Case No.85/2016

Page 1 of 13

GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, GUJARAT STATE

Polytechnic Compound, Barrack No.3, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015

CASE NO. 85/2016

Appellant: Shri Sunilbhai K.Patel, Partner

Nirgun Buildpro, Scheme Nirgun-14 7, Trishla Apartment Nr. Manavmandir B/h. Shakamba Party Plot, Memnagar

Ahmedabd-380052.

Represented by: Shri Sunilbhai K. Patel, Partner Shri Miteshbhai A. Thakkar, Partner Shri Brijeshbhai Vyas.

V/s.

Respondent: Manager,

Torrent Power Limited

Jubilee House, 2nd floor, Shahpur Ahmedabad.

Represented by: Shri Prafulbhai Thakkar,VP, TPL,Ahmedabad. Shri Pradyot Vasaiya, Manager, TPL, Ahmedabad.

Smt. Falguni Malviya, Manager, TPL, Ahmedabad. Smt.Kumudben Modi, Executive,TPL,Ahmedabad. Smt. Sristi Patel, MT-Legal,TPL,Ahmedabad.

:::PROCEEDINGS:::

1.0. The Appellant had submitted representation aggrieving with the

review order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Consumer

Grievances Redressal Forum, Torrent Power Limited,

Ahmedabad, in case No.09/2016. The representation was

registered at this office as Case No.85/2016. The hearing of this

case was kept on 07.07.2016.

2.0. The Appellant has represented the case as under.

2.1. 100305559

Case No.85/2016

Page 2 of 13

The Orchid White Field

“M” “N”

way leave

NOC way leave

NOC

Supply Code 2005 Section 4.1.4 Supply Code,2015

Section 4.27(4)

“ ”

“ ” “ ”

Case No.85/2016

Page 3 of 13

“ ” “ ”

“ ”

Case No.85/2016

Page 4 of 13

“ ”

Case No.85/2016

Page 5 of 13

NOC NOC

NOC

“M” “N”

3.0. Respondent has represented the case as under.

3.1. Respondent has taken a preliminary objection by submitting that

appeal is not maintainable as Appellant is not a consumer of

Respondent company as per Section 1.5(c) of Consumer

Grievances Redessal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations,2011.

The connection is in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company. The

issue regarding cable shifting charges cannot form a part of the

complaint as per Section 1.5(d) of the Consumer Grievances

Redessal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations,2011.

Case No.85/2016

Page 6 of 13

3.2. Respondent has submitted the facts of the case as under:

(1) Appellant has applied for new connection on 29.04.2015.

Appellant has applied in the name of M/s. Goyal &

Company and interim order came to be passed to give

connection to Appellant on 11.02.2016, even though sale

deed was in the name of M/s. Nirgun Buildpro, Sub-plot

No.2, Survey No. 855/1. The final order came to be passed

on 02.03.2016. The said order could not have been passed

as he was not a consumer of the company and hence does

not come under the purview of the complainant within the

definition of Regulations,2011.

(2) Appellant has taken the issue of charges to be paid by him

for shifting of cable in the said complaint made before

Forum. The said issue could not have been made by the

Appellant as he was not the applicant/owner of the same

premises. However he has clearly mentioned that Sub-plot

No.2 has been purchased by him from M/s. Goyal &

Company who has entered into an agreement to sale of the

same premises with Mr. Rameshji Maganji Thakor, the

original owner.

(3) M/s. Goyal & Company has constructed “Orchid

Whitefield” for which the power supply was given to them

through LT cable from the said line which belongs to M/s.

Goyal & Company at the point of time. The said service was

given to M/s. Goyal & Company in the year 2014, bearing

service No. 100120944.

(4) It is stated that both these plots purchased by M/s. Nirgun

Buildpro, were in possession of M/s Goyal & Company and

was holding Banakhat of the said land from the original

owner Mr. Rameshji Maganji Thakor. Respondent company

has taken wayleave permission to lay LT cable from M/s.

Case No.85/2016

Page 7 of 13

Goyal & Company and accordingly laid the cable for Orchid

Whitefield. M/s. Goyal & Company was the Banakhat

holder from the year 2012 to 2015 till the land was sold to

M/s. Nirgun Buildpro. Therefore, the application was

made in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company as there was

no sale deed in the name of M/s. Nirgun Buildpro at that

time. The application for new connection was made on

29.04.2015 whereas the sale deed was executed on

03.07.2015.

(5) The original complaint filed by the Appellant on 21.01.2016

does not mention the issue of wayleave or shifting charges

to be paid for shifting of cable, which further shows that

the complaint was not maintainable before Forum on that

ground only. Further it could not have been entertained for

not granting connection to M/s. Nirgun Buildpro as the

application was in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company

while ownership was in the name of Appellant as per the

statement of Appellant.

(6) The service No. 10305559 granted to M/s Goyal &

Company from which appeal has been preferred is still not

in the name of Appellant and therefore this appeal is not

maintainable. It is submitted that Ombudsman is not the

competent authority to decide regarding the legality/civil

dispute of wayleave rights given by M/s. Goyal & Company

to the Respondent.

