CGRF Orders for the quarter JAN -16 TO MARCH

OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM

ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009

BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON

SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.

Complaint No. - CG-69/2015

Date of Institution - 17.11.2015 Date of Order - 05.01.2016

In the matter to Shri Dharamanshu Sood, House No. 3059, Sector 40-D,

Chandigarh.

………………..Petitioner

Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.

2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No10, UT, Chandigarh.

……………….Respondents

Order

1. Shri Dharmanshu Sood, Scientist ‘D’, DRDO (Ministry of Defence), TBRL,

Chandigarh vide his e-mail dated Nov.17, 2015 stated that he is resident

of House No.3059, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh and none of the street lights

in their area is in working condition. He requested for taking suitable

steps for proper illumination of streets in his locality.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-69/2015 was forwarded to

the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for

taking appropriate action vide letter dated 18.11.2015 with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated

2.12.2015 stated that the complaint regarding non-functioning of street

light was attended on 17.11.2015. The street light three phase MCB was

tripped off in the previous night. The street light of the area was restored

and is functioning properly now.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 05.01.2016 vide letter dated

14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing (on

05.01.2015), the complainant did not attend. The SDO of Sub Division

No. 10 present during the hearing stated that the complaint was

attended on date of complaint itself and the street light was set right and

same is functioning properly thereafter.

5. The Forum observing that the complaint was attended promptly by the

SDO, considers the complaint as disposed.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the

Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,

Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month

from the date of receipt of this order.”

6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be

sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the

consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the

record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.

(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF

mailto:[email protected]





Complaint No. - CG-41 & 50/2015


In the matter to Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, House No.5620, Sector 38 West,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. An e-mail at 13-09-2015 was received from the e-mail account of Smt.

Jaswinder Kaur, resident of House No. 5620, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh

regarding her electricity bill. She stated that though the same amount of

electricity is consumed by them but bill amount of current is too high.

She apprehended there may be some problem of the meter and readings

and requested for getting it checked.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-41 was forwarded to the

Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for

submitting parawise comments and other relevant details vide letter

dated 15.09.2015 with a copy to the complainant with the request to

submit written complaint within five days. Simultaneously the complaint

was notified for hearing on 15.10.2015 while calling the comments.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated

23.09.2015 stated that the electricity bill raised to the consumer was as

per reading recorded on the meter. The meter was got checked by

Shri Rakesh Kumar, J.E. on dated 21.9.2015 and found in working order.

He also enclosed the report of the J.E. as well as consumption data for

the last three years.

4. Another complaint was made by Sh. Labh Singh on the same issue vide

his letter dated 28-09-2015, received in the office on 30-09-2015. This

complaint registered as complaint as Complaint No. CG-50 was

forwarded to Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divin No.4, for comments

vide leter dated 05-10-2015.

5. The concerned Sub-Division No. 10 vide his letter dated 12-10-2015

stated that similar complaint filed by Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and registered

as Complaint No. 41 has already been replied vide his letter dated 15-10-

2015.

6. On the date of hearing on 15.10.2015 the representative of the

complainant Shri Labh Singh as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 along

with his RA were present. The complainant contested that the bill for the

period 20.5.2015 to 20.7.2015 (3207 units) was quite on higher side as

compared to the average. The SDO submitted that in the past also the

consumption was found to be more than 3000 units during summer

period. The working of the meter was also got checked and found in

working order. The complainant requested for installation of check meter.

7. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 17.11.2015 supplied

the report of check meter as per which the consumption recorded by the

disputed meter and the check meter was same during the period

30.10.2015 to 6.11.2015.


14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on

05.01.2015, the complainant did not attend. Only SDO was present.

The SDO reiterated his written submissions against the disputed

consumption of 3227 units during May to July 2015. The complainant

had been consuming 2839 units during the same period in 2013 and

3018 units during the period July to Sept. 2014. The consumption from

March 2014 to July 2014 (4 Months) was also found to be 4364 units.

Further on the basis of check meter report, he stated that the working of

meter is fine.

9. The Forum observed that the consumer has 3 ACs of capacity of 1 ton

each. Thus consumption of 3000 units during 2 months period of summer

months is possible. Moreover the past consumption data also supports

the consumption, as consumption of the order of 3000 units was found to

be consumed during the corresponding period in 2013 as well as in 2014.

With the above observations, the Forum does not find any merit in the

complaint and dismiss the same.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the

Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya

Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:

09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”











Complaint No. - CG-41 & 50/2015


In the matter to Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, House No.5620, Sector 38 West,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. An e-mail at 13-09-2015 was received from the e-mail account of Smt.

Jaswinder Kaur, resident of House No. 5620, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh

regarding her electricity bill. She stated that though the same amount of

electricity is consumed by them but bill amount of current is too high.

She apprehended there may be some problem of the meter and readings

and requested for getting it checked.



submitting parawise comments and other relevant details vide letter

dated 15.09.2015 with a copy to the complainant with the request to

submit written complaint within five days. Simultaneously the complaint

was notified for hearing on 15.10.2015 while calling the comments.


23.09.2015 stated that the electricity bill raised to the consumer was as

per reading recorded on the meter. The meter was got checked by

Shri Rakesh Kumar, J.E. on dated 21.9.2015 and found in working order.

He also enclosed the report of the J.E. as well as consumption data for

the last three years.

4. Another complaint was made by Sh. Labh Singh on the same issue vide

his letter dated 28-09-2015, received in the office on 30-09-2015. This

complaint registered as complaint as Complaint No. CG-50 was

forwarded to Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divin No.4, for comments

vide leter dated 05-10-2015.

5. The concerned Sub-Division No. 10 vide his letter dated 12-10-2015

stated that similar complaint filed by Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and registered

as Complaint No. 41 has already been replied vide his letter dated 15-10-

2015.

6. On the date of hearing on 15.10.2015 the representative of the

complainant Shri Labh Singh as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 along

with his RA were present. The complainant contested that the bill for the

period 20.5.2015 to 20.7.2015 (3207 units) was quite on higher side as

compared to the average. The SDO submitted that in the past also the

consumption was found to be more than 3000 units during summer

period. The working of the meter was also got checked and found in

working order. The complainant requested for installation of check meter.

7. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 17.11.2015 supplied

the report of check meter as per which the consumption recorded by the

disputed meter and the check meter was same during the period

30.10.2015 to 6.11.2015.



05.01.2015, the complainant did not attend. Only SDO was present.

The SDO reiterated his written submissions against the disputed

consumption of 3227 units during May to July 2015. The complainant

had been consuming 2839 units during the same period in 2013 and

3018 units during the period July to Sept. 2014. The consumption from

March 2014 to July 2014 (4 Months) was also found to be 4364 units.

Further on the basis of check meter report, he stated that the working of

meter is fine.

9. The Forum observed that the consumer has 3 ACs of capacity of 1 ton

each. Thus consumption of 3000 units during 2 months period of summer

months is possible. Moreover the past consumption data also supports

the consumption, as consumption of the order of 3000 units was found to

be consumed during the corresponding period in 2013 as well as in 2014.

With the above observations, the Forum does not find any merit in the

complaint and dismiss the same.


Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya















In the matter to Smt. Nutan Jain, House No.1813, Arorian Mohalla, Main

Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus


2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 8, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Smt. Nutan Jain vide her e-mail dated 16th November, 2015 stated that

to take meter reading of the meter installed at their resident House No.

1813, Arorian Mohalla, Main Bazar, Manimajra the meter reader visits at

odd times. The meter is installed inside the house and therefore, the bill

is generated on average basis on finding the premises locked. She

contacted the Sub Division but they did not co-operate with him. She

stated that all the members of the home are office goers and are

available after 3.00 P.M. She, therefore, requested for deputing meter

reader after 3.00 P.M. only.



comments and action taken report along with consumption data vide

letter dated 18.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant.


4.12.2015 submitted the written comments duly countersigned by the

Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2. He stated that the electricity bill of 2 electricity

connection for the period July to September 2015 were issued on

average basis as the premises was found locked. Through, special

efforts, he got verified the reading of both meters and stated that the

readings would be sent to the Computer Centre in the next billing cycle.

He denied the allegations of non cooperation of the official of his office.

He submitted that as and when any complaint/enquiry is received from

the consumer, even on telephone, the same is attended promptly to his

satisfaction. He also stated that the meter reader was directed to visit

second time in case the premises was found locked. The consumption

data was also enclosed.


14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. Through her mail dated

5.1.2016 she expressed her inability to attend the hearing, being regular

school teacher and could not get herself free for the time fixed for

hearing.

5. The SDO along with his RA present during the hearing stated that only

for the period July to September 2015, bill was issued on average basis

as the premises was found locked. The last 5-6 bills from 21.9.2014

onwards were issued on reading only. He further stated that the SJO

was issued for shifting both the meters outside the house as permanent

remedy to the problem.

6. The Forum noted the submissions by the SDO and support the action

taken by him to resolve the problem permanently by shifting the meters

outside.

The complaint is considered as disposed.

















In the matter to Prof. A.K. Mittal, House No.2043/1, Sector 47-C,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Prof. A.K. Mittal through his e-mail dated 26th October, 2015 submitted

that electricity bill dated 21.10.2015 of his House No.2043/1, Sector 47-

C, Chandigarh was issued up to meter reading 36948. He stated that the

existing reading even on 26th October 2015, was much less. He

requested for rectification of the bill after verification.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’

Division No. 2 were called vide letter dated 29.10.2015 along with the

consumption data on the complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-

59/2015.


18.11.2015 admitted that the disputed bill for the period July to

September 2015 was prepared on excessive reading. The reading was

found to be 36826 on 5.11.2015 against the recorded reading of 36948

on 27.9.2015. On the basis of verification of the reading the bill of the

consumer was revised and adjustment of Rs.1540/- was allowed.


14.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing (on

06.01.2015), the complainant did not attend. The RA of the Sub Division

informed that the consumer was satisfied with the revision of the bill and

paid the bill.

5. The Forum observed that the grievances of the consumer had been

redressed by the Sub Division to the satisfaction of the complainant. With

the above observations, the complaint is considered as disposed.

















In the matter to Major Gen. Joginder Singh, House No.1586, Sector 34-D,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Major Gen. Joginder Singh, resident of House No. 1586, Sector 34-D,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 17th December, 2015 requested for

deputing the Engineer to check the meter as in his views the same was

not working properly.



submitting parawise comments vide letter dated 18.12.2015 with a copy

to the complainant.

3. In response, the concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7, vide his letter

dated 31.12.2015, submitted that the meter was got checked by J.E. of

his office on 23.12.2015 and was found dead stop. The dead stop meter

was replaced vide MCO dated 23.12.2015.



13.1.2016, the complainant did not attend. The concerned SDO

submitted that the meter has already been replaced on the request of

the complainant.

5. The Forum observing that grievance of the consumer has been

redressed, considered the complaint as disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Gulshan Arora, Booth No 309, Sector 32-D,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Gulshan Arora, tenant of Booth No. 309, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh

vide his complaint dated 9.11.2015 stated that he changed the trade in

Jan. 2014 from Bakeries to Garments & General Store. The Electricity

Department has issued a bill for Rs.40566/- as sundry charges after

overhauling of the account for the period meter remained dead. He

submitted that when changed business the consumption due to use of six

tube lights and two fans was much less as compare to electrical

appliances used in the Bakery business.




to the complainant.


19.11.2015 submitted para-wise reply that the meter got defective

during 26.11.2013 was replaced on 28.9.2015. The account of the

consumer was overhauled w.e.f. 26.11.2013 to 28.9.2015 (22 months)

on the past consumption basis of November 2012 to November 2013 i.e.

@ 488 units per month resulting into charging of disputed amount

through sundry. He supplied consumption data as well as copy of MCO.



13.1.2016, the complainant did not attend. The concerned SDO

submitted that the meter has already been replaced on the request of

the complainant.

5. The Forum observing that grievance of the consumer has been

redressed, considered the complaint as disposed.



Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,















In the matter to Shri R.B. Sehgal, Assistant General Manager, State Bank

of India, House No. 1705/1, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri R.B. Sehgal, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India,

resident of House No. 1705/1, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh vide his e-mail

dated 1.12.2015 stated that the bill prepared for the period 10.5.2015 to

10.7.2015 was wrong. The new meter reading was shown as 27769

though the actual reading even after one month of the issue of bill was

less than this reading. The disputed bill was for 4242 units and was on

higher side due to wrong recording of the reading. He, however,

deposited RS.18625/- as insisted by the Electricity Department. The

meter was got inspected by the Sub Division and was found to be display

defective. The meter was replaced on 4.9.2015. He stated that he visited

the sector 35 Sub Division twice but the excess payment paid by him

has not been refunded. Rather he was given a new bill on average basis

amounting to Rs.11254/-. He requested for overhauling of the account

with adjustment of the payment already made.




to the complainant with the request to submit written complaint within

five days. The complainant in response submitted the written complaint

on 10.12.2015.


09.12.2015. While submitting the written reply stated that on the

request of the consumer the working of the meter was got checked and

found display of meter reading as defective. The meter was replaced on

4.9.2015. In the mean time the consumer had already deposited the full

amount of the bill amounting to Rs.18625/- and also next bill amounting

to Rs.308/-. He further stated that account for the period 10.5.2015 to

4.9.2015 (Date of MCO) has been overhauled on the basis of

consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year in 2014.

The total bill for the period comes to Rs.16967/-. He further stated that

amount of excess payment made by the consumer for the period

10.5.2015 to 4.9.2015 shall be refunded in the bill for the period

10.9.2015 to 10.11.2015. He also stated that notice-cum-bill issued

dated 16.10.2015 has been withdrawn.



13.1.2015, the complainant was explained by the attend the concerned

SDO that the account has already been overhauled and refund has been

allowed to the consumer in the bill issued in the month of December

2015. The consumer to the action taken by the SDO showed his

satisfied.

5. The Forum obsering that the Sub Division had provided the necessary

relief as preyed by the complainant, the complaint is considered as

disposed.

















In the matter to Shri K.K.Bharat, Controller of Stores & Purchase CSIR,

Central Scientific Instrument Orgn., Sector-30, Chandigarh


Versus




Order

1. Shri K.K.Bharat, Controller of Stores & Purchase CSIR, Central Scientific

Instrument Orgn., Sector-30, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 20.11.2015

submitted that his electricity bill dated 6.11.2015 for the Account No.

306/3047/5016AIW showed the new reading as 11883 where as the present

reading on date is 11596. He requested for rectification of the bill on the basis

of actual reading.



submitting parawise comments along with consumption data vide letter

dated 24.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant.


08.12.2015 submitted para-wise reply that the reading was got verified

on 2.12.2015 as 11688 and thus admitted that disputed bill was got

prepared on wrong reading. He submitted that bill of the consumer has

been revised and the necessary correction/adjustment will appear in the

next bill. He also supplied the calculation sheet.


05.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant did not

attend. It was explained by the SDO that on receipt of complaint the

reading was got verified and bill was corrected on the basis of verified

reading. The refund of Rs.1845/- will be reflected in the next bill.

