from AE, EE &
SE/Coimbatore EDC/South but none of them have given the details. Hence, filed a
petition before the CGRF of Coimbatore EDC/South.
(x)
As per the TNERC’s order, the CGRF petition has to be enquired by the
Chairman and two members. But his petition was enquired by Chairman & one
member only. Hence, it is against the TNERC’s regulation, and hence requested to
order CGRF to conduct the enquiry with Chairman & Two Members again.
(xi)
In the CGRF meeting neither the proof of informing the one phase current
missing in the meter of his service nor entry in the meter card about the current
missing details by AEE/APTS/Tiruppur was shown to him.
(xii)
The AE/Aathupalam has not inspected the service on 4.10.2012 and no
document was shown in proof of his inspection in the CGRF meeting.
3
(xiii)
The AE has intimated that the ‘B’ Phase current is missing in the meter in his
letter dated 15.3.2013. But, in CGRF meeting he has informed that the ‘B’phase
current is lesser than the other two phases.
(xiv)
The AEE/Kuniamuthur has stated that
he has inspected the service on
3.11.2013. It is a lie, and he has not came for inspection. No proof in support of his
inspection on the above date was also shown to him during the CGRF meeting.
(xv)
The meter manufacturing company has informed that the date from which the
one phase current missing could not be ascertained. Such being case the how the
CGRF could fix the defective period, may be looked into.
(xvi)
If the average is calculated as per CFC’s circular dated 25.10.2013 he need
not pay even a single rupee.
(xvii) It is the mistake on the part of TANGEDCO in fixing the meter, for which the
defective period could not be ascertained.
The defective meter was fixed by
TANGEDCO. But, punishing the Appellant for the mistake of TANGEDCO is not
correct.
4. Contentions of the Respondent :
4.1
The respondent has contended the following in the counter affidavit.
4.2
The AEE/APTS, Tiruppur inspected the petitioner’s LT service connection
No.266-008-497 / Tariff IIIB (Industrial ) on 3.10.2012 and reported that “One Phase
open circuited” It was further informed that the meter may be replaced with healthy
one and the meter sent to MRT and report obtained.
4.3
The AE/Athupalam inspected the service on 4.10.2012 and found that ‘B’
phase current was lesser than other phases. Consequently with the concurrence of
the petitioner, the meter was replaced
on 20.11.2012 after obtaining proper
approval.
4.4
As informed by the AEE/APTS, Tiruppur, the meter was sent for testing to the
MRT lab on 22.11.2012.
The MRT, on inspection and checking of the meter
confirmed that ‘B’ phase CT missing and data could not be retrieved in CMRI report
and bills may be revised according to field conditions.
4.5
Therefore average billing, by taking the recorded units at 2/3rd of the actual
units, the average was worked out for the period from 1.7.2012 to 25.12.2012 as
hereunder :
4
Bimonthly
reading on
31.8.2012
31.10.2012
25.12.2012
meter Actual recorded units
20960
23680
20482
Revised units
calculated
31440
35520
30723
Difference
10480
11840
10241
For the difference of units, a demand notice dt.15.3.2013 was issued to the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,02,469/4.6
In the meanwhile the released meter had also been sent for testing with the
suppliers M/s Landis and Gyr Ltd.,
for data extraction to ascertain the current
missing data, actual period of defect and the extent of lesser recording by the
meter. On checking of the meter the suppliers have reported that “as per purchase
order, the meter has not been configured to log current missing event. The exact
period of one phase current missing could not be ascertained in this case. Whereas
by analysing other tamper event loggings, it is being noticed that the meter is having
B phase current not recording issue intermittently from 2009 onwards”
4.7
Since the defect has been established both by MRT and by the Supplier
Company as per provisions in clause 21(2) under chapter 3 of the Supply Code, the
billing revision has to be made for the back period of two years. However, on
representing the subject matter for redressal before the Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum, the matter has been taken for hearing and the petitioner had
been called upon for enquiry on 31.8.2013.
During the course of enquiry, the
petitioner reiterated her stand for cancelling the demand of average short levy.
4.8
The forum having analysed the depositions, counter statement furnished by
the respondent and in addition to the production details furnished by the petitioner,
considered the following.
•
The report of the MRT wing and Supplier’s statement that the exact period
of current missing data could not be ascertained and noticed current
missing intermittently from 2009.
•
The consumption pattern.
•
The production details both before and after release of meter.