(7) It is stated that even if the appellant is treated to be

consumer then property purchased by him would be in “as

is where is” basis and whatever his predecessors have

agreed or documented with the Respondent regarding the

wayleave permission shall be binding on him as well and

any dispute regarding the same cannot be entertained by

Case No.85/2016

Page 8 of 13

the Forum. However, if Appellant wishes to shift the cable,

same can be done by the Respondent on payment of

charges as per Clause No. 4.27(4) of Supply Code-2015.

(8) It is stated that as on today the service has not been

transferred from M/s. Goyal & Company to M/s. Nirgun

Buildpro even though he is the owner of the property as

claimed by him. Therefore, the application for shifting or

dispute for payment of the same cannot be entertained by

the Respondent till the name change process has been

carried out buy him, nor can he has any objection for

making to payment of shifting charges as M/s. Goyal &

Company is legal owner of the service who had consented

for laying of the cable.

3.3. It is submitted that appellant and his representative were

remained present before Forum at the time of hearing, so the

grievance of Appellant regarding not consider the contention of

Appellant by Forum, is false.

Respondent has not submitted any reply regarding the provisions

of Supply Code shown by the Appellant.

3.4. It is stated that Respondent company has not violated any of the

provisions of Supply Code with regard to shifting of cable and the

wayleave permission. It is submitted that even if we give

contentions of appellant benefit that Regulations 4.27(4) of the

Supply code,2015, only deals with the service line, even then as

per the definition of service line as per Section 2(56) it refers to

any electric supply line through which electricity is or is intended

to be supplied to a single consumer/group of consumer. Hence

the definition is for the purpose of understanding that cable also

come under the purview of service line and hence Section 4.27(4)

of the Supply Code-2015 would apply.

Case No.85/2016

Page 9 of 13

3.5. It is stated that the NOC given by M/s. Goyal & Company was in

the capacity of the owner of the said plot. There was no sale deed

between M/s. Goyal & company and M/s. Nirgun Buildpro at the

time of giving NOC to the Respondent Company in the year 2012.

3.6. M/s. Goyal & Company was the legal owner of the said plot

F.P.No.84/1 when the wayleave permission was granted to the

Respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that permission of

wayleave given by M/s. Goyal & Company was within its legal

capacity and does not need to be disputed.

3.7. It is stated that as per the practice of Respondent laying down

cable and digging a trench do not have different meanings and

hence there is no require to mention the presence or absence of

trench to the Appellant.

3.8. There is no provisions in the Supply Code,2015 for appointment

of an Electrical Inspector to inspect the present or absence of a

trench in any premises and therefore there is no need of an

Electrical Inspector or any site visit for the same.

3.9. The extent of the duty imposed on the distribution licensee in

relation to seeking wayleave permission from the owner of

premises, it is submitted that Clause No. 4.27(4) of Supply Code

2015 specifically entails the duty of seeking wayleave permission

on the consumer if the consumer has no frontage abutting a

public street.

3.10. It is stated that there is no dispute whether the Respondent

company has filed revised reply or not at the time of hearing of

Review Appeal in case No. 9/2016 before Forum.

3.11. The prayer of Appellant is not required to be granted as the

Respondent company has not violated any of the Supply Code

provisions at any point of time and need not bear the risks and

burden of costs of shifting charges as prayed for by the Appellant

in the Appeal as this was not the original prayer before Forum

Case No.85/2016

Page 10 of 13

and Appellant cannot subsequently make new issues. The prayer

of appellant is baseless and not to be granted.

:::ORDER:::

4.0. I have considered the contentions of the Appellant and the

Respondent and the facts, statistics and relevant papers, which

are on record, and considering them in detail, my findings are as

under.

4.1. Appellant has purchased a land sub-plot No.2 of 238.89

Sq.metres from M/s. Goyal & Company on 03.07.2015 through

sale deed. He has applied to Respondent for electric connection

in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company service No. 10005559 on

29.04.2015 for construction purpose. 4.2. As per definition of

consumer:

“Consumer” refers to any person who is supplied with electricity

for his/her own use by a Licensee or the Government or by any

other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to

the public under the Act or any other law for the time being

inforce and includes any person whose premises are for the time

being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the

works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the

case may be. By this way Appellant is not a consumer of

Respondent.

4.2. It was observed by Respondent during site visit that the plot for

which connection was requested was subset of the plot for which

the connection was requested in April,2014 by M/s. Goyal &

Company Pvt. Ltd., having service No.100120944.

It was also found that the premises applied for construction

services is having cables in plot area and installation of meter was

not finalized. The same was conveyed to the Appellant by

Respondent in June,2015.

Case No.85/2016

Page 11 of 13

4.3. The issue involved in present grievances is to remove the cable

wires from the plot No. 84/1 and sub-plot No.2, where Appellant

has asked electric connection in the name of M/s. Goyal &

Company. The said cable was laid down by Respondent in the

year 2013 as per statement submitted by him for giving power

supply to Block No. “M” and “N” of Orchid Whitefield, Scheme of

M/s. Goyal & Company.