5. The Forum noting that grievance of the consumer has been redressed,

considered the complaint as disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Ramesh Kumar Bansal, House No.2189, 1st Floor,

Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Ramesh Kumar Bansal, resident of House No. 2189, 1st Floor, Sector 45-C,

Chandigarh through his e-mil dated 9.11.2015 submitted a complaint against

Shri Darshan Singh, Internal Auditor and Vinod Kumar, Bill Distributor of

Electricity Sub Division NO.6, Sector-20, Chandigarh. He submitted that he was

allotted a Government Accommodation of House No.4224, Ground Floor, Sector

46-D, Chandigarh and obtained the electricity connection. The said house was

sealed by the Estate Officer-cum-SDM on 28.4.2014. The Secretary House

Allotment Committee’s letter dated 15.10.2015 stated that no license is required

to be charged after 28.4.2014 as the said house was sealed and hence the

electricity and water charges are chargeable up to 28.4.2014. and He made

the representation on 3.11.2015 to SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 and on

6.11.2015 to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 respectively. His

main grievance was that the dealing hand Shri Darshan Singh, Internal Auditor

and Shri Vinod Kumar, Bill Distributor harassed him and refused to prepare the

final electricity bill up to 28.4.2014 and even made pressure for giving bribe for

making electricity bill up to 28.4.2014. The complainant stated that the officials

are misusing their official capacity and not performing their duty honestly. He

prayed that the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 be directed to raise the final

electricity bill up to 28.4.2014.




dated 10.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant. In the mean time the

complainant submitted a written complaint along with relevant

supporting documents.


27.11.2015 submitted parawise reply. He stated that the complainant

requested for PDCO on dated 6.11.2015 and on his request the meter

was removed vide PDCO dated 6.11.2015 at final reading 9322.5. Based

on the final reading the final electricity bill was prepared and the account

was overhauled from 27.1.2014 to 27.9.2015 with adjustment of bills

issued on average basis on account of premises found locked during

this period. The consumer had paid the bill upto reading 8867 as on

27.1.2014. He submitted that as the consumer applied for NDC on

6.11.2015, accordingly, the action was taken for effecting PDCO on

6.11.2015 and final bill was prepared on the basis of PDCO report. He

strongly denied the allegations against Shri Darshan Singh, I.A. and Shri

Vinod Kumar, Bill Distributor stating that the final bill was prepared on

the basis of final reading as on 6.11.2014. He refused the allegations of

harassment by the employees of the Sub Division and asking for any

undue benefits. He rather raised the counter allegations that the

complainant used unparliamentary and abusive/threatening to the

employees. In this regard he enclosed the representation signed on

6.11.2015 by the employees of the Sub Division. In the end he

submitted that the final bill has already been prepared and issued to the

complainant after adjusting ACD and the average bills issued on L-Code.

The complainant paid the final bill and the NDC was issued to the

complainant on 10.11.2015. The consumer also gave an undertaking to

withdraw the complainant on 10.11.2015. He enclosed the copy of the

undertaking given by the complainant also. The SDO also enclosed the

consumption data and the basis of issuance of final bill.


05.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant as well as

concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 were present. The complainant

stated that he vacated the Government Accommodation on 31.3.2014

which was sealed on 28.2.2014 and as such he was supposed to pay

dues up to 28.4.2014 only and not up to 6.11.2015 as prepared by the

Sub Division. The SDO re-iterated his written submissions. The

complainant prayed for reducing the amount on account of surcharge

etc. and preparation of the final bill up to 28.4.2014 only.

5. Observations by the Forum:

The Forum observed that the consumer vacated the Government

Accommodation on 31.3.2014 but did not informed the Sub Division.

Accordingly the bill was being prepared on average basis as the premises

was found locked. The last bill issued on reading was for the period

27.11.2013 to 27.1.2014 up to reading 8867. After that all the bills were

issued on average basis for average consumption of 370 units per cycle

with SOP charges of Rs.9840 besides ED and other charges. Based on

the final reading 9322.5 on the meter removed on 6.11.2015, the

account was overhauled for a total consumption of 455 units after

adjustment of average bills and ACD the final bill was rendered for

Rs.3506/- which was paid by the complainant on 10.11.2015.

6. The Forum without going into allegations and counter allegations by the

complainant and the employees of the Sub Division focused on the merits

of the case. It was note that the Sub Division continued to issue bills for

the period 3/2014 onwards though the complainant did not pay the bill

for the period 1/2-014 to 3/2014, this continued up to 9/2015.

7. The Sub Division was supposed to effect PDCO after non payment of the

bill for the period 1/2014 to 3/2014 as per Regulations 9.1 of the Supply

Code reproduced as under:-

“Where a person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any other

sum due from him to a Licensee, by the due date mentioned in the bill, in

respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to

him, the licensee may, after giving not less than fifteen (15) clear days

notice in writing to such person, without prejudice to his rights to recover

such charge or other sum due by suit, cut off supply of electricity, until

such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in

cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid.”

On the other hand, it was also the duty of the complainant to

intimate the Sub Division about vacation of the accommodation and

asking for final bill. Thus both the complainant as well as Sub Division

defaulted to take action at the appropriate time resulting into unnesssary

issuance of the bills up to Sept. 2015. With regard to complainant’s

request for recovery of electricity charges up to 28.4.2014, the Forum

observed that letter dated 15.10.2015 issued by the House Allotment

Committee was advise to charge panel rent of the said Government

Accommodation from 12.10.2012 to 28.4.2014 (i.e. from date of

cancellation till the date on which the house was sealed by the Estate

Officer). There was no mention of the electricity/other charges.

8. Decision

On the basis of observations made by the Forum, the Nodal Officer is

directed to revise the final bill on the following lines.

a) Presuming that the Sub Division had affected the PDCO due to non

payment of the bill for the period 1/2014 to 3/2014, the supply should

have been disconnected after 15 days of the due date for payment of

the bill (which may be in May/June 2014). The exact date may be

worked out on the basis of issuance date of the bill, the due date and

15 days notice period as per regulations 9.1 reproduced above.

b) The bill be prepared up to final reading of 9323.

c) Since the meter was removed only on 6.11.2015, the meter rentals be

recovered up to 6.11.2015.

d) The interest on the defaulting amount be also recovered w.e.f.

May/June 2014 (as per actual date to be worked out as per para (a)

above) till the date of payment as per relevant regulation of Supply

Code Regulations in this regard if any.

e) It may be ensured interest on ACD is allowed to the complainant up to

10.11.2015 as per Regulations/Instructions of the Hon’ble JERC from

time to time.

f) The excess amount, if any paid by the complainant be refunded

through cheque.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing

which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the

Electricity Act 2003.

9. With the above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before

the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,

Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month














In the matter to Smt. Veena Sethi, House No.2297, Golden Enclave,



Versus




Order

1. Smt. Veena Sethi vide her letter dated 10.12.2015 submitted that the electricity

meter installed at her residence No.2297, Golden Enclave, Sector 49,

Chandigarh was not working from Feb.2015 to October 2015. The electricity bill

on average was being charged during this period. Now in the latest bill,

Rs.5223/- has been charged through sundry which is not clear to her. She

requested for looking into the matter and correction of the amount according to

the average basis.






28.12.2015 submitted that the electricity meter installed at the

complainant’s house was found dead stop and was replaced on

9.10.2015. The account of the consumer has been overhauled w.e.f.

26.2.2015 to 9.10.2015 on the basis of past consumption recorded

during the corresponding period in the year 2014 @ 356 units per

month. After adjusting the bill paid by the consumer it was observed

that amount of Rs.5823/- was chargeable. Accordingly the same has

been charged through sundry item. The SDO supplied copy of MCO, past

consumption and calculation sheet.



attend. It was explained by the SDO that the charging for the period, the

meter remained defective has been done on the basis of consumption

recording during the corresponding period in the year 2014 as per

regulations and is correct. As per details provided by the SDO, changing

was done on the following basis:-

g) Consumption during Feb 2014 to Oct 2014 -492+0+1995+357=2844

consumption per month = 2844/8= 356 units per month.

h) Units charged for 26.2.2015 to 9.10.2015 (7.5 month) = 540+540=

1080 units.

i) Units chargeable for 26.2.2015 to 9.10.2015 = 365*7.5= 2735 units.

5. The Forum observed that the action taken by the Sub Division is in order

and thus dismiss the complaint.











OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING

UT, CHANDIGARH-160009

BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SHRI R.L. MITTAL, MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 630 Date of Institution - 17.10.2014 Date of Order - 19.1.2016 In the matter Shri S.C.Kohli, Managing Partner, M/s Cable Engg. Compnay, Plot No.181/13, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Shri S.C.Kohli, Managing Partner, M/s Cable Engg. Company, Plot No.181/13,

Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh vide his application dated 16th October, 2014

received in the office on 17.10.2014, stated that an Industrial Electricity Connection

is running in Industrial Area, Phase-I Chandigarh in the name of M/s Cable

Engineering Co. The connection was checked by the electricity department on

15.7.2014 and thereafter a Notice dated 21.8.2014 for short assessment was sent

by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 for a sum of Rs.7,73,315/- . Subsequently, the

amount was reduced to RS.3,95,105/- vide SDO letter dated 9.9.2014. A copy of

MRI data and calculation sheet was also sent by the Electricity Department with the

revised notice. In response to the Notice, the SDO was informed that there was no

tempering of seals found during checking as such their company was at no fault for

any variation/short energy reading. The meter was supplied and fixed by the

department on release of HT connection on 14.9.2005. The charging done for

period of 2 years by the Sub Division was also contested in view of JERC Supply

Code Regulation No.7.5(2)(ii) for defective meter. SDO vide his office letter dated

10.10.2014 informed that the issue was examined by the office and they were

directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,105/- within seven days compelling them to

approach the Forum.

The complainant pointed out that though the meter was installed on

14.9.2005 yet as per MRI retrieved data, the same was found to be defective w.e.f.

13.9.2005 i.e. one day prior to installation of the meter at their premises. The

Complainant raised the issue of initial installation of a certified correct meter and

also declaring the meter defective after about 10 years. He further stated that the

Supply Code Regulations 7.5(2)(ii) prescribed for 3 months period of recovery

where as the department was insisting for charging for period of two years. The

deficiencies are on the part of Electricity Department as it failed to check the meters

periodically as per Supply Code Regulations No.7.4(1)(d). It was also department’s

endeavour to downloaded monthly MRI data as per Supply Code Regulations

8.1(12). He therefore, prayed for recovery of short assessment limited to 3 months

period.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division

No.2 were called vide letter dated 28.10.2014. The complainant subsequently vide

letter dated 5.11.2014 intimated that he has already paid Rs.2,40,000/- against the

total amount of Rs.3,95,105/- demanded by the Sub Division.

3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 through written submissions

dated 18.12.2014 duly countersigned by the Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’ Division

No.2 submitted as under:-

a) The Electricity Connection of the complainant was checked by team constituted

for the purpose on 15.7.2014. During testing it was found that Red Phase CT of

11 KV meter was not contributing to 100% Energy recorded by the meter. The

accuracy test conducted on the meter at site showed that the meter was slow by

32.82% . The retrieved MRI data confirmed the exact date and time since when

the failure had occurred as 13.9.2005.

b) A Provisional Notice was issued on 21.8.2014 for depositing a sum of

Rs.7,73,315/- on account of short assessment from 15.7.2012 to 15.7.2014 due

to non contribution of Red Phase CT of 11 KV meter. However, later on a

calculation mistake was detected and a revised notice was served on 9.9.2014

to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,105/-.

c) With regard to complainant’s plea that charging be limited to 3 months period, the

SDO submitted that the Regulation No.7.5 (2)(ii) as mentioned by the

Complainant is not relevant as the same deals with the cases where meter has

been found defective /mal-functioning. He also submitted that It is not a case of

penalizing the complainant. The charging of the actual units consumed by the

complainant against the less recording by the meter has been made. The

chargeable units becomes 232471 units where as consumer had paid for 156174

units.

d) The SDO also denied that the department has not replied

the queries raised by the consumer from time to time. He also stated that the

checking was got done through M/s Yadav Measurements Pvt.Ltd., NABL

Accredited Lab.

e) The SDO submitted that the department had only charged the legitimate and

lawful amount for which the consumer had already used the electricity.

He also enclosed the copy of notice issued to the Complainant, copy of MRI

data, Copy of calculation sheet, copy of ECR and Report of M/s YMPL.

4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.630 was listed for hearing on

30.12.2014. The complainants as well as Nodal Officer along with concerned SDO

and RA of the Sub Division were present. During deliberations, the presence of

representative of the testing agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case

was thereafter notified for hearing on 3.3.2015, the Nodal Officer, the complainant as

well as representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the representative of meter

manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not make himself available for the

hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL also desired for some more time to study

the MRI data. The Nodal Officer was requested to contact the representative of the

Meter Manufacturer and intimate the convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-

ordinating with representation of M/s YMPL. Necessary directions were issued vide

letter dated 18.3.2015. A reminder was also issued on 30.7.2015.

5. The case was again notified for hearing on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF. The

complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 along with RA

of the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL who carried out the

checking and representatives of the Meter Manufacturer were present. Shri R.L.

Mittal, Independent Member was on leave and did not attend. The Complainant also

authorised to Shri Narinder Sharma to make submissions on their behalf being a

technical issue.

6. Shri Narinder Sharma admitted the fact that the meter was recording less

consumption due to non contribution of the Red Phase CT of the meter. He pointed

out that the MRI data shows that the meter was defective from 13.9.2005 whereas

the meter was installed on 14.9.2005, thus meter was not checked as per

Regulations/ISS at the time of installation. He further contended that the period of

charging should be limited to 3 months as per Supply Code Regulations 7.5. The

Nodal Officer stated that the regulations 7.5 is not applicable in the present case but

regulations 8.1(16) is applicable. Regarding period for overhauling, he suggested for

one year as per Regulation 10.3(c) iii. The Nodal Officer also supplied the

consumption data of the consumer.

With regard to discrepancy of meter being defective on 13.9.2005 whereas the

connection was released on 14.9.2005, the Nodal officer also submitted that the

Service Connection Order (SCO) for release of the connection might have been

issued on 14.9.2005 where as preliminary work to release the connection at site

including installation of meter and its testing with electric supply etc. might have

been completed on 13.9.2005. Thus though the connection was formally released

on 14.9.2005 whereas the meter and its was installed on 13.9.2005 and due to

testing, it recorded the event of Red Phase CT of meter not contributing on

13.9.2005 itself. The explanation provided by the Nodal Officer appeared

reasonable in view of the practical procedure being followed by the Sub Division.

7. The Forum however observed subsequently from the MRI data that the failure of

current (reversal) in all three phase occurred on 23.8.2001 at 17.11.46 hours and

same was restored ( all phases) on 13.9.2005 at 17.29.31 hours. Thus it was noted

that on 13.9.2005, the event was restored and not that the event of reversal of

current in all three phases had occurred as contended by the Nodal Officer/the

consumer’s representative during the hearing on 22.9.2015.