The forum decides to assess the average short levy on the basis of the
healthy meter consumption during 2/2013 and 4/2013 and also limit the period of
short levy for a back period of one year from the date of replacement of the meter.
5
The forum fixed the average short levy for Rs.103842/- for the period from 2/2012
to 11/2012 (upto the date of new meter fixed ).
4.9
The defect has been detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad, Tiruppur and
they have also reported the exact nature of the defect by stating “one phase open
circuited “ Thus it has been suspected that there was some internal problem in the
meter.
This has been
further confirmed by the MRT wing which confirmed by
reporting that ‘B’ phase CT missing. Data could not be retrieved in CMRI Report”
and recommended revision of billing according to field conditions.
4.10
The petitioner’s apprehensions of the very fact
of the defect have been
settled by the report of the MRT wing. The trustworthiness of the MRT wing could
not be questioned unless there are patent irregularities in the test. The report given
by the MRT is an expert opinion in terms of provisions contained in section 45 of the
Evidence Act and as such the report cannot be disregarded by the petitioner or by
the forum. The MRT test by the licensee is data evidence based on laboratory test
which has got scientific value.
4.11
The petitioner had thrown a bald statement that the average short levy is
wrong. But no solid evidence has been evinced by the petitioner to reject the
demand of average short fall.
4.12
In addition, it has also been confirmed by the meter supplier after testing the
meter that there was B phase current not recording intermittently from 2009.
4.13
The above two factor prove beyond doubt that the meter might have been
defective and could not have recorded actual consumption.
Hence, the levy of
average short fall is justifiable and the licensee is lawfully entitled to recover the
undercharges billed as per provisions in clause 12(1) of the Supply Code.
4.14
As regards to the contention of the petitioner that the petition should have
been enquired by the full forum, it is submitted that as per provisions contained in
clause 1(6) of part II of TNERC regulations for Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum, “the quorum of the forum shall be two among the three members, which
includes the Chairperson”. Hence, the order of the forum with two member quorum
is justifiable
and there is no further proceeding with three member forum is
necessary.
6
5.
Hearing held by the Electricity Ombudsman
In order to enable the Appellant
arguments in person a hearing was
and the respondent
to put forth their
held before the Electricity Ombudsman on
3.12.2013. The Appellant was represented by Thiru. M. Mohamed Ali and Thiru. M.
Gulsar Ahemed. Thiru. R. Subramanian, EE/O&M/Kuniamuthur/South has attended
the hearing on behalf of the respondent.
6.
6.1
Argument of the Appellant
Thiru. M. Gulsar Ahemed has presented the case on behalf of the Appellant.
He reiterated the contents of the Appeal Petition.
6.2
He argued that
subsequent to the inspection of the AEE/APTS, Thiru.
Selvaraj, AEE/Pothanur has inspected the service during mass raid on 12.10.2012
and recorded the check reading on the meter card. He has not remarked about the
‘B’ phase current missing in the entry. Hence, he argued that the meter is good on
the date of inspection of Thiru. Selvaraj, AEE/Pothanur.
6.3
As the recorded demand in 2/2012 is more than the contracted load, he has
paid development charges for 2 KW during 8/2012. It shows that the meter is
working correctly.
6.4
The licensee has not given split up details for the demand of Rs.2,02,459/-
raised in the letter dt.15.3.2013.
6.5
He has also argued that the AE & AEE/Kuniamuthur have not inspected the
service on 4.10.2012 & 3.11.2012 respectively as stated in the counter.
6.6
He argued that it is the mistake of the licensee to fix a defective meter in the
service and also argued that as per licensee’s instructions in vogue, the service with
a load of 40HP have to be checked by the AE once in 2 months, and by AEE once in
4 months and by the EE once in 6 months. Had the above inspections have been
carried out, the defect in the meter could
have been come to the notice early and
7
the situation of intimating the defect after a year and claiming of short fall amount at
a later date would have been averted.
6.7
He further argued that the defect was noticed on 3.10.2012 and the meter
was changed on 21.11.2012, hence, the average may be levied for the above period
only.
7.
Argument of the Respondent :
7.1
Thiru. R. Subramanian, EE/O&M/Kuniamuthur attended the hearing on behalf
of the SE/Coimbatore EDC/South. He reiterated the contents of the counter.
7.2
He argued that the AEE/APTS while inspecting the service on 3.10.2012 has
found the current recording missing in ‘B’ phase and intimated to test the meter and
raise the bill accordingly.