Respondent came to know that applicant of present electric

supply i.e. M/s. Goyal & Company is not an owner of premises

and same premises has been sold out to M/s. Nirgun Buildpro

for which documents submitted by him. Accordingly, Respondent

has informed M/s. Nirgun Buildpro to apply for shifting of the

cables and to pay necessary shifting charges and to provide

necessary wayleave permission for the new cable route. The

present Appellant M/s. Nirgun Buildpro has denied to pay

shifting charges, even though Forum has passed the interim

order and accordingly Respondent has released the electric

service of Appellant for the construction purpose vide service

No.10305559.

4.4. The service No.10305559 was granted to M/s. Goyal & Company

for construction purpose as per the application dated

29.04.2015, which is also not in the name of Appellant and the

said service has not been transferred from M/s. Goyal &

Company to M/s. Nirgun Buildpro.

As per Section 1.5(c) of Notification No. 2 of 2011

“c) “Complainant” means (a) any Consumer or Consumers including their legal

heirs or successors, having a Complaint against a Licensee and lodging the same

either directly or through their representatives; or (b) any voluntary consumer

association or associations, registered under the law for the time being in force and

making the Complaints in the larger interest of the Consumers; or (c) any

consumer(s)/voluntary consumer association(s) where the Licensee does not

register or fails to register the Complaint of such Consumer(s)/voluntary consumer

association(s); or (d) any person whose electricity connection is disconnected; or

(e) an applicant for a new connection for the supply of electricity.”

Case No.85/2016

Page 12 of 13

As per above definition present Appellant is not a consumer and

hence he is not eligible to file grievance before Forum as well as

Ombudsman.

As per Section 1.5(d) of Notification No. 2 of 2011 the present

representation filed by Appellant and prayer sought by Appellant

cannot form the part of complaint to decide.

4.5. It is an established fact that cable was laid by Respondent in the

year 2013 prior to sale deed of said Plot No.84/1, Subplot-2

between parties in which Appellant is a purchaser of said plot,

while M/s. Goyal & Company is a confirming party as per sale

deed. The sale deed was made on 03.07.2015. By way of sale

deed, Appellant was become an owner of that premises, while NA

was accorded in the year 2015. Prior to that Respondent has laid

cable wire, passing through said plot, for electrification of Block

“M” and “N” of Orchid Whitefield.

4.6. N.A. permission accorded by concern authority for survey

No.855/1, TP No.84/A, FP No.84 of 2792 Sq.metres for

residential purpose vide letter dated 22.06.2015 to Shri Ramesh

Maganji Thakor with certain conditions.

4.7. As per GERC Notification No.4 of 2015, Electricity Supply Code

& Related Matters Regulation, Clause No. 4.27:

“During the inspection, the licensee shall:

(1) Fix the point of supply and the place where the meter and the MCB etc. shall be

installed in consultation with the consumer:

Provided that the service line shall be laid at an accessible location and the meter shall

be fixed outside or at the entry point of the premises in such a manner that it is protected

from elements like rain etc. and is easily accessible without getting the premises

unlocked or opened for this purpose;

In no case, the Distribution Licensee shall fix its apparatus, meter or any of its property

in a place, which entails entry by its employee into private quarters.

(2) Record the correct full address of the premises, if not provided in the application

form, and note down landmarks near the property and the pole number from where

service connection is proposed to be given; and

(3) Verify all other particulars mentioned in the application form, as required.

(4) The Distribution Licensee shall obtain the necessary way leaves and permissions

for laying down the service lines for the supply of power. The applicant shall fully co-

operate with the Distribution Licensee in obtaining such necessary way leaves and

permissions. However, where the consumer has no frontage abutting a public street

Case No.85/2016

Page 13 of 13

and where the service line has necessarily to cross over or go under other property,

the consumer shall obtain the necessary way leave and permission at his own expense

and continue them as long as supply is to be maintained. Should, however, the way

leaves or permissions be withdrawn, the Supply may be cut off forthwith, subject to the

provisions of Acts, rules and regulations for the time being in force. Any extra expense

incurred in laying the service line and maintaining the same in accordance with the

way leaves shall be recovered from the Consumer. The Applicant shall provide

necessary undertaking to the Distribution Licensee if required.”

By way of having ownership of the premises through sale deed

dated 03.07.2015 Appellant was entitled to register application

before Respondent, even though he has registered application on

29.04.2015 for construction service in the name of M/s. Goyal &

Company, having legal ownership of the said premises. Regarding

the legality/civil dispute of wayleave rights given by M/s. Goyal

& Company to Respondent, it is not a part of dispute to be decided

by Ombudsman.

4.8. Looking to the above observations, the subject matter is not

within the purview of Ombudsman to decide, as per Para 4.4

Appellant not falls under the definition of complainant and

complaint also not falls under the definition as specified under

Regulations.

4.9. I order accordingly.

4.10. No order as to costs.

4.11. With this order, representation/Application stands disposed of.

(Dilip Raval)

Electricity Ombudsman

Gujarat State Ahmedabad.

Date: 08.08.2016.