The data supplied indicated that on 15.7.2014, the red phase current has

failed and 0.748A, 6.074A, 4.481A current flowing on all the three phase. Thus

indicating non contribution of Red Phase Current at the time of checking on dated

15.7.2014. The checking authority declared the meter slow by 32.82% due to failure

of CT’s of Red Phase and the defective meter was removed and new meter was

installed. The working of the new meter installed was checked and found within

permissible limit.

On the basis of above observations, the Nodal Officer was asked to

confirm the exact date and time of occurrence of the event of failure of contribution by

red phase with supporting documents vide letter dated 6.10.2015.

8. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 23.10.2015 contended that the Red Phase CT

not contributing was detected at the time of checking on 15.7.2014 as per ECR No.

41/522 dated 15.7.2014. The accuracy test declared meter recording less by

32.82%. This meter was got tested in the Lab again on 15.9.2015 and found to be

slow by 39.09%. He enclosed the photo copies of the MRI data, ECR and M&T Lab

report dated 15.9.2015 along with up to date consumption data.

9. The case was again heard by the Forum on 8.12.2015. The consumer

representative, the Nodal Officer and AEE Enforcement were present. But neither

the representative of M/s YMPL who conducted the test nor the Meter Manufacturer

representative were present. The MRI data/consumption data was scrutinized but

conclusion could not be drawn regarding date of occurrence of event of Red Phase

CT not contributing.

The case was thereafter heard on 19.1.2016. Again the representatives of

complainant/YMPL/Secure Meters did not attend. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5,

AEE/Enforcement and RA of Sub Division were present. The MRI data as well as

the consumption data was scrutinized.

10. Observations by the Forum:-

On the question of period of charging, the Forum has gone through the Supply Code

Regulations and noted the following regulations:-

Regulation: 7.4 – Testing of Meters:

i. The Licensee shall ensure tested meters are installed at the consumer

premises. Meters purchased by the consumer shall be tested, installed

and sealed by the licensee.

The licensee shall also conduct periodical inspection/testing of the

meters as per the following schedule:

(a) LT Single –Phase meters:- at least once every five years.

(b) LT 3 Phase meters: - at least once every 3 years.

(c) Other LT metering systems – at least once every 2 years.

(d) HT meters including MDI:

For EHT consumers – once in six months.

For HT consumer – at least once a year.

CT and PT shall also be tested along with meters.

Records of these test results shall be maintained in accordance with

Central Electricity Authority (Installation and operation of Meters)

Regulations 2006.

Regulation :7.5 (2) (ii) – Defective Meters:

(1) The Licensee shall have the right to test any meter and related

apparatus if there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the

meter, and the consumer shall provide the licensee necessary

assistance in conducting of the test. The consumer shall also be

present during the testing.

(2) “A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter, if he doubts

its accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his

consumption, stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the

licensee along with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the

meter within 30 days of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards

of Performance of Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary

testing of meters can be carried out at the premises of the consumers

through electronic testing of meters can be carried out at the premises

of the consumers through electronic testing equipment.

i) In case the meter is found O.K., no further action shall be taken.

ii) In case the meter is found fast / slow by the licensee, and the

consumer agrees to the report, the meter shall be replaced by a new

meter within 15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to

the month in which the dispute has arise shall be revised in the

subsequent bill as per the test results. In case meter is found to be

slow, the additional charges may be recovered in instalments not

exceeding three, if the consumer shows his inability to pay at a time.

Regulation: 8.1(16):

“In order to recover the energy charges for the duration when the meter

remains non-functional, average monthly consumption of corresponding

month/billing cycle of the previous year shall be adopted. If the same is not

available, average monthly consumption of the previous one year shall be

adopted for recovery of energy charges, subject to minimum monthly charges

or as otherwise provided in the tariff order of the Commission in force. In

case, check meter is available, the readings of the check meter may also be

used for assessment of consumption. In case of HT consumers, if during the

period when the main meter is defective, the check meter is not installed or is

also found defective, the quantity of electricity supplied shall be determined

as stated above. In case the meter becomes defective immediately after its

installation and prior consumption is not available, then billing shall be done

provisionally on the basis of formula specified in Annexure 7 subject to

adjustment on the average consumption of corresponding period of next year.

If the same is not available, adjustment shall be made with average

corresponding period of next year. If the same is not available, adjustment

shall be made with average consumption of subsequent period of one

year/about one year. Such provisional / average billing shall not continue for

more than 2 billing cycles.

Regulation 10.3(C)(iii): Hearing and Final Assessment:

If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of

electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period

during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if,

however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity

has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a

period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.

11. Decision:

From the facts of the case and the downloaded MRI data, it is established that at

the time of testing/checking of the meter on 15.7.2014, the meter was found

defective/deficient to the extent that it was recording less consumption (32.82%) as

the Red Phase CT of the meter was not contributing.

Regulations 8.1 (16) provide for recovery of energy charges for the

duration when the meter remained non functional/defective/deficient. However, the

date of occurrence could not be established from the MRI Data or the consumption

data (past and future) attached as per Annexure ‘A’ or any other document placed

before the Forum by the Nodal Officer.

For the period of charging the Supply Code Provision exist in Regulations

7.5(2) (ii) as 3 months prior to month in which dispute has arisen or 12 months

under Regulations 10.3(C)(iii) in case it is not possible to conclude or establish

the period of defect. The Forum observed that the provisions under Regulations

10.3(C)(iii) are applicable in case of unauthorized load and not when the meter is

found defective/deficient at the time of checking as argued by the Nodal Officer

during hearing. We are of the view Regulation 7.5 (2) (ii) is applicable in the

present case, as the period of charging should not change whether the meter is

found defective when tested by the Electricity Department of their own or on the

request of the consumer.

In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate the charges to

be recovered as per Regulations 7.5 (2) (ii) i.e. revision of the bills of previous 3

months prior to the month in which the dispute was arisen on the basis of test

results as per ECR report. The bill for short assessment, if any, be issued

within 15 days of issuance of this order. On the other hand if the consumer is

entitled for refund on the basis of payments already made in response to the

notice issued by the Sub Division, the refund may be allowed in the next bill.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which

the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the


The Forum has noted that despite provisions in the Regulations, the

meters are not being checked at regular intervals. The Electricity Department is

directed to ensure checking of meters (particularly H.T. meters) as per the

frequency mentioned in the Regulations.

12. With the above directions and decision, complaint is considered as disposed.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

13. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the

office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance

wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly

numbered and indexed.









In the matter to Smt. Shanta Rudra, W/o Shri Bhupinder Kumar, House

No.656, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.


Versus


2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Smt.Shanta Rudra, resident of House No.656, Sector-40, Chandigarh through

her e-mail dated 13.12.2015 stated that though no one is living in the said

house since October 2015, but the electricity bill dated 7.11.2015 was issued

for Rs.3282/-. She requested for issuance of minimum charges. As per address

of e-mail it was noted that e-mail was sent from Canada. She also submitted

written complaint received in the office of CGRF on 22.12.2015 from Canada.






29.12.2015 submitted his reply stating that the electricity meter was

replaced with electronic meter on 1.10.2015. The mechanical meter

was removed on reading 35681 and the average bill issued in the past

could not be adjusted due to change of meter. He stated that the bill of

the consumer was prepared on reading up to 34728 dated 7.4.2013,

thereafter bill were raised on average basis as the premises was found

locked and reading could not be taken. He further stated that account

has been overhauled and bill raised on average basis for Rs.5152/- has

been adjusted through sundry item dated 28.12.2015. The copy of the

amended bill was delivered at the residence of the consumer. He also

supplied the copy of MCO as well as consumption data for last three

years.



attend. The SDO stated that the grievances of the complainant has

already been redressed with the overhauling of the account and

adjustment of the past bills issued on average basis.

5. The Forum observing that the grievances has already been redressed,


















In the matter to Shri Suresh Kumar Bhatia, House No.1589, Sector 18,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Suresh Kumar Bhatia, resident of House No.1589, Sector 18, Chandigarh

through his representation received in the office of CGRF on 2.12.2015 stated

that the meter installed at his residence is giving abnormal readings. He

supplied the details of readings for about 1-1/2 years and attributed the high

consumption observed in the past on account of meter reading jumping. He

specifically pointed out that the bill for the period 2.5.2015 to 2.9.2015 was

generated for 20353 units which was very much on higher side considering the

average consumption of around 2500 units per billing cycle. He requested for

checking of the meter and replacement of defective meter along with correct

meter.






29.12.2015 submitted that the bill issued on 9.10.2015 for the period

July to Sept. 2015 was on actual consumption as per meter reading i.e.

20353 units. On the basis of his application, the bill has been revised on

the basis of previous corresponding period consumption as it seems that

meter digit jumped being TGL meter. He supplied the consumption data

also.


06.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. In the meanwhile a letter

was received from the complainant on 6.1.2016 addressed to the Sub

Division pointing out that in the recently issued bill arrear amounting to

Rs.49637/- has again been added which is totally unjustified in view of

the submissions to the CGRF.

On the date of hearing on 22.01.2016, the complainant pointed out that

in the recent bill the arrear has been added. The SDO stated that the

account has already been overhauled and necessary refund will appear in

the next bill.

In response to the query by the Forum, the SDO confirmed that

the account was overhauled from May 2015 to September 2015 on the

basis of the consumption recorded during corresponding period in 2014.

The complainant showed his satisfaction to the action taken by the SDO.

5. With the above observations, complaint is considered as disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Avnish Kumar Chhibba, House No.2166/3, Sector

45-C, Chandigarh.


Versus


2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Shri Avnish Kumar Chhibba, resident of House No.21266/3, Sector-45C,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated December 3, 2015 stated that the bill

issued for the period August to October 2015 was issued on arbitrary reading

though the actual reading was much less than the reading shown in the

electricity bill. He deposited a fee of Rs.250/- to recheck his meter/ reading as

insisted by the Sub Division.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-79/2015, was forwarded

to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for

submitting parawise comments/action taken report vide letter dated

07.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9, vide his letter dated 8.1.2016

submitted that on verification of the reading on 29.12.2015, it was

found that the reading was less than the new reading shown in the bill.

He stated that an adjustment of RS.4311/- was made which would be

reflected in the bill to be issued on 21.1.2016. A copy of the revised bill

was also sent to the complainant along with forwarding letter on

21.12.2015.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 03.02.2016 in the office of

CGRF vide letter dated 11.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The

complainant did not attend. The SDO along with his RA were present

during the hearing reiterated the written submissions.

5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has been

redressed with revision of bill on the basis of actual reading, considered

the complaint as disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Krishan Lal, Advocate, House No.263/1, Sector-55,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Krishan Lal, resident of Hoiuse No.263/1, Sector-55, Chandigarh

through his representation dated 23.11.2015 addressed to the SDO with

copy to CGRF submitted that the electricity bill for the period May to July

2015 was sent on some arbitrary reading though the reading

subsequently was found to be less than the new reading mentioned in

the bill. He approached the Sub Division and deposited a fee of Rs.10/-

challenging the electricity bill on 4.9.2015. Shri Surinder Kumar of

electricity department visited his premises on 30.10.015 for physical

verification of the reading. Though he was waiting for issuance of

revised bill, his electricity connection was disconnected but was restored

again when the matter was brought to the notice of J.E. concerned.






submitted that the reading of the complainant was got verified on

30.10.2015 and revised bill was sent to the complainant on 3.12.2015.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 03.02.2016 in the office of

CGRF vide letter dated 11.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant.

5. On the date of hearing on 3.2.2016, both the complainant as well as SDO

and his RA were present. The SDO reiterated his written submissions

that an adjustment of Rs. 6120/- has been reflected in the bill issued on

22.12.2015. The consumer stated that he had paid amount in excess of

the amount due from him. The SDO stated that new reading has been

sent to Computer Cell and with the issuance of new bill, the adjustment

of excess payment made by the complainant, if any, would also be taken

care of. The SDO was directed to ensure that the next bill of the

complainant is issued after incorporating all the payments made by the

complainant. The complainant handing over written complaint addressed

to CGRF describing the events for record and reference. The

complainant may approach the CGRF again in case he is not satisfied

with the next bill issued by the electricity department.

6. With the above observations and directions, complaint considered as

disposed.

















In the matter to Smt. Neelika Randev, House No.1049, 1st Floor, Sector

44-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. A complaint was received through e-mail dated 19.12.2015 (Saturday)

regarding the fluctuation in the electricity supply to the first floor of House

No.1049, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh from Smt. Neelika Randev.






submitted that the J.E. In-charge of the area visited the site and found

that service connection at pole was carbonised resulting into slight

voltage fluctuation. The problem was set right. He also pointed out that

loose connections were found inside the consumer’s distribution box for

which the complainant was advised to get it set right at her level.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 03.02.2016 at 3.00 P.M. in the

office of CGRF vide letter dated 14.01.2016 with a copy to the

complainant. The complainant did not attend. The SDO stated that the

problem being faced by the complainant has already been identified and

set right.

5. The Forum observing that grievance of the consumer has already been

redressed, considered as complaint disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Harpreet Singh, House No.1354-A, Sector-43,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Harpreet Singh, resident of House NO. 1354-A, Sector-43, Chandigarh

through e-mail dated 29 Nov. 2015 (Sunday) submitted that his water bill for

the period 15.8.2015 to 15.10.2015 was not delivered. He had to pay

surcharge after getting the duplicate bill on 23.11.2015. Regarding the

electricity bill he stated that the bill was found laying in stairs on 21 Nov. 2015

with issue date as 7th Nov. 2015 and due date by Cheque/Cash as

20.11.2015/24/11/2015. In his complaint he stressed for refund of surcharge

paid on account of non receipt of water bill.




to the complainant.


submitted that the work of distribution of the electricity bills has been

allotted to the Postal Authority and the complaint of the consumer was

sent to the Postal Authorities. He also submitted that in case of non

receipt of bill the consumer can get duplicate copy from E-Sampark

Centre/concerned electricity office or he can download the same from the

website of Electricity Department of Chandigarh Administration. He also

enclosed copy of letter written to the Superintendent, Post Office, Sector-

17, Chandigarh on the basis of the complaint.

4. The complainant submitted his written complaint in confirmation to the

e-mail as desired by the CGRF. He stressed for intimating the

department which would compensate the late payment of surcharge of

the water bill. He also enclosed copy of letter received from Senior

Superintendent of Post Office Chandigarh addressed to him. The Postal

Authorities in their letter submitted that the bills received in the post

office are being delivered on the same day or the very next day of

receipt to the addressee concerned.


14.01.2016 with a copy to the complainant. The complainant through his

e-mail dated Jan.22, 2016 expressed his inability to attend the hearing

due to his other official commitments. He again raised the issue of late

receipt of water bill. On the date of hearing, the SDO along with his RA

were present. The SDO reiterated the written submissions made to the

CGRF.