7.3
The service was inspected by AE/AEE and observed one phase current
missing and accordingly the meter was changed.
7.4
He argued that the meter was sent for testing to MRT on 22.11.2012. The
MRT after checking the meter confirmed that ‘B’ phase current missing and data
could not be retrieved in CMRI.
7.5
As data was not able to be downloaded, the meter was sent to the suppliers
M/s Landis and Gyr Ltd., for data extraction to ascertain the current missing details,
actual period of defect and the extent of lesser recording by the meter.
7.6
The meter supplier informed that the meter has not been configured for log
current missing event as there is no provision in the purchase order. But by
analysing the other tamper event loggings, it was observed that meter is having ‘B’
phase current not recording issue intermittently from 2009 onwards. The exact
period of one phase current missing could not be ascertained.
8
7.7
As per the report of the supplier, the meter is defective from 2009 onwards.
Hence, average short fall claimed for recovering the revenue lost is correct.
7.8
He also argued as per regulation 12(1) of the Supply Code the licensee is
having right to claim the short fall amount.
7.9
The EE also argued that as the load shedding is more during 2011 & 2012,
the subsequent 4 months average was taken as the utilisation pattern before 2009
and utilisation pattern during 2011 & 2012 are different due to R&C measures.
8.
Issue for consideration :
I have heard the arguments of the Appellant and the respondent and perused
the documents produced before me. On a careful consideration of the submission of
both sides, I find the following are the issues for consideration.
(i)
Whether the meter is defective ? and if so from which date ?
(ii)
Whether average adopted by the licensee is acceptable ?
(iii)
Whether any relief could be given to the Appellant ?
9.
Findings on the First Issue :
9.1
The appellant argued that the meter status was recorded as normal in computer
from 6/2011 to 4/2013 and it was not recorded as defective in any month. Hence, the
meter could be treated as good one.
9.2
The Appellant’s representative also argued that when the service was inspected
by the AEE/APTS, all the motors were in service. If one phase current is missing
means, the equipment would not have run at all. The above remarks of AEE/APTS was
not recorded in the meter card or intimated by a separate letter. He also argued that
the AE, AEE have not inspected the meter as furnished in the counter.
9.3
He also argued that
on 12.10.2012, when mass raid was conducted, the
AEE/Pothanur inspected the service and recorded
the check reading. He has not
remarked anything about the ‘B’ phase current missing. Hence, it is to be construed
that the meter is working alright.
9
9.4
The respondent argued that on 3.10.2012 the AEE/APTS inspected the service
and found one phase open circuit and also suggested to replace the meter and send the
meter to MRT.
9.5
The AE/Athupalam inspected the service on 4.10.2012 and found ‘B’ phase
current is lesser than other phases and the meter was replaced on 21.11.2012 with the
concurrence of the consumer.
9.6
The respondent argued that as per the MRT report, the ‘B’ phase current is
missing and data could not be retrieved in CMRI report. Further, the meter was sent to
Supplier M/s Landis & Gyr Ltd., for testing and extraction of data. The supplier after
checking the meter have reported that as per P.O. the meter has not been configured
to log current missing event and the exact period current missing
could not be
ascertained in this case. On analysing the other tamper event logging, it is being
noticed that the meter is having ‘B’ phase current not recording issue intermittently
from 2009 onwards.
9.7
As the respondent have referred the AEE/APTS/Tiruppur report, MRT report
and meter suppliers report, they are extracted below :
9.7.1
AEE/ENFT/Tiruppur letter dated 3.10.2012 :
“To
AE/Aathupalam
SC No.497-Dist. Bharathipuram
One phase found open circuited . Meter may be replaced with healthy one.
Concurrence letter may be obtained from the consumer. Meter may be sent to MRT
and report obtained billing revision may be done with intimation to APTS/Tiruppur.
Sd/ x x x
AEE/ENFT/TPR”
On a plain reading of the above, it is noted that the AEE/ENFT/Tiruppur has
observed one phase open circuited.
10
9.7.2 MRT Report :
“
TANGEDCO
Er.C. Muralidharan, B.E.,
Asst.Exe.Engineer/MRT,
CEDC/South,
Coimbatore 12.
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Distribution /Kuniamuthur.
Lr.No.AEE/MRT/CEDC/S/CBE/E/D.No.654/12, dt.24.12.2012.
Sir,
Sub
Ref
:
:
Elecy – MRT/South – Testing of static meter – Reg.
Lr.No.AE/D/Aplm/F.M.Meter/D.No.217/12 dt.22.11.2012
Referring to the above, it is reported that the following meters were tested at
MRT on 28.11.2012 and the results furnished as below :
Sl.No. SC
Details/
Distribution
1.
266-008-497
Bharathi Nagar
Meter Details
Capacity
L&G
50100A
TN010230
P.O.
RC
13/09
Results
Remarks
B phase CT
circuit defect.
F.R.
313839.456kwh
339207.31
kvah
B
phase
CT
missing data could
not be retrieved in
CMRI report and
hence bills may be
revised according
to
the
field
condition.
Sd/ xxxxx
Assistant Executive Engineer
MRT/CEDC/South
Coimbatore 12.
Copy submitted to the Executive Engineer/Kuniyamuthur(AAO/RB)
Copy to the Assistant Executive Engineer/Distribution/Athupalam”
On a careful reading of the above letter of AEE/MRT, CEDC/South Coimbatore, it
is noted that the meter was tested at MRT on 28.11.2012 and found ‘B’ phase circuit
defective. The AEE/MRT has also remarked that ‘B’ phase CT missing data could not
be retrieved in CMRI report and hence bills may be revised according to field
conditions.
9.7.3 M/s Landys & Gyr Ltd., Bangalore Report :
“July 31, 2013
L&G/TANGEDCO/ZMI/CC/81
“With reference to the above, we have downloaded the subject meter and
analysed. The meter is not recording “B” phase current even though load is available.
As per the purchase order, the meter has not been
configured to
log current
missing
event. The exact period of one phase current missing could not be
11
ascertained in this case. Whereas by analysing other tamper event loggings, it is being
noticed that the meter is having B phase current not recording issue intermittently
from 2009 onwards. This is for your kind information and doing the needful.”
On a careful reading of the above report,
it is noted that the meter is not
recording ‘B’ phase current even though load is available. As per the purchase order,
the meter has not been configured to log current missing event.
The exact period of
one phase current missing could not be ascertained in this case whereas by analysing
other tamper event loggings, it is being noticed that the meter is having ‘B’ phase
current not recording issue intermittently from 2009 onwards.
9.8
The AEE/MRT, CEDC/South after examining the report of the meter suppliers
has also remarked that the meter ‘B’ phase current missing takes place since
1.11.2009.
9.9
As per the suppliers report and as per the MRT report, the ‘B’ phase current
missing has taken place in the meter since 1.11.2009. The meter was fixed in the
service on 21.10.2009. (ie) As per the reports, the meter has become defective within
10 days of fixing it in the Appellant’s service.
9.10
Further, I would like to analyse the consumption pattern from 2008 to 2013 in
this regard. The consumption recorded in the Appellant’s service are given below in
year wise.
Month
2
4
6
8
2008
26510
33550
24530
29650
2009
26690
22930
25770
27380
2010
14880
20720
14000
12280
2011
17650
18470
18820
16390
2012
16380
16090
20780
20960
2013
24220
21760
21700
24400
12320
17790
23580
24430
Meter changed
on 21.10.2009
10 25210 25318
Meter changed on
21.11.2012
12 24610 22450
9.11
9180
12600
20842
On an analysis of the consumption recorded for one year before the L&G meter
fixed on 21.10.2009 & after removing the meter on 21.11.2012, it is noted that the
consumption is varying between 22,930 to 29650 units for each assessment period
before changing the meter and 21700 to 24430 after changing the meter. Whereas the
consumption recorded during the period between 21.10.2009 to 21.11.2012, the
12
consumption
varies between 9180 to 23580 (excluding 10/2009 and 12/2012
consumptions as during the said period the meter change has taken place).
9.12
It is also to be noted that except for 4/2010, 6/2012,8/2012 and 10/2012 the
consumption is low . The average consumption per bimonthly in the year 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are furnished below :
2008
27343
2009
25089
25692
2010
13896
2011
16953
(excluding defective
period)
9.13
2012
2013
23302
19558
(period
2/2012 to
10/2012)
It could be noted that the average bimonthly consumption recorded in the service
when the defective meter was in service is low (ie) in the order of 13,896,16953 and
19558 when compared to the average bimonthly consumption recorded when the meter
is good (ie) 27,343 during 2008, 25089 during 2009 and 23302 during 2013.
9.14
The manufacturer test report states that the meter is having ‘B’ phase current
recording issue intermittently from 2009 onwards and the AEE/MRT reported the defect
is from 1.11.2009. As both are results, based on analysis of the downloaded details, I
cannot ignore the remarks and hence, I am of the view that the meter is defective from
1.11.2009.