6. The CGRF observed that disputed electricity bill was paid in time and no

surcharge was levied. The SDO was directed to ensure that the

complainant’s Mobile number be got registered for delivering the

message regarding the generation of future electricity bills. So far as the

complainant submission about refund of surcharge paid by him towards

the water bill, the CGRF has no jurisdiction. The complainant is advised

to take up the issue with the concerned department/authorities. The

complaint stand disposed with above observations/orders.

















In the matter to Shri Akhil Kumar, House No.205, first floor Sector-38-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Akhil Kumar, House No.205, first floor Sector-38-A, Chandigarh vide

his application dated 14 Dec. 2015 received in the office of CGRF on 18

Dec. 2015 stated that he was being served electricity bills on average

basis since May 2014. All bills though on higher average were paid. He

requested for adjustment of bills paid on average basis.




to the complainant.


5.1.2016 submitted that the defective meter was replaced on 10.12.2014

due to dead stop. The consumer was billed 603 units per cycle during the

period meter remained defective i.e. from 27.01.2014 to 11.12.2014. He

further stated that on the basis of corresponding period consumption in

the year 2013, the A/c was over hauled. An amount of Rs. 1889/- to be

refunded on account of excess payment made by the consumer will be

reflected in the next bill to be issued in Feb.2016. He also supplied copy

of MCO and consumption for last 3 years.


8.01.2016. Both the consumer and the SDO were present. The consumer

was provided the details to which he showed his satisfaction. He however

raised that the amount to be refunded to him be worked out on the basis

of applicable higher slab. The SDO confirmed that the amount has been

calculated as per the applicable higher slab.

5. The Forum observed that the grievance of the complainant had already

been addressed by the SDO considers the complaint as disposed. SDO

would however check up the details of the amount to be refunded to see

that the refund has been calculated at the higher slab and not lower slab

of the tariff.













BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. R L MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.), MEMBER.

Complaint No. - CG-64/2015 Date of Institution - 04.11.2015 Date of Order - 04.02.2016 In the matter to Shri Tirlochan Singh, House No.5072 A, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Trilochan Singh, resident of House No. 5072 A, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh through

his complaint dated 4.11.2015 submitted that his electricity bill was being issued for much

higher amount and he apprehended the same on account of fast running of the meter. He

challenged the working of the meter after depositing the requisition fee of Rs. 250/-.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-64/2015 was forwarded to the Nodal

Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for para-wise comments

and to supply consumption data vide letter dated 5.11.2015 with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10, vide his letter dated 17.11.2015

submitted that the working of the meter was challenged by the consumer. The

meter was checked vide SJO dated 9.10.2015 by installing a check meter and was

found to be in working order. The connected load of the consumer was also

checked and found to be 3.790 KW including a split AC for 2 KW. He also supplied

the consumption data for the last three years and also the report of check meter and

the details of the connected load.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 10/11/2015 which was postponed to 11.12.2015

vide letter dated 08.12.2015 with a copy to concerned SDO and the complainant.

The complaint was also informed on telephone.

5. On the date of hearing on 11.12.2015, the complainant showed his dissatisfaction

and insisted that high consumption was on A/c of meter reading jumping. The SDO

during the hearing stated that the working of the meter was got checked by

installing check meter in series and no appreciable difference was observed in the

units recorded by both the meters during the period 17.10.2015 to 24.10.2015. The

SDO further submitted that the bills were being prepared on the basis of reading

and as such complaint be dismissed.

The Forum observed from the consumption data that the average

consumption per cycle was around 500 units for 2 months except for summer

months when the consumption was more than 1000 units for 2 months (during the

period July to September 2014). The recorded consumption during July to Sept.

2015 was 3575 units which was certainly on higher side as compared to

consumption in the past for last three years.

It was therefore decided to watch the behaviour of the meter for a longer

period. The complainant was requested to note the reading daily and to report in

case jumping was observed.

6. After waiting for almost 2 month, the case was again heard on 04.02.2016. Both

the complaint as well as SDO were present. The complainant stated that the meter

installed at his residence is of TGL make. Instances in other cases have been

noticed of meter reading jumping of this make of meter. He attributed the recording

of consumption of 3575 Units during the period July2015 to Sept.2015 due to meter

reading jumping.

The Forum estimated the 2 months consumption as per Supply Code

Regulations for the checked load of 3.790 KW and also for sanctioned load of 4.670

KW as under ( taking divesting factors as 1.0 and load factor as 50%).

Connected Load Formula Consumption

3.790 KW 3.790 x50%x24x30x2 1.0

2788

4.670 KW 4.670x50%x24x30x2 1.0

3362

“The above estimation with worst scenario (Divesting Factor 1.0 and load Factor

50%) is less than the recorded consumption of 3575 units”. The Forum from the

pattern and analysis tote consumption data did not find it to be the case of

accumulation of the reading.

On the basis of above, the Forum concluded that the high consumption of

3575 units during 2 month period may be on A/c of meter jumping. Such cases of

meter jumping of TGL make meters had also come to the notice of the Forum in the

past in some cases.

Decision

On the basis of above, the Forum directs the Nodal officer to over haul the

disputed period of July to Sept. 2015 on the basis of consumption recorded during

the corresponding period in the year 2014. The TGL meter be also replaced on

priority.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order

failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections

of the Electricity Act 2003.






(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF





Complaint No. - 510 Date of Institution - 4.10.2013 Date of Order - 05.02.2016 In the matter to Shri Ram Saran Sikander, Shop No. 148/1, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Ram Saran Skander, Shop No. 1481/1, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh

submitted a written complaint on 4.10.2013, that on 18.4.2013, Shri Jatinder Parshad J.E.

of the Sub Division after checking the meter told that the meter seals have been tempered

with. He called the SDO for registering a Police Case and disconnection of electricity

supply. The penalty amounting to Rs.2,12,532/- was imposed and he was asked to deposit

Rs.1,10,000/- immediately failing which the supply was to be disconnected. The payment

was made under protest. After some days, Shri Jatinder Parshad J.E. contacted him and

told that he will get the payment (made by him) refunded and asked Rs.50,000/- from the

son of the applicant. Later on Rs.20,000/- was agreed upon. His son made a complaint to

the Vigilance Department, U.T., Chandigarh and Shri Jatinder Parshad was caught red

handed while accepting the bribe amount from the son of the applicant. Sh. Jatinder

Parshad was put in Judicial custody since 13th June 2013. Subsequently the SDO served

the notice on 19.6.2013 demanding Rs.1, 62,532/-, towards balance payment of the

penalty.

The applicant stated that they have been making payment regularly for the last 30 years

and no irregularity was ever found. The main allegation was that the plate installed in front

of the meter was placed inside out. He stated that the seals on the plate were in their

original position. Though he was told that meter would be got checked within 7 days in his

presence but same was not done. He challenged the imposing of penalty and prayed that

penalty amount may be set aside and Rs.1,10,000/- already deposited be got refunded. He

enclosed copy of checking report, initial assessment order, Notice and Bills along with his

application.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division

No. 2 were called on the application of the consumer along with consumption data

with directions that the supply of the consumer should not be disconnected and only

consumption charge of the current bill be accepted vide letter dated 7.10.2013.


submitted that the case is covered under Section 126 of the Electricity Act

(subsequently case was treated as theft under section135) are not maintainable

before the Forum. He also stated that complaint filed by Shri Ram Saran Skinder

before the Parament Lok Adalat on 4.7.2013 was dismissed for non Prosecution.

He enclosed copy of the order of Permanent Lok Adalat along with his reply.

4. The complaint was treated as formal complaint No. 510 and was fixed for

consideration of the Forum on 17.1.2014 vide letter dated 19.12.2013. The hearing

was attended by the SDO only, but the complainant did not attend. One Shri

Gulshan Kumar appeared but without any authority letter. The SDO was directed to

submit copy of ECR, MCO and consumption data before the next hearing to be

conducted on 17.2.2014.

5. In the meanwhile the complainant vide his letter dated 13.2.2014, in addition to his

main application, further submitted that the case made under theft of electricity was

not in order. The penalty imposed was not as per guidelines/rules made by JERC

and he requested for checking of meter in the Laboratory. The concerned SDO

‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 12.2.2014 submitted reply on merit in

addition to raising preliminary objections vide his written reply dated 25.10.2013 as

mentioned in para 3 above. He submitted that on checking of electricity meter the

meter seals were found tempered with and accordingly the proceedings were

initiated by the department treating the case as theft of electricity as per Section 135

of the Electricity Act 2003. With regard to the applicant allegations about Shri

Jatinder Parshad, the SDO submitted that he was conducting a routine inspection

when he found that M&P seals of the electricity meter provided at the shop of the

applicant were found tempered with. On the call of the J.E., the SDO reached the

spot and found that the seals were tempered with loose wires moving in both seal,

besides the front glass cover fitted on the electricity meter was found in the wrong

direction implying that electricity meter was tempered. The ECR No. 30/676 dated

18.4.2013 was prepared and case was treated as theft of electricity. The meter was

removed and was packed in a card board box duly sealed with paper seal with

signature of the checking officer as well as son of the consumer. The penalty

amount was assessed as Rs.2,12,532/- as per JERC Regulations, Provisional

assessment notice was issued and the supply was disconnected. The applicant

deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on 23.4.2013 but the balance amount of

Rs.1,62,532/- was not deposit despite promise. He also supplied the consumption

details, initial assessment order, ECR, final assessment notice along with final

assessment order in the initial notice dated 18.4.2013.

6. Further hearings were conducted on 17.2.2014, 21.3.2014 and 19.5.2014. The SDO

was directed to get the electricity meter tested from the Lab. The SDO, however,

stated that a civil case was pending in the Court and thus stated that it would be

better to wait for the decision of the Court before the electricity meter is got tested.

Which was never got tested by department as said to complaint & reply submitted to

Forum of dated 12.02.2014. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8 vide his letter

dated 16.6.2014 in confirmation to the discussion in the hearing on 19.5.2014

confirmed that the meter in question is packed in a card board box duly sealed with

paper seal. With regard to testing the same in the M&P Lab he stated that since the

related case to the Account No. MA42/054400E/premises is pending before the

Hon’ble District Court, it would be appropriate to wait till the decision of the Hon’ble

District Court. Subsequent hearings were conducted on 16.6.2014, 30.7.2014,

4.9.2014, 7.10.2014, 30.10.2014, 16.12.2014 and 18.8.2015. During all these

hearings the complainant stated that a connected case on account of arrest of Shri

Jatinder Parshad J.E. of the Sub Division for accepting bribe for settling the present

case is pending in the court and requested for adjournment. The Nodal Officer i.e.

Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 SDO Sub Division No. 8 raised no

objection and adjournment was granted to the applicant.

7. The case was listed for final hearing on 5.2.2016 after a News item appeared about

disposal of the case of Shri Jatinder Parshad J.E. by the District Court, Chandigarh.

The department issued two notices to the complainant. First notice was under

section 126 and the final notice was under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 after

the department noticed that first notice was issued inadvertently as per the record

submitted to the Forum by the Sub Division.

On 5.2.2016 Shri Gulshan Kumar on behalf of the applicant confirmed that the

case of Sh. Jatinder Parshad has already been decided by the court. He further

confirmed that there was no reference of the case pending with CGRF in the

decision by the Hon’ble Court. The Nodal Office Xen. ‘OP’ Divn.No.2/SDO ‘OP’

Sub Divn.No.8 present during the hearing stated that the case falls under Section

135 of the Electricity Act 2003 and does not fall within jurisdiction of the CGRF.

The Forum explained that as per the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer) Regulations,

2009 notified on 31 July. 2009 clearly provides that any grievance arising out of

application of section 135 shall not be considered as complaint. The attention was

drawn towards definition (e) under Regulation 2 which reads as under:

“(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum

seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of electricity by the

licensee. Provided that the following shall not be considered as the complaint.

(i) Any grievance arising out of applicant of sections

126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of the Act.”

Forum concludes that it has no jurisdiction in the present case.

With above observation, the case is considered as disposed.












Complaint No. - CG-67/2015 Date of Institution - 15.11.2015

Date of Order - 05.02.2016

In the matter to Shri S.S. Sandhu, House No.6385A, Rajeev Vihar,

Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri S.S. Sandhu, owner of the premises at House No.6385A, Rajeev

Vihar, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 15th Nov. 2015

made a complaint that his last bill issued for the period 11.9.2015 to

10.10.2015 is not in line with the earlier billing periods. Whereas the

earlier billing periods were for 2 months, the bill under consideration

was issued for one month. He raised that payable amount for one month

can not be equivalent to the average billing for earlier billing periods for

two months.



para-wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated 16.11.2015

with a copy to the complainant.


30.11.2015 submitted para-wise comments stating that the energy

meter of the complainant was replaced on 11.9.2015 being electro

mechanical meter. The energy bill amounting to Rs. 3778/- was

prepared for the period 10.8.2015 to 10.10.2015 (2 Months) but

because of entry of date of MCO and the readings of the new meter, it

appeared that the bill was for one month duration.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 6.1.2016, the complainant did not

attend. The SDO present during the hearing reiterated his written

submissions. As the consumer did not attend, it was decided to afford

one more opportunity. On the next date of hearing on 5.2.2016 again

the consumer did not appear. The Xen ‘OP’ Divn. No.2 present during

the hearing confirmed that the consumer was making payment regularly

of the bills being rendered to him.

In view of the position explained by the Licensee, the Forum is of

the view that the disputed bill was in fact for two months duration only

and not one month duration as contested by the complainant. In view of

the above, the complaint is dismissed.















Complaint No. - 692


In the matter to Shri Taran Deep Singh, Deputy Manager, United

India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Taran Deep Singh, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Co.

Ltd., SCO 177-178, Madhya Marg, Sector 8, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 23.6.2014, received in the office of CGRF on 26.6.2014, stated

that they made payment against two bills in different account number

wrongly due to oversight instead of making payment in their own

Account number for the electricity connection. He requested for refund

of the payment wrongly paid by them in other account. He also provided

the details of the payment made and the account number.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 were called vide letter dated 27.6.2014.


submitted his reply confirming that the payment as state by the applicant

were received in the Account No. mentioned by him. He, however,

stated that as per their record, it is not possible to verify who made the

payment against the particular account. It is normally presumed that the

payment has been made by the consumer who is using the electricity or

some other person on his behalf. He expressed his inability to transfer

the payment entries from one account to another account unless both

the parties agree to it or submit proof in the support of claim. He also

stated that both the electricity connections are in the same name, i.e.

Shri Om Parkash. He suggested to resolve/sought the matter between

the parties with mutual consent. He also confirmed that there was no

outstanding payment against any of the two accounts.

4. The case was registered as complaint No. 692 and was fixed for hearing

on 14.5.2015. The complainant in the mean time submitted an affidavit

to CGRF on dated 15.4.2015 along with copies of bills and details of

payment made from United India Insurance Co. Account in support of his

application. On the basis of this affidavit, the present owner of the SCO

i.e. Shri D.S. Mohi was also requested to make it convenient to attend

the hearing on 14.5.2015. The owner of other connection Sh. D.S Mohi

as well as complainant and the concerned Xen./SDO were present during

hearing on 14.5.2015. During deliberation, Shri D.S. Mohi the owner in

whose account the payment was made by the applicant, agreed to settle

the issue mutually.