10.
Findings on the Second Issue :
10.1
The respondent has taken consumption recorded in 2 consecutive assessment
recorded in the meter after changing the defective meter (ie) 2/2013 consumption and
4/2013 for arriving the average consumption for the meter defective period.
10.2
The Appellant argued that as per CFC/General’s circular dated 25.10.2009,
the assessment for the defective period could be done based on the previous 4 months’
consumption recorded before the meter is declared
as defective (or ) any four
consecutive months consumption during the previous 12 months’ consumption and had
it been adopted, he need not have to pay any short fall amount.
10.3
In this connection, I would like to refer regulation 11 of the Supply Code which
relates to assessment of billing in case where there is no meter or meter is defective.
The true extract of the said regulation is reproduced below :
13
“11.Assessment of billing in cases where there is no meter or meter is
defective :
(1) Where supply to the consumer is given without a meter or where the meter
fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no theft of energy or
violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during the period when
the meter was not installed or the meter installed was defective, shall be
assessed as mentioned hereunder.
(2) The quantity of electricity, supplied during the period in question shall be
determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the preceding
four months in respect of both High Tension service connections and Low
Tension service connections provided that the conditions in regard to use of
electricity during the said four months were not different from those which
prevailed during the period in question.
(3) In respect of High Tension service connections, where the meter fixed for
measuring the maximum Demand becomes defective, the Maximum Demand shall
be assessed by computation on the basis of the average of the recorded
demand during the previous four months.
(4) Where the meter becomes defective immediately after the service connection
is effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in question is to be
determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the succeeding four
months periods after installation of a correct meter, provided the conditions in
regard to the use of electricity in respect of such Low Tension service connections
are not different. The consumer shall be charged monthly minimum provisionally
for defective period and after assessment the actual charges will be recovered after
adjusting the amount collected provisionally.
(5) If the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the
periods as
mentioned above were different, assessment shall be made on the basis of any
consecutive four months period during the preceding twelve months when the
conditions of working were similar to those in the period covered by the billing.
(6) Where it is not possible to select a set of four months, the quantity of
electricity supplied will be assessed in the case of Low Tension service connections
by the Engineer in charge of the distribution and in the case of High Tension service
connections by the next higher level officer on the basis of the connected load
and the hours of usage of electricity by the consumer.
(7) In case the consumer does not agree with the assessment made by the
Engineer or the higher-level officer as the case may be, the matter may be
referred to the next higher-level officer of the Licensee. In case the consumer is
still not satisfied, the consumer is at liberty to approach the respective Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum of the Licensee.”
10.4
On a careful reading of the said regulation, the regulation 11(2), 11(4) & 11(5)
are relevant to this issue.
10.5
As per regulation 11(2), the quantity of electricity supplied during the period
in question shall be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during
14
the preceding four months provided that the conditions regard to using the electricity
during the said four months were not different from those which prevailed the period in
question.
10.6
As per regulation 11(4), when the meter become defective immediately after
the service connection is effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period
in question is to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during
the succeeding four months periods after installation of correct meter, provided that the
conditions, in regard to use of electricity in respect of such service connections are not
different.
10.7
As per regulation 11(5), if the conditions regard to use of electricity during the
period as above mentioned were different, assessment shall be made on the basis of
any consecutive four months period during the preceding 12 months when the
conditions of working were similar to there covered in the billing.
10.8
The Appellant argued that regulation 11(2) or 11(5) has to be adopted for
arriving the average consumption citing CFC’s circular dt.25.10.2007. He also
informed in such case, he need not have to pay such a huge amount of short fall. As
the meter is declared as defective from 1.11.2009 as per my findings in first issue, the
consumption recorded for 10/2009 and 8/2009 has to be adopted for arriving the
average as per regulation 11(2) which worked out to 26349 units. Further it is also
observed that any two consecutive consumption recorded from 12/2008 to 10/2009
even if the least consumption is taken, the average will be 25350 units.
10.9
The respondent argued that the load shedding during 2010, 2011 and 2012
are more when compared to the load shedding done from 11/2008 to 8/2009. Hence,
the utilisation pattern may not be same.
15
10.10
The EE further argued as the short fall is claimed for one year, the service
consumption pattern will be similar to the subsequent four month consumption after
changing the meter. As per the above the average consumption works out to 22990
units.