5. The case was again notified for hearing on 12.8.2015. The complainant

present during the hearing submitted that the negotiation with the

owner for settlement are going on an may take some more time. SDO

present during the hearing did not raise any objection to the request

made by the applicant for granting some time.

6. The final hearing was conducted on 9.2.2016 when the complainant,

Shri D.S. Mohi and the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 were present. It was

clarified by the SDO that it is among the complainant and the owner in

whose account payment was wrongly made, to resolve/settle the issue.

Both the complainant as well as owner agreed to settle the issue

amicably at their own level.

7. With above mutual settlement, the case is considered as disposed.









(R L MITTAL) (R.K.ARORA)

MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF








In the matter to Shri Kulwant Singh, House No.1512, Sector 11-B,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Kulwant Singh, resident of House No.1512, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh

vide his representation dated 30.9.2015 stated that his bill for the period

1.6.2015 to 21.8.2015 was excessive in view of the fact that no major

electrical equipment like A.C., T.V. was in use during that period. The

main portion of the house remained locked and unused during the

period. He attributed such consumption to the meter being faulty.



para-wise comments, relevant details along with consumption data vide

letter dated 9.10.2015 with a copy to the complainant. Due to non

receipt of reply, reminder was issued to the Nodal Officer vide letter

dated 17.11.2015.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide

his letter dated 24.11.2015 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE

‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2,

submitted that the bill for the disputed period of June 2015 to August

2015 was prepared on actual consumption shown by the meter for 698

units. The reading and working of the meter was got verified from the

J.E. and was found to be in order. Further he stated that earlier

mechanical meter was installed which was replaced on 28.4.2015. On

the basis of consumption, he stated that bill of the consumer was

correctly prepared. He enclosed consumption data along with copy of

MCO and report of J.E.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 7.1.2016, the complainant did not

attend. The case was renotified for hearing on 9.2.2016 to afford one

more opportunity to the complainant. The complainant did not appear

on 9.2.2016 either.

5. Observations and Decision:

From the consumption pattern for the year 2013-14, 2014-15,

2015-16, it was noted that the consumption in the past was ranging from

109 to 848 units. The consumption of 716 units was recorded during the

period February to April 2015. The forum is of the view that the

consumption of 698 units, being contested by him, is pertaining to the

peak summer period and is very much possible.

In view of the above and fact that the meter working was found in

order, the Forum does not find any merit and dismissed the complaint.















Complaint No. - GR-14/2016


In the matter to Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, House No.50, Sector 10-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, resident of House No.50, Sector 10-A,

Chandigarh submitted a complaint in the office of CGRF on 20.1.2016.

He submitted that after death of Shri Hartej Singh on 4.3.2007, his

property share in SCO No.40-41, Sector 9-D was transferred in his name.

Till June 2012, the SCO consisting of basement, Ground Floor, 1st floor

and 2nd floor was tenanted. On 22.6.2012 the 2nd floor and on 8.2.2013

the ground floors were vacated by the tenants. The business in the

basement with separate meter in the name of tenant was also shut down

through Court order on 30.9.2014. Thus in October 2014 only occupied

floor of the building was 1st floor and rest of the building was totally

vacant and unoccupied. During this time, the electricity bill for

consumption of 377555 units amounting to Rs.1,87,272/- was issued.

He attributed the high consumption on account of meter malfunctioning

and the matter was got to the notice of the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2.

He deposited part payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and requested the SDO for

reconciliation of his account. Subsequently the meter was changed but

the account was not overhauled and amount continued to appear as

arrear in the subsequent bills. It was requested that during the period

meter was defective, the charging be done on the basis of previous

average consumption. Stating that the present amount has gone to

Rs.30,91,475/-, he requested to direct the Electricity Department to

reconcile his account.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-14/2016 was forwarded to


para-wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated 27.1.2016 with

a copy to the complainant. It was also requested that the reply be

furnished by 5.2.2016 and the case would be taken up for hearing on

9.2.2016.

3. On the date of hearing on 09.02.2016 the complainant as well as SDO

were present. The Forum observed that the written submissions were

awaited from the Nodal Officer. The SDO, however, confirmed that bill

of the complainant has already been corrected after overhauling of the

account. Final hand written bill had already been issued after getting it

audited. The complainant stated that he has not received the revised bill

till date. He however, showed his satisfaction to the action taken by the

SDO.

4. The SDO was directed to submit the written reply with copy to the

complainant and also to ensure that the corrected bill is delivered to the

complainant. He is also to ensure that the necessary advice is sent to the

Computer Centre so that the next bill prepared by the computer

incorporates sundry allowance and depicts the correct payment to be

made by the complainant. The complainant may approach the CGRF

again in case he is not satisfied with the overhauling done by the SDO.

5. This is an interim order and in case the complainant shows his

dissatisfaction, another hearing will be conducted before the final order is

issue. However in case, the complainant does not approach CGRF, this

order would be treated as final order. However in case, the complainant

does not approach CGRF, this order would be treated as final order.
















Complaint No. - IA in GR-14/2016


In the matter to Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, House No.50, Sector

10-A, Chandigarh,

……………..Petitioner

Versus




Order

1. Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal vide his complaint dated 20.1.2016 pointed

out wrong charging by Sub Division. After conducting the hearing on

9.2.2016, the SDO stated that the bill of the consumer was corrected as

per his complaint and the consumer showing satisfaction. Interim order

were issued on 20.1.2016 with the following directions:-

(4) The SDO was directed to submit the written reply with copy to the

complainant and also to ensure that the corrected bill is delivered to the complainant. He is also to ensure that the necessary advice is

sent to the Computer Centre so that the next bill prepared by the computer incorporates sundry allowance and depicts the correct

payment to be made by the complainant. The complainant may approach the CGRF again in case he is not satisfied with the

overhauling done by the SDO. (5) This is an interim order and in case the complainant shows his

dissatisfaction, another hearing will be conducted before the final

order is issue. However in case, the complainant does not approach CGRF, this order would be treated as final order. However in case,

the complainant does not approach CGRF, this order would be treated as final order.”

2. The complainant vide his interlocutory application dated 19.2.2016

showed his dissatisfaction to the relief provided by the Sub Division while

overhauling of his account after receipt of the bill. He specifically pointed

out that the amount charged for the meter remained defective was much

higher as the entire first floor was lying vacant except for the tenant

dealing with Silver Jewellery whose consumption was not more than

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. He, therefore, requested to withdraw the

revised bill dated 9.2.2016 for Rs.5,17,087/-.

3. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 were

called vide letter dated 24.2.2016. Simultaneously the case was

notified for hearing on 29.3.2016.

4. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 18.3.2016 forwarded the reply

submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly countersigned. The

Sub Division submitted that disputed bill of the consumer for the period

8/2014 to 10/2014 for 377555 units was revised on the basis of

previous consumption i.e. 39892 units. The ACD was also revised

accordingly along with late payment surcharge. Regarding the building

remaining vacant, he stated that no intimation was given to the sub

division. He also supplied the consumption for last three years and

photo copy of MCO. While concluding, he stated that the revision was

in order as the same is comparable with the future consumption.

5. During the hearing on 29.3.2016, the complainant as well as RA of the

Sub Division were present. The complainant stated that the building

has 4 connections. Basement has two connections and top floor has

one for which there is no dispute. The electricity connection against

which dispute arose is feeding ground floor, first floor and part of 2nd

floor. The 2nd floor was vacated by HSBC in June 2012 for which he had

provided requisite supporting documents along with his application

dated 20.1.2016 as Annexure 3. This floor remained vacant till Middle

of 2015. The ground floor was vacated on 8.2.2013 by the tenant

named Real Choclate Pvt. Ltd. for which the requisite documents were

annexed as Annexure-4 in the original application.

6. From the consumption data provided by the sub division, it was noted

that consumption prior to 4/2013 was not available and as such it was

not possible to co-relate the statement with the dropped consumption

as both the tenants vacated prior to April 2013. The RA, therefore,

was directed to provide consumption for the year 2011 & 2012 also to

verify that the consumption first dropped after June 2012 and further

after Feb.2013 when two tenants vacated the building respectively.

7. The Sub Division the consumption detail from April 2011 to April 2013

on 31.3.2016. On scrutiny it has been noted that after Dec,2012, the

consumption dropped around 40,000 units to around 15000 to 20,000

units bi-monthly and thus tallied with the complainant statement that

the two tenants vacated the premises by 8.2.2013

It has also been noted that the disputed consumption of 3,77,555

units during August 2014 to October 2014 was overhauled with 39893

units. This consumption of 39,892 units is for 4 months from April 2014

to August 2014 and not for 2 months and also matches with the past

consumption of 20,000 units bi-monthly and statement of the

complainant that major portion of building was vacant when the meter

became defective during August 2014.

8. On the basis of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the

account of the complainant during the meter remained defective i.e. from

8/2014 to 4/2015 on the basis of consumption recorded during the

corresponding period i.e. 8/2013 to 4/2014. Compliance be reported

within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties

may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the


9. With above directions, complaint is disposed.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by

the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs,

“Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
















In the matter to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, SCO 84,



Versus


2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 6, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, SCO 84, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh

submitted a complaint dated 8.7.2015 (through e-mail) regarding excess

bill dated 25 June, 2015. It was stated that the sundry charges of

Rs.1,18,411/- were levied on account of meter dead stop in the past.

The main objection raised by the complainant was that when bills were

being raised on average basis during the period the meter was dead the

levy of charges at this stage for that period could not be done.



supplying parawise comments vide letter dated 09.07.2015 with a copy

to the complainant.


23.7.2015 submitted parawise reply that the dead stop meter of the

complainant was replaced on 17.10.2014. The account of the consumer

from 25.10.2012 to 17.10.2014 was overhauled due to meter being dead

stop on the basis of previous consumption recorded during the

corresponding period i.e. from July 2010 to July 2011 @ 2497 units Per

month. An amount of Rs.1,18,411/- was found to be charged less and

accordingly the same was debited to the account. He also supplied the

past as well as future consumption data of the complainant.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 8.9.2015. The complainant did

not attend on 8.9.2015. Ms. Ambica, Branch Manager, however, visited

the CGRF Office on 9.9.2015 and collected the reply submitted by tthe

SDO.

5. Another hearing was called on 30.9.2015 which was attended by Shri

Harish Rehlam Manager as well as Ms. Ambica Branch Manager on behalf

of the complainant besides SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.6. The main plea

taken by the complainant was that the average charged during the

period meter remained defective should not be altered.

6. In response to query by the complainant, the SDO confirmed that all

payments made by the complainant in the past were accounted for while

calculating the short assessment amount of Rs.1.18 lac. The

complainant requested for supplying the following details.

i) Tariff at which amount charged.

ii) Total amount paid by the Bank during the disputed period.

iii) Total demand raised by the department.

7. The SDO supplied parawise details vide letter dated 29.12.2015. He

stated that NRS tariff was charged and the consumer made total payment

of Rs.1,98,283/- during the disputed period which was adjusted while

calculating the short assessment. With regard to calculation of average

he stated that the total consumption during the base period taken from

25.7.2010 to 25.7.2011 was 29969 units i.e. @ 2497 units per month.

He also supplied break-up of SOP, FPPC and ED raised during the

disputed period and also break-up of the amount paid and the difference

to be recovered from the complainant.

8. The case was again heard on 10.2.2016, Shri Harish Rehlam and Ms.

Ambica were present on behalf of the complainant. The case was

deliberated and the details provided by the SDO were shared with them.

The Forum while going through the consumption data supplied by the

SDO observed that the meter had become defective during the period

7/11 to 9/11 where as the Licensee calculated the short assessment only

for a period of 2 years prior to the date of MCO (17.10.2014) probably in

view of provision of Sect ion 56(2) of the Electricity. Act 2003.

9. Decision:

In view of the factual position that the meter became defective

during the period 7/11 to 9/11, the Forum is of the view that the

overhauling of the account is to be done from the period 7/11 to date of

MCO i.e. 17.10.2014. The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the

account from the period 7/11 to 17.10.2014 on the basis of consumption

recorded during the period 7/10 to 7/11. As the Licensee will be raising

lump sum amount for one year or so the complainant is given liberty to

make the payment in six equal instalment without levy of surcharge, if he

so desires. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order

failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections

of the Electricity Act 2003.

10. With the above observations and directions, complaint considered as

disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Amandeep Singh, House No.2808, Sector 22-C,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Amandeep Singh, resident of House No.2808, Sector 22-C,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated September 29, 2015 stated that the

electricity meter installed at his residence were replaced about six

months back and thereafter he is receiving inflated high consumption bill

for his connection at ground floor. He attributed high consumption to the

meter being faulty.



para-wise comments vide letter dated 29.9.2015 with a copy to the

complainant. Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated time,

reminders were issued on 14.10.2015, 5.11.2015 and 17.11.2015.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 vide his letter dated 19.11.2015

submitted the reply that the working of the concerned meter was got

checked on 17.11.2015 and as per report of the J.E. working of the

meter was found in order. Further the connected load of the consumer

was found to be 9.060 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.520 KW.

The SDO, therefore, stated that the consumer is liable to pay charge for

load surcharge, ACD and other related charge for regularisation of load.

He also stated that bills were issued on the basis of reading recorded by

the meter and bills issued in the past are correct. Checking report along

with detail of connected load was also enclosed with the reply.

4. On the date of haring (15.12.2015) only SDO was present but the

consumer did not appear. The SDO submitted consumption data for the

ground floor for last more than three years. From the consumption data

it was noted that the consumption of 209,333,567,759 and 651 were

recorded after the replacement of the meter during December 2014

which is possible with C.L of 9.0 K.W. However, it was decided to afford

one more opportunity to the complainant to present his views.

5. Again on the next date of hearing on 11.2.2016, neither the complainant

appeared nor any message was received from him. Only SDO and RA

were present. The Forum the view that the recorded consumption is

possible with the connected load found at the premises of the consumer.

On the basis of submissions by the SDO including checking report of

the meter, the Forum does not find any merit and dismiss the complaint.

As the connected load was found to be more than the sanctioned load,

the complainant may take up the matter with the Sub Division for

regularisation of load by depositing the requisite charges.

















In the matter to Shri Arun Kumar, House No.1665, Sector 23-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Arun Kumar, resident of House No.1665, Sector 23-, Chandigarh

through his letter dated 18.11.2015 stated that the trees are required to

be pruned as branches are touching live wires near his house. He also

raised issue of sanctioning of load at the time of transfer.



comments vide letter dated 24.11.2015 with a copy to the complainant.

Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated time, reminders were issued

on 11.12.2015 and 14.1.2016.


submitted that the exercise of pruning of trees touching the electric lines

is done by the department on regular basis whenever required. He

confirmed that pruning of the tree branches near the L.T. lines in the

area near to the house of the complainant was done after receipt of the

complaint.

The other issue raised by the complainant was not clear to him and

he requested for more specific details for filing the reply. The concerned

Xen. also forwarded the reply of the SDO duly countersigned vide his

letter dated 1.2.2016.

4. On the date of hearing on 11.2.2016, the complainant as well as

concerned SDO were present. The complainant showed his satisfaction to

the pruning of the trees done by the Electricity Department. With regard

to second issue raised in the complaint, he explained that when a

Government employee shift residence in another house allotted to him,

he has to complete all the formalities for getting a new connection. He

requested that payment of ACD and other charges should not be insisted

from the Government employees in such cases and the amount lying at

the credited of the person be transferred to the new connection. He was

explained that no such provision exist in the Supply Code Regulations

notified by the Hon’ble JERC and as such are beyond the purview of the

Forum.

5. With the above observations, complaint is considered as disposed.

















In the matter to Smt. Neelam Grover, House No.1254, Progressive

Enclave, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Smt. Neelam Grover through her representation dated 1.2.2016 stated

that a Electricity connection exists at SCO No.2, Top Floor, Sector 23-C,

Chandigarh in her name. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.1 through notice

dated 18.12.2015 demanded Rs.54,726/- on account of recovery of

outstanding amount of another electricity connection. She briefly stated

that the electricity connection at top floor is in her name and she is

paying the bills regularly for the last six years. The demand raised by

the SDO is against another account in the same SCO (ground floor) with

connection is in different name. She stated that she had also given

representation to concerned SDO stating that the outstanding of the

electricity connection in the name of Shri Satish Kumar Vohra, to which

she has no link could not be recovered from her. Enclosing all the related

documents, she requested for issuance of directions to the SDO for not

disconnecting her electricity supply of the top floor.


the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide

letter dated 1.2.2016 with the directions to submit the reply on priority

by 8th Feb. 2016 to take a view on the request by the complainant for not

to disconnect her supply on account of non payment of a mount

demanded through notice. Simultaneously the Nodal Officer was

conveyed that case would be heard on 11.2.2016 to take final view.

3. On 11.2.2016 Shri Anil Grover, Husband of the complainant was present

along with authority letter besides SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 and his RA.

The Forum observed that no written reply was filed by the Nodal Officer.

The representative of the complainant argued that the outstanding

amount of a different consumer could not be recovered from them as the

connection at top floor exist in their name where as the outstanding

amount of ground floor belongs to connection in the name of the owner.

The SDO confirmed that the electricity connection at the top floor was in

the name of the applicant whereas defaulting amount pertains to another

connection at ground floor of the same SCO which is in the name of the

owner. To a specific query the SDO could not quote the regulations as

per which the defaulting amount of one consumer can be recovered from

other consumer though the connection may be in the same

premises/building.

4. The Forum observed that the Sub Regulations 10 of Rule 9.2 provides:-

“(10) Where any consumer having more than one connection defaults in payment of dues relating to one of the connections.”

From the above, it is clear that the defaulting amount against one

connection can only be recovered from the connection if it is in the name

of same consumer. As in the present case both the connections are in

different name, the Forum concludes that the defaulting amount of

ground floor against the electricity connection in the name of Shri Satish

Kumar can not be recovered from the electricity connection in the name

of Smt. Neelam Grover. Accordingly notice issued by the SDO dated

18.12.2015 is set aside.

5. With the above decision, the complaint stands disposed.














Complaint No. - CG-75 of 2015 Date of Institution - 01.12.2015 Date of Order - 16.02.2016 In the matter Sh. Balraj Singh Dhanda, House No. 113, Gali No. 8-C, Shant nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

7. Sh. Balraj Singh Dhanda, resident of House No. 113, Gali No. 8-C Shant nagar,

Manimajar, Chandigarh through his application dated 01.12.2015 attributed high

consumption bill of 5518 units for the period June to August 2015 to mistake in

taking reading. He stated that such consumption was not possible as he was not

using any AC. He also deposited Rs 150/- for challenging the meter.

8. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-75 of 2015, was forwarded to the

Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for comments vide letter dated 02.12.2015.

9. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 11.12.2015

submitted the reply duly counter singed by XEN. He submitted that the working the

meter was got checked through JE by installing a check meter. No variation in

consumption recorded by both the meters concluded that the working of the meter

was ok. He also supplied the consumption data, the check meter report.

10. On the date of hearing on 16.02.2016, the complainant stated that high consumption

of 5518 units during June 2015 to August 2015 could be due to meter reading

jumping. The RA representing the Sub Division informed that the connected load

was also got checked by JE on 9.12.2015 and was found to be 1.720 K.W against

sanctioned load of 2.0 K.W

11. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub division, The Forum noted that from

February to June 2015 the consumption was more or less consistant with average in

the range of 450-500 units. The Forum also ruled out that it could be a case of

accumulation of reading as the consumption was consistant.

The Forum also noted that the meter was of TGL make which experienced

jumping of reading in the past in many other cases. On the basis of actual CL of

1.720 K.W, the assessment of units as per ABCD formula as given in ANN 7 of

Supply code was found to be 1238 units for 2 months even after considering the full

CL running for 12 hours a day continuously. (1.72 K.W X 12hours X 30 days X2

months).

12. On the basis of above, the Forum concludes that the high consumption during the

disputed period from June to August 2015 could he on account of jumping of reading

by the meter. The meter being TGL make has experienced reading jumping in the

past in many other cases.

13. In view of above, The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account during the

period June to August 2015 with the consumption recorded during the corresponding

period in the Year 2014 and get the meter replaced. Compliance be reported within

21 days failing which action may taken by JERC as per relevant sections of the E

Act 2003.

14. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum

may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity

Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC

Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana),

Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-

[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this

order.”


MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF





Complaint No. - GR-05of 2016 Date of Institution - 12.01.2016 Date of Order - 16.02.2016 In the matter Sh. Sadan Pal, House No. 2619, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Sadan Pal, resident of House No. 2619, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh

through his application dated 12.01.2016 stated that he received high consumption

bill in September 2015. He attributed the high consumption to jumping of meter

reading.

2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. GR-05 of 2016 was forwarded to the



submitted his comments duly countersigned by XEN. The SDO submitted that bill

for the period 21.03.2015 to 21.07.2015 was issued on actual reading recorded by

meter for 10158 units amounting to Rs 54,482/-, The working of energy meter was

got checked and found ok. He also enclosed the consumption data.

4. On the date of hearing on 16.02.2016, the complainant stated that they have only 1

Fridge, one TV and Fan besides light points. In response to a specific query he

stated that there are no AC in their 2 room house. The RA representing the Sub

Division informed that the meter installed was single phase meter of TGL make and

the sanctioned load was 0.080 K.W.

5. The Forum from the consumption data observed that the during the period

September 2011 to March 2015, the consumption was consistant in the range of 16-

390 units for 2 months. On the basis of consistant consumption the case of

accumulation of reading was ruled out.

The Forum further noted that the disputed consumption of 10158 units for 4

months period from 21.03.2015 to 21.07.2015 is not possible with CL of around 1

K.W. The maximum possible consumption for 1 K.W load could be 1440 units

pressuring that all the load is run for 12 hours a day continuously (1 K.W. X12 hours

X 30 days X 4 months).


disputed period from March to July 2015 could be on account of jumping of reading

by the meter. The meter being TGL make has experienced reading jumping in the

past in many other cases.

7. The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account during the period March to July

2015 with the consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the Year

2014. Compliance be reported within 21 days failing which action may taken by

JERC as per relevant sections of the E Act 2003.








order.”







Complaint No. - CG-88of2015 Date of Institution - 21.12.2015 Date of Order - 16.02.2016 In the matter Sh. Ussman, House No. 1830, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Sh. Ussman, resident of House No1830, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh

through his application dated 21.12.2015 stated that he received high consumption

bill in November 2015. He attributed the high consumption to meter being faulty.

2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-88 of 2015 was forwarded to the



submitted his comments duly countersigned by XEN. The SDO submitted that bill

for the period 07.06.2015 to 07.10.2015 (4 months) was issued on actual reading

recorded by meter for 11196 units amounting to Rs 48,750/-, The working of

energy meter was got checked and found ok. He also enclosed the consumption

data.

4. On the date of hearing on 16.02.2016, the complainant stated that they have only

one cooler, 1 Fridge, one TV and Fan besides light points (CFL). In response to a

specific query, he stated that there are no AC’s in their 2 room house. The RA

representing the Sub Division informed that the meter installed was single phase

meter of AVON make and the sanctioned load was 800 Watt.

5. The Forum from the consumption data observed that the during the period

December 2013 to June 2015, the consumption was consistant. The average was in

the range of 200-250 units except for 2 months. The Forum did not find this as case

of accumulation of reading.

The Forum further noted that the disputed consumption of 11196 units for 4

months period from 07.06.2015 to 07.10.2015 is not possible with CL of around 1

K.W. The maximum possible consumption for 1 K.W load could be 1440 units

pressuring that all the load is run for 12 hours a day continuously (1 K.W. X12

hours X 30 days X 4 months).


disputed period from June to October 2015 could be on account of meter being

faulty/jumping of reading by the meter.

7. The Forum further observed that during the corresponding period in the Year 2014,

the recorded consumption was again quite on higher side (4841 units for 6 months

period from April 2014 to October 2014) which could be in a/c of accumulation/wrong

recording of the reading in the past.

8. In view of above observations, The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account

during the period June to October 2015. on the basis of lower of consumption

worked out as under:

a) The assessment of units be worked out on the basis of ABCD formula as

given in Ann. 7 under 1.1 of the supply code Regulations on the basis of

actual connected load ( to be checked by deputing an official). The load

/diversity factor for lighting/ cooling load etc be taken as per the table.

b) The average consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2014.

The Nodal officer is also directed to replace the meter.

Compliance be reported within 21 days failing which action may taken by JERC as

per relevant sections of the E Act 2003.








order.”








Complaint No. - GR-22of 2016


In the matter Shri Amrik Singh, House No.1136, Sector 21-B,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Amrik Singh, resident of House No.1136, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh

submitted a fresh application on dated 5.2.2016 in the office of CGRF on

8.2.2016. He stated that Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 / SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.3, Chandigarh for violated the Hon’ble Ombudsman Order

dated 28.12.2015 in Appeal No.60/2015. He stated that he received 3

Nos. Electricity bills each dated 8.1.2016 as per following details

(a) amounting to Rs.16700/- including arrears of Rs.15763/-,

(b) Rs.3433/- including arrears of Rs.2743/- and (c) Rs.812/-. His supply

was disconnected on 28th Jan. 2016 for the two connections which had

arrears i.e. as per (a) and (b) above. He stated that action taken by the

SDO was not correct as the department is entitled to have current dues

payment only. He further stated that earlier supply was also

disconnected and he was forced to pay Rs.12136/-. He requested for

restoration of his supply and correction of the bill for the actual current

bill without any arrears.

2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. GR-022 of 2016 was

forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for comments

vide letter dated 08.02.2016. Simultaneously the case was listed for

hearing on 23.2.2016.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated

12.2.2016 submitted para-wise comments stating that the Hon’ble

Ombudsman order is very clear as under:-

“The consumer is directed to make the outstanding dues to the

Electricity Department within 15 days of the issue of this order or face disconnection”.

He stated that the total outstanding amount was Rs.16700/- which

also includes Rs.8386/- (Bill for the period 4/2014 to 6/2014) as

mentioned by the complainant in Para 1 of his complaint. The due date

for the payment was 25.1.2016. The bill dated 8.1.2016 was for the

period 4.10.2015 to 4.12.2015 amounting to Rs.16058/- including

arrears of Rs.15763/- . The total defaulting amount after due date

became Rs.16700/- which was paid by the consumer on 9.2.2016. The

second bill dated 8.1.2016 for Rs.3301/- was also for the period

4.10.2015 to 4.12.2015 including arrears of Rs.2943/- which after due

date became Rs.3433/-. This defaulting amount was also paid by the

consumer on 9.2.2016. With regard to 3rd bill dated 5.1.2016 he

submitted that the same did not relate to his office. In response to para

3 of the complaint, the SDO stated that the supply was disconnected as

per Hon’ble Ombudsman order dated 28.12.2015 after serving a notice

vide Memo. No. 104-105 dated 8.1.2016 to deposit defaulting amount

within 15 days. The supply was disconnected after waiting for more than

20 days of issuance of notice. He denied that there is no any violation of

the Hon’ble Ombudsman order dated 28.12.2015. He further stated that

the case has already been discussed and disposed of by Hon’ble

Ombudsman and as such is not maintainable in CGRF. He also denied

that the charges levelled by the complainant regarding mala-fide

intention of his office to harass any consumer. He closed his submissions

stating that the supply has already been restored after the consumer

cleared the defaulting amount and paid reconnection fee for both the

connections.

4. On the date of hearing on 23.2.2016, the consumer did not appear. The

SDO reiterated his written submissions.

5. The Forum observing that the connections have already been restored,

considers the complaint as disposed. With regard to issuance of bills, the

SDO submitted that the bills issued to the complainant were in order and

needs no correction. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to supply

the details of the bills in respect f A/ No. 303/2144/113604K issued to the

complainant from the date of last payment made by him in the year

2013. The details should indicate the breakup of current consumption

charges, arrears, surcharge and payments made and should be supplied

to the complainant within 21 days with a copy to the Forum. The above

details be supplied at Chandigarh as well as Delhi address.

6. With above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.


Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the



Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:

09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month












Complaint No. - GR-21 of 2016


In the matter Shri Satnam Singh, SCF 29, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Satnam Singh through his representation received in the office of

CGRF on 3.2.2016 submitted that he is owner of SCF No.29, Sector-19D,

Chandigarh. The premise was vacated by the Bank on 31.12.2013 and

thereafter the work of demolishing of SCF was undertaken in Jan. 2014

onwards. The Estate Office was also approached and request was made

for conversion of SCF to SCO by depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,900/-

including conversion fee on 3.3.2014. The construction work of building

was taken up thereafter. He stated that all the electricity bills were paid.

Now the bill on the basis of average from 22.11.2013 to 16.10.2014

amounting to Rs.1,23,594/- as sundry charges have been served upon

him. He submitted that part payment of Rs.41,200/- was made. He

requested for withdrawal of amount charged through sundry charges.



vide letter dated 08.02.2016. Simultaneously the case was listed for



11.2.2016 submitted that the average charged is on account of meter

found burnt. It was replaced on 16.10.2014. The average charged is for

the period 22.11.2013 to 16.10.2014 @ 2386 units per month on the

basis of previous corresponding period consumption as per half margin

dated 13.4.2015. He also indicating that the consumer did not intimate

regarding vacation/demolition of the building at that time and intimated

only on 18.8.2015. The amount has been charged by the Audit section.

He also enclosed copy of MCO, half margin and the consumption details.