10.11
On hearing the above argument of the respondent, the Appellant informed
that he is agreeable for adoption of regulation 11(4) in assessing short fall amount as
suggested by the respondent but informed that the short fall can be claimed only from
3.10.2012 to 21.11.2012.
10.12
On a careful reading of regulation 11(2), 11(4) and 11(5), the one provision
common in all the above regulation is “the conditions in regard to use of electricity
during the period in question shall not be different from the 4 months consumption
taken for arriving the average.”
Hence, the important point to be consider is the
condition regard to usage of electricity. As the respondent have stated that the load
shedding period before the meter defective period is less (ie) utilisation may be for
more hours and the pattern of utilisation is similar subsequent to the changing of
meter, I am accepting the argument of the respondent that regulation 11(4) shall be
more appropriate in this case. Further, as the Appellant is also agreeable for adoption
of regulation 11(4), it is held that the average adopted by the respondent is correct.
11.
Findings on the Third Issue :
11.1
The Appellant argued that fixing a defective meter in the Appellant’s service is a
mistake of the respondent. Further, the officers of TANGEDCO have also not inspected
the service as per the instructions in vogue. He argued that the service could be
inspected by the concerned AE once in 2 months, by concerned AEE once in 4 months
and by concerned EE in once in 6 months. Had the above instruction been followed,
16
the meter defect would have come to the notice of the licensee long back and the
situation of claiming short fall for one year could not have arisen at all.
11.2
The Appellant further argued that as the meter defect was noticed by
AEE/APTS on 3.10.2012 and a new meter was erected in her service on 21.11.2012,
the average consumption for meter defective period could be claimed from her only for
the above period and not more than that.
11.3
The respondent argued that as per the meter supplier’s report, the meter is
having ‘B’ phase current not recording issue intermittently from 2009. But, CGRF has
ordered to claim short fall assessment for a back
period of one year based on
productions details produced by the petitioner and the consumption from the date of
replacement of the meter (ie) from 2/2012 to 10.11.2012 and hence argued that the
claim is reasonable.
11.4
On examination of the copy of the tamper status report furnished by the
suppliers of the meter in discussion, it is noted that the ‘B’ phase current is zero at
00.20 Hrs and Y phase current as 0.7 and R phase as 18.78. The voltage recorded are
244.2,120.19,249.29 respectively.
1.11.2009.
The position was restored at 11.28 Hrs on
The voltage reading are 246.22, 245.04 and 244.26 and the current
recorded is 0,0,005 in R,Y, B respectively. There are such readings for various dates
found in the report. The earlier date for such occurrences is 1.11.2009 and the latest
date is 30.8.2012.
11.5
As the first such current missing data is available from 1.11.2009, the
AEE/MRT in his report dated 28.6.2013 has stated that the meter ‘B’ phase intermittent
current missing has taken place since 1.11.2009.
11.6
On a conjoint reading of MRT & supplier’s reports, one can easily come to a
conclusion that the ‘B’ phase intermittent current missing is observed from 1.11.2009.
17
Hence, it has to be treated that the meter is defective from 1.11.2009 to 21.11.2012 and
the consumption recorded during the above period could not reflect the actual usage.
Hence, average has to be adopted for
assessing the consumption for the above
defective period.
11.7
As the CGRF has recorded that based on the production details produced by
the petitioner and the consumption it has been decided to arrive the average amount for
a period of one year, I am of the view that, I may not be able to give any further relief
to the Appellant.
12.
12.1
Conclusion :
In view of my findings on third issue, I am unable to interfere with the orders of
the CGRF of Coimbatore EDC/South.
12.2
With the above findings, the A.P .No. 86 of 2013 is finally disposed of by the
Electricity Ombudsman. No Costs.
(A. Dharmaraj)
Electricity Ombudsman
To
1) Tmt. A.C. Beeyamma,
Al Ajeesya Plastics,
2/16B, Palakkadu Main Road,
Sunnambu Kalavai,
Kuniamutur,
Coimbatore 641 008
2) The Superintending Engineer,
Coimbatore EDC / South,
TANGEDCO,
Tatabad,
Coimbatore – 641 012.
3) The Chairman,
(Superintending Engineer),
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Coimbatore EDC / South,
TANGEDCO,
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012.
18
4) The Chairman & Managing Director,
TANGEDCO,
NPKRR Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
5) The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
6) The Assistant Director (Computer) - FOR HOSTING IN THE TNEO WEBSITE
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
19

Download Report