4. On the date of hearing on 23.2.2016, the consumer as well as concerned

SDO were present. The complainant reiterated his written submissions

and stated that the charging on the basis of the period when the building

was occupied by the bank is not in order, as the building was vacated by

the bank on 31.12.2013 where after the building was demolished. The

work of reconstruction was undertaken after approaching the Estate

Office in March 2014.

5. Form the MCO, the Forum noted that the meter was removed at reading

292685 where as from the consumption data it was seen that billing was

done up to reading of 289952 up to 7/2014 where after the bills were

being raised on average basis. It was also noted from the half margin

that besides charging for this un-billed consumption, the audit also

charged. charged for the same period which does not appear to be in

order being double charging.

6. In view of the facts of the case that the building was vacated on

31.3.2013 and was demolished thereafter, the Forum set aside the

charging done by the audit wing. The Nodal Officer is directed to charge

the unbilled units of 2733 (292685-289952) from 7/2014 to date of MCO.

The bills issued for the period 11/2013 onwards to July 2014 issue on the

basis of reading of the meter be taken as correct and no overhauling for

this period be done, presuming that the meter got burnt in the month of

October 2014.

However, it is establishing that the meter got burnt earlier,

charging for the period meter remained burnt to date of MCO be also

done on the basis of consumption recorded during the coming months i.e

October/November 2014. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the

receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble

JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.

7. With above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.



















Complaint No. - GR-17of 2016


In the matter Shri Sunil Doda, House No.359, 1st Floor, Sector 40-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Sunil Doda, a tenant of House No.359, 1st floor, Sector 40-A,

Chandigarh submitted a complaint on dated 27.1.2016 that during 2012

it was noted that the meter installed for first floor was running very fast

and accordingly the bills for the period 16.2.2012 to 16.12.2012 were

sent on average basis. On receipt of bill of Rs.55,000/- during the last

months of 2014, the applicant contacted the Sub Division No.10. He

stated that Shri Manoj Kumar, Accountant was not at all cooperative and

he had to visit more than 20 times but to no avail. He was ready to

make the current consumption charges. He however, made a part

payment of Rs.25000/-. His present bill has grew to Rs.63,990/-

including arrears. He submitted that the main problem seems to be the

bills issued between the periods 6.2.2012 to 6.12.2012 which has been

calculated excessively. He approached for acceptance of current bill for

keeping his electricity connection intact and not to be disconnected.



vide letter dated 01.02.2016. Subsequently the complainant visited the

CGRF Office on 2.2.2016 and offered to make part payment in order to

prevent his connection from disconnection. He was advised to make

about 50% payment amounting to Rs.30,000/-. Simultaneously the case

was listed for hearing on 23.2.2016 vide letter dated 5.2.2016 to take

final view.


12.2.2016 submitted written reply. He stated that the meter is in

working order and the consumption recorded by the meter for last three

years is almost same and is consistent. He also supplied the

consumption data. The disputed meter was replaced on 25.1.2013. The

Internal Auditor while auditing the ledger noticed that the consumer was

billed less due to wrong coding of D Code and accordingly Internal

Auditor through half margin dated 11.9.2014 charged an amount of

Rs.24428/- on account of difference of readings from 6.2.2012 to

1.2.2013 not billed due to wrong coding of D-code. The Electricity bills

raised prior to 10/2011 were also on average basis due to meter

defective. During the month of 8/2014 to 10/2014 the bill was raised as

per meter reading along with sundry charges of Rs.24428/- as per half

margin. The consumer deposited only Rs.25000/- against the total

amount of Rs.46,411/- in Jan. 2015. Thereafter no payment against any

electricity bill was made by the complainant resulting into the total

defaulting amount of Rs.66550/-. He further submitted that the full

details regarding the sundry charges were provided to the applicant by

the concerned official. He concluded his submissions that the bills raised

by the consumer are as per reading recorded by the meter from time to

time and the meter working were found O.K. For the disputed period of

2012, the adjustment of bills raised on average basis on D-Code were

overhauled on the basis of actual reading recorded by the meter as per

half margin. He also confirmed that the consumer made the payment of

Rs.30,000/- as per CGRF Interim order on 5.2.2016.

4. On the date of hearing on 23.2.2016, the consumer as well as concerned

SDO were present. The complainant submitted that after receipt of bill of

952 units for the period 6.12.2011 to 6.2.2012 by new replaced meter.

He submitted an application for correction of the bill by depositing fee of

Rs.10/- as he attributed that the meter was running fast. He submitted

that during that period he hardly lived in his house for 15 days during a

month. The complainant also showed the bill which included sundry

charges besides an arrears of Rs.11,916/- when the sundry charges

amount was raised in November 2014 by the Internal Auditor. He stated

that there should be no arrears as he had been paying all the payments

regularly till then. The SDO after checking the record of the Sub Division

on Phone provided breakup of arrears. He stated that the consumer did

not pay one bill and the balance amount was on account of less charging

of ACD (Rs.4669/-).

5. The Forum on the basis of consumption data provided by the SDO noted

that the meter was defective for the period 6.10.2010 to 6.12.2010 and

the consumer was being billed@ 200-210 units per cycle. The defective

meter was replaced during the period 6.10.2011 to 6.12.2011. The

consumption for the period December to February 2012 was 952 units

against which on the application by the complainant, the meter was

treated as defective and bills for the period Feb.2012 to December 2012

were issued on average of 200 units. This meter was replaced on

25.1.2013 where after the consumption was being recorded in the range

of 585 to around 2000 per cycle for 2 months. The action taken by the

I.A. in overhauling the disputed period bills on the basis of actual reading

recorded by the meter appears to be in order. The Forum also noted that

the average consumption recorded during the period Jan. 2013 onwards

was on higher side as compared to the consumption recorded by the

meter during 2012. Thus establishing that meter was not defective and

was perfectly in working order. On These conclusions the Forum observed

that the charging done by the I.A. is in order.

6. During deliberations in the hearing, the Forum also noted that full amount

of surcharge was being carried forward when the complainant made the

part payment which is not as per tariff order issued by the Hon’ble JERC.

The Tariff Order issued by the Hon’ble JERC clearly provides that the

delayed payment surcharge should be levied @ 2% per month or part

thereof on all arrears of bills. Thus it is very clear that surcharge is

leviable on the arrears and not on the full amount of the bill in case of

part payment. The Nodal Officer is therefore, directed to refund the

surcharge amount charged in violation to provisions of the tariff orders

issued by the Hon’ble JERC wherever the part payment was made by the

complainant. The surcharge on this amount is also be refunded for the

future bills issued by the Sub Division. The Sub Division may also be

directed to check that the amount of Rs.11916/- shown as arrears in the

bill for the period August 2010 to October 2014 is in order. The

necessary adjustment be made in case the payment was made by the

applicant but not credited on account of the one reason and another.


failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per

relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.

7. With the above directions, the complaint stands disposed.



















Complaint No. - CG-33 of 2015


In the matter Brig. A. Kaplia, House No. 42, 1st Floor, Sector-4,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Brig. A. Kaplia, resident of House No. 42, 1st Floor, Sector-4, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated August 27, 2015 stated that after installation of

new meter his consumption has increased as compared to consumption in

the past. He apprehended the recording of high consumption due to

meter being faulty and requested to get it checked. He, however,

confirmed that he would pay bill in full expecting refund if the meter is

found faulty.

2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-33 of 2015 was

forwarded to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for supplying

parawise comments vide letter dated 27.8.2015 with a copy to the

complainant. Simultaneously it was also notified that the case would be

heard in the office of CGRF on 23.9.2015.

3. The Nodal Officer, i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated

23.9.2015 forwarded the comments submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.2 duly countersigned by him. In the reply it was stated that

the old meter being mechanical was replaced with an electronic meter

vide MCO dated 5.5.2015 effected on 7.5.2015. The electricity bill for the

subsequent cycle was issued on the basis of reading of new meter for

2365 units. On the request of the complainant the reading and working

of the meter was got checked and found in order. He, therefore, stated

that the bill was correct and payable by the complainant. The

consumption data for last three years along with MCO was also enclosed.

4. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not attend. It was thought

properly to give one more opportunity to the consumer to present his

case. Simultaneously RA of he Sub Division was directed to get the load

of the consumer checked. This was also communicated to the Nodal

Officer vide letter dated 1.10.2015 followed by reminders on 17.11.2015

and 11.12.2015.

5. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 4.1.2016 submitted that load of

the consumer could not be checked as premises found locked. The

servant did not allow to check the load.

6. The case was listed for hearing on 24.2.2016. On this date also, the

complainant failed to appear. The RA of the sub division present during

the hearing told that the complainant could not be contacted when

officials went for checking of the load and the servant did not allow them

to check the load. The RA also informed that the consumption was

consistent and consumption of around 2500 units during the summer

months was possible with sanctioned load of 8 KW. He supplied up to

date consumption of the consumer. It was noted that from 2500 units

during July to September 2015 the consumption dropped to 1229 units

during September to Nov. 2015 and further dropped to 657 units during

Nov. to Jan. 2016.

7. On the basis of above, the Forum is of the view that the consumption

recorded by the replaced meter is possible with the sanctioned load of 8

KW. As regards the consumer plea that in the past his consumption was

quite less, it appears that old mechanical meter might be sticky and

recording less consumption. The newly installed meter was also got

checked and found in working order.

8. With these observations, the complaint is dismissed.




















In the matter Shri Vinod Kumar, House No.4048, Sector-25,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Vinod Kumar, resident of House No.4048, Sector-25, Chandigarh

through his application dated 8.12.2015 submitted that the electricity

connection of his house No.4048, Sector-25 was not being released in his

name. After death of his father, he submitted A&A Form and other

documents to the Sub Division but Sub Division refused to release the

connection. He also enclosed copy of orders issued by High Court stating

that it was directed to transfer the said house in his name within one

month but till date no action has been taken.

2. The complaint, registered as complaint No. CG-80 of 2015 was forwarded

to the Nodal officer, XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1 for supplying parawise

comments vide letter dated 9.12.2015 with a copy to the complainant.

Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated time, reminder was issued

on 14.1.2016.

3. The Nodal Officer, i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated

1.2.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Division. No.1 wherein he submitted that the complainant failed to

submit the requisite documents as per Clause 3.5 of the Electricity

Supply Code Regulations, 2010 due to which the connection could not be

released.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 26.2.2016, the complainant as

well as RA of the ‘OP” Sub Division No.1 were present. The RA submitted

that the complainant did not submit the Will or Succession certificate in

order to get connection in his name. With regard to complainant’s

submissions referring directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court, it was

noted that the fulfilment of requirements as per Electricity Supply Code

Regulations were not met. The RA, however, suggested that the

electricity connection can be released to the complainant as “occupier”

of the premises, as he holds the documents such as Aadhar Card

supporting that he was residing in that premises. For getting connection

in his name as “owner” he will have to submit Will or Succession

Certificate or orders of the Estate Office transferring the house in his

name. The RA also stated that the decision to grant electricity

connection in Rehabilitation Colony Sector-25, Chandigarh on

submissions of residence proof instead of allotment and possession letter

by CHB have been communicated by S.E. Electy. ‘OP’ Circle, U.T.,

Chandigarh to the Division Office vide letter dated 5.1.2015, he supplied

a copy also. The decision taken in this regard is reproduced below:-

(i) In view of the clear cut judicial pronouncements as explained

in Para- 6,7,8,9 of the orders passed by Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat in Application No. 688/2013 pronounced by PLA

Dated 26.05.2014, the electricity connection has to be allowed. Since we are migrating and those persons who do

not have any proof of occupier as per supply code, but they

have been given connection by leading person M/s Rakesh Mishra & Co., they may be treated as Occupier since 2007

and, they may also be released electricity connection in the name. However, following wording may be inserted in the

A7A form/Master File/Electricity Bill.

(ii) XEN ‘OP’ 1 should submit the list of all such consumers so that the petition is filed before the JERC for appropriate

orders but at this stage to avoid theft of energy, the existing connection should migrated in the same name.

(iii) An undertaking be obtained from such occupiers that release

of electricity connection as an interim measures will in NO

way shall be treated as a proof of ownership and he/she will

abide by the decision of the JERC in this regards.

5. In view of the above, the Nodal Officer is directed to release the

connection to Shri Vinod Kumar as “occupant” of the premises after

obtaining the requisite undertaking. Compliance be reported within 21

days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be

imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act

2003.

6. With the above directions, the complaint stands disposed.





















In the matter to Shri Ankit Bansal, House No.1293, Village Burail,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Ankit Bansal, resident of House No.1293, Village Burail, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 9.12.2015 representated against the Sundry

charges of Rs.6702/- levied against his electricity bill. When he visited

the Sub Division, he was told to make the payment.



letter dated 10.12.2015 for comments with a copy to the complainant.

Reminder was issued on 8.1.2015 as the reply was not received within

stipulated time. Further reminder was issued on 1.2.2016.

3. The concerned SDO, ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated

3.2.2016 submitted the reply stating that there are 3 Nos. electricity

connections running in House No.1293, Village Burail. The connections

are in the name of Shri Krishan Kumar, Smt. Saroj and Smt. Kusum

Gupta. One No. electricity connection in the name of Shri Subhash Goel

in the same house No.1293 was disconnected due to default in payment

amounting to Rs.26809/-. This defaulting amount was transferred

equally @ Rs.6702/- against the 3 Nos. existing connections at the same

premises. He justified the transferring of amount as per Sale Manual

Instruction No.179.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 29.2.2016. On the date of hearing,

the complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division No.9 were present.

The complainant briefly stated facts of the case that the original owner of

House No.1293 sold his property to 4 persons including the complainant.

The existing electricity connection was allotted to Shri Subhash Goel one

out of 4 purchasers. Shri Subhash Goel, however, defaulted and the

electricity connection was disconnected. Subsequently he applied for a

new connection in his name. The defaulting amount of the old connection

was transferred to the Account of Shri Subhash Goel. He again defaulted

and his new connection was again disconnected. This defaulting amount

has now been transferred to other three persons of the same premises

who obtained new connection in their own name. The complainant stated

that since the electricity connections are in different names the defaulting

amount of Shri Subhash Goel cannot be transferred to their account

though the address/premises of their connection is same. The

complainant also stated that Shri Subhash Goel was still residing in his

own portion. He further stated that Shri Subhash Goel was using

electricity through probable account No. BU54/006701A with meter

No.CHSE129979.

5. The Forum observed that Supply Code Regulations 9.2(10) provides:-

“Where any consumer having more than one connection defaults in

payment of dues relating to one of the connections.”

From the above it is clear that the defaulting amount can be recovered

if the consumer is same.

6. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the factual position

verified as stated by the complainant. After locating the electricity

connection through which Shri Subhash Goel is receiving the electricity,

the total defaulting amount be transferred to this connection. The

amount already charged to 3 consumers whose connections are in

different name be withdrawn and necessary credit for the payments made

by them be given in the subsequent bills. Compliance be reported within

21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be

imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act

2003.

.

7. With these observations and directions, complaint stands disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Ashutosh Singh, Flat No.1702C/1739C, RBI

Flats, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

9. Shri Ashutosh Singh of RBI vide his representation dated 5th Jan. 2016,

received in the office on 8th Jan. 2016, pointed out the wrong generation

of electricity bill for Flat No. 1702C and 1739C of RBI Colony, Sector 44-

B, Chandigarh. Both the bills (for the period 17.9.2015 to 25.11.2015)

included the amount of the bill for the period 25.9.2015 which was

already paid. It was also been stated that the electricity meter of both

the flats were changed and consumption of the old meter was also added

in the current bill which is not correct. He requested for correction of

both the bills.




11. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ vide his letter dated 3.2.2016

forwarded the parawise comments. He stated that mechanical meters of

both the flats were changed with electronic meters on 3.9.2015. The

electricity bills for the period 7/2015 to 9/2015 were issued on average

basis due to “F” Code means meter at site was found different than the

meter as per record in the Computer Centre. He further stated that

adjustment of the bills issued on average basis would be reflected in the

forthcoming bills. The revision of the bill and adjustment was also

conveyed to the consumer vide his letter dated 3.2.2016. He also

enclosed the copy of letter written to the consumer dated 3.2.2016 and

the consumption data of both the flats.

12. The case was listed for hearing on 29.2.2016, the consumer did not

attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division informed that the

bills have already corrected to the satisfaction of the complainant.

13. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already

been redressed, considered complaint as disposed.


















In the matter to Shri Bharpur Singh, House No.292, Village Burail,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Bharpur Singh, resident of House No.292, Village Burail Chandigarh

vide his application dated 15.1.2016 stated that he was charged

Rs.56310/- as penalty for theft of Electricity through the notices issued

by the concerned ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9. Through initial assessment

notice (theft case) Rs.25970/- was demanded. He deposited the amount

on 25.7.2015. Further sundry charges of Rs.30340/- were charged in

the bill issued on 20.11.2015 which was deposited by him on

30.11.2015. He stated that amount charged to him is not justified on

the following grounds.

i) The energy consumption of old as well as replaced meter is similar.

ii) The charges calculated with the ABCD formula comes to

Rs.17532/- while actual amount comes to Rs.29644/- for the 12

month, which does not justify the theft.

iii) The amount already charged and paid against sundry charges

(Rs.30340/-) is not justified as his actual consumption was higher

than calculated with the formula.

iv) As per ECR dated 28.5.2015, the accuracy of the meter stated as

slow is also not justified, his consumption of the premises remains

similar after replacement of new meter.

v) Regarding seals, he showed his innocence and that it could have

been tempered with by old consumer.





while forwarding the comments raised the preliminary objections as

under:-

“That as per Commercial Instruction No.68/2013 dated 27.9.2013 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Electy. (OP) Circle, Chandigarh, the said

instruction addressed to the Executive Engineers, Electy. (OP) Divisions and copy endorsed to this office as well as your office vide Endst.

No.8018 dated 27.9.2013. As per this instruction, Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 against the proceedings under Section 135 of the

Electricity Act-2003 are not maintainable before the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further submitted that as

per Chandigarh Administration, Home Department Notification dated

3.10.2011, copy attaché that all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is pleased to designate

the courts of all the Additional Session Judges in Union Territory of Chandigarh as special courts for the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the

purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Section 135 to 139 of Electricity Act 2003. Hence the said case is not maintainable.”

In view of above, he requested for dismissal of the complaint on

the plea that assessment assessed as per Section 135 is not under the

purview of the Forum.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 29.2.2016, the consumer did

not attend. The RA of the sub division re-iterated written submissions by

the Sub Division.

5. The Forum observed that the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer)

Regulations, 2009 notified on 31 July. 2009 clearly provides that any

grievance arising out of application of section 135 shall not be considered

as complaint. The definition (e) under Regulation 2 reads as under:

(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum

seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of electricity by the

licensee. Provided that the following shall not be considered as the complaint.

(i) Any grievance arising out of applicant of sections

126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of the Act.”

The Forum concludes that being theft of electricity case under section

135 of Elect. Act. 2003 case bit in entertained by the Forum in view of

provisos in the Regulation as stated in Para 5 above.

6. With the above conclusion, the complaint stands disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Jagan Nah, SCO 15, Sector-26, Chandigarh


Versus



Order

1. Shri Jagan Nath, submitted a representation dated Feb.16,2016 through

e-mail that the electricity bill for SCO No.15, Sector-26, Chandigarh for

the period Nov.2015 to Jan. 2016 for 2601 units was quite on higher side

as compared to his average consumption in the past. He also supplied

details of the last five bills, out of which three bills were issued on

average basis. He stated that in the last bill fixed charges/maintenance

charges of Rs.3000/- were added in the last bill. He desired details of the

same.



letter dated 17.2.2016 for comments along with consumption data with a

copy to the complainant. Simultaneously the date of hearing was also

notified as 26.2.2016.

3. On the date of haring on 26.2.2016, the complainant did not attend.

The RA present during the hearing stated that bills for the period August

to December 2015 were issued on average basis as the premises was

found locked. The bill issued on 9.2.2016 for the period December to

Jan. 2016 is infact for the consumption of six months with adjustment of

the bills issued on average basis in the past. The RA further stated that

on receipt of complaint, Shri Lakhwinder Sigh, J.E. was deputed to verify

the reading and to check the meter and other details. He visited the

premises on 15,16,17 and 20th Feb. 2016 but found the premises locked.

Despite his calling the complainant on his mobile he could not contact the

complainant. Thereafter the Sub Division conveyed the above position to

the complainant vide letter dated 26.2.2016. The RA supplied the copy of

the letter written to the complain along with report by J.E.

4. In view of the above, the complainant is requested to check the reading

himself and if he find the reading not matching with as indicated in the

last bill, he may contact the sub division for rectification of his bill. In

case the consumer feels that the meter is not working properly, he may

deposit the requisite fee with the sub division to get his meter tested.

The Nodal Officer is directed to get the meter checked and submit a

report of CGRF in that event. Further in case the complainant requests for

details of the bills issued details of fixed/maintenance charges of

Rs.3,000/-, the same may be provided to him to his satisfaction.

5. With above, the complaint is considered as disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Tej Parkash, House No.33, Sector-5,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Tej Parkash Singh, Ex-Minister Punjab stated that Kothi No.33,

Sector-5, Chandigarh, in which there are residing, was allotted to Late

Mrs. Jaswant Kaur W/o Late S. Beant Singh, Ex-Chief Minister Punjab,

mother of the complainant. This house was included in the list of MOU

between U.T. Chandigarh and Government of Punjab to be maintained by

Punjab PWD (B&R) under Orders dated 2.11.1995 of Supreme Court.

After his mother Mrs. Jaswant Kaur expired, the house was transferred in

his name on 25.11.2010 by, His Excellency the Governor of Punjab and

Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh. However, Due to communication gap the

Punjab P.W.D. (B&R) did not maintain the said house and did not pay the

water and electricity charges since 2010 till September 2013. During this

period security personal for Z+Z/Y security providing to the family did not

have any separate electricity meter and were drawing the electricity from

the residential house. Due to non payment of bills for this period by

Punjab PWD (B&R), the late payment surcharge continued to be levied

which was not in his knowledge. The Punjab PWD (B&R), neither made

the payment nor informed the complainant in time to make the payment

of the electricity bills. On receipt of information from the Electricity

Department that the bills have not been paid and the supply would be

disconnected, he made the payment in instalments to the tune of Rs.10

lacs to clear the outstanding dues for the period Nov. 2010 to Sept.2013.

On their pursuance a separate electricity meter was installed for security

persons on 25.9.2013 for which the payment is being made directly by

Punjab PWD(B&R). The Punjab PWD (B&R) also made the payment

towards the electricity consumed by Security persons from Nov. 2010 to

Sept. 2013 on proportionate basis by taking actual consumption for 1.5

months from 25.9.2013 to 10.11.2013. He concluded his application by

stating that due to miss/wrong communication the electricity bills for the

period Nov. 2010 to Sept. 2013 were not paid and attracted huge late

payment surcharge which has been recovered from them. He stated that

if he electricity bills were delivered at his residence directly/informed by

PWD (B&R) in time, the payment would have been made in routine

manner without levy of late payment surcharge. He prayed for waiver of

late payment surcharge from Nov. 2010 to Sept. 2013 and adjustment of

the same in future bills. It was also stated in the complaint that earlier

representation on this issue was made to SDO on 26th December 2014

and to Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh Administration through D.O.

letter dated 20th Jan. 2015 but no response was received.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-61/2015 was forwarded

to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1

vide letter dated 29.10.2015 for comments with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated

3.12.2015 forwarded the reply of AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 duly

countersigned by him. The SDO stated that the payment of electricity

bills in the said premises had been received in parts and that too after

due date, resulting into levy of late payment surcharge. The late

payment surcharge was levied as per rules/regulations. He also stated

that the late payment surcharge was revisited on receipt of letter dated

26.12.2014 from the complainant and adjustment of Rs.4000/- was

allowed through sundry allowance. He also enclosed copy of letter dated

22.1.2015 written to the complainant in this regard along with details of

amount of the bills raised, the payment made and the calculations of

payment surcharge for the period 10.1.2010 to o 10.9.2015.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 7.1.2016, as the complainant

did not appear, another opportunity was given by renotifying the hearing

on 9.2.2016. The complainant did not appear on 9.2.2016 even. The

case was listed for final hearing on 1.3.2016. On this date the

complainant along with his representative attended the hearing. It was

stated during hearing that bills were being delivered to SDO Electrical

Punjab, Mini Secretariat and thus it did not come to their notice that

payments were not being paid after his mother expired on 3.8.2010.

When they came to know this fact in Sept. 2013 they started making the

payment in instalment to clear the outstanding amount. The RA

representing the Sub Division stated that bills are being delivered

through Postal Department and were being delivered at the address in

the bill i.e. at Kothi No. 33, Secor-5, Chandigarh.

5. In response to query by the Forum, the complainant informed that Mrs,

Jaswant Kaur W/o Late Shri Beant Singh, Ex-Chief Minister Punjab was

given the status of Cabinet Rank Minister till she was alive.

6. The Forum is of the view that it was clear in the orders of the Punjab

Government that the status of Cabinet Rank Minister will be applicable till

Mrs. Jaswant Kaur is alive and not thereafter. This directly implies that all

such charges including water and electricity bills was to be borne by the

residents/users of the electricity and not by the Punjab Government.

From the submissions made by the Sub Division, it appears that the bills

were being delivered at the premises directly by the Postal Department.

The Forum also noted that on the representation dated 26.12.2014 made

by the complainant to the SDO and 20th Jan. 2015 to the Chief Engineer,

U.T., Chandigarh Administration, the Sub Division allowed the refund of

Rs.4000/- after overhauling the late payment surcharge levied by the

Computer on the basis of payment made by the complainant. The late

payment surcharge is applicable as per Tariff orders notified by the

Hon’ble JERC and recoverable along with amount of usage of electricity

from the consumer in case of late or non payment of the electricity bills.

In the present case the factual position is that electricity bills were not

paid in time and therefore attracted the late payment surcharge as per

Regulations.

7. The Forum however observed that full surcharge was levied even in

those cases where the payment was made after due date but within one

month of the due date which is not correct. The Tariff Orders issued by

Hon’ble JERC clearly provides that late payment surcharge is leviable @

2% per month. Thus whenever the payment was made after due date

but within one month of date, full amount of surcharge cannot be levied,

The surcharge in such cases is to be calculated @ 2% per month on the

UNPAID Amount.

8. In view of above, the Nodal officer is directed to revisit the amount of

late surcharge levied from 2010 onwards and re-calculate the same as

per provision of the Tariff Orders. The refund on this a/c be allowed in

the subsequent bills. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the

receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by

Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.

9. With above observations and directions, the complainant stands

disposed.


















In the matter to Shri Sunil Kumar. House No.6639/C, Sector-56,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Sunil Kumar resident of House No.6639/C, Sector-56, Chandigarh

requested for checking of his electricity meter as he apprehended that the

bill was on higher side compared to his load.



letter dated 6.10.2015 for comments/action taken report.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.10 vide his letter dated

14.10.2015 submitted that the electricity meter was checked by

Shri Manoj Kumar, J.E. and he reported that the meter is in working

order. He also checked the connected load of the consumer as 0.980KW.

The AEE also confirmed that the bills raised to the consumer were as per

the readings recorded on the meter. He also supplied the consumption

data for last two years and report of checking by Shri Manoj Kumar, J.E.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 5.11.2015, but the consumer did not

appear. It was thought proper to give one more opportunity and case

was notified for hearing again on 26.11.2015. The consumer attended

the hearing and showed his dissatisfaction to the checking report and

desired to get installed check meter. The case was heard again on

21.1.2016, the SDO informed that as the consumer did not deposit the

requisite fee the check meter was not installed. The complainant prayed

for installation of check meter without charging any fee as a special case,

due to his pressing financial condition. The Forum directed the Nodal

Officer for installation of check meter by the Sub Division of their own

without charging any fee from the consumer as a special case and

submit report within 21 days.

5. On the next date of hearing on 8.3.2016, the complainant did not turn

up. The SDO supplied check meter report as per which the existing

meter consumed 44 units against 45 units by the check meter during the

period from 22.1.2016 to 8.2.2016. Thus difference of only one unit was

found in the consumption recorded by both the meters which was within

permissible limit of 3%. The Forum observed that the consumer is using

one cooler besides Refrigerator , T.V. and 2 Fans. The consumption for

cycle of 2 months is in the range of 172 to 502 units. The Forum is of

the opinion that this much consumption is possible with the appliances

being used by the consumer.

6. The Forum observing that the working of the meter is O.K.,as per check

meter report, dismiss the complaint.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by

the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs,

“Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:














In the matter to Shri V.M.Rao, House No.5812B, Sector 38 West,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri V.M.Rao, resident of House No.5812B, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh

sought the clarification in the electricity bill issued on 23.2.2016

containing arrears of Rs.2589/-. Though return e-mail he was informed

that arrears are always on account of default in payment of last bill.



letter dated 26.2.2016 for comments. Simultaneously it was conveyed

that the complaint would be heard on 8.3.2016 in the office of CGRF.

3. The complainant through e-mail dated 4th March, 2016 stated that the

problem has been sorted out as the arrear amount appearing in his bill

pertain to previous month bill which he had not received at his end. He

further informed that he remitted the total due amount and that the

problem stands resolved.

4. On the date of haring on 8.3.2016, the complainant did not appear. The

SDO stated that the arrears amount was relating to the electricity bill for

the period 9/2015 to 11/2015 which was not paid by the consumer.

Consumer was provided the details on his visit to the sub division.

5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the consumer stands resolved,

considers the complaint as disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Jai Parkash Goel, House No.2402, Sector 50-C,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Jai Parkash Goel, resident of House No.2402, Sector 50-C,

Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 27th Jan. 2016 requested for

correction of his electricity bill. He stated that his residence electricity

bills dated 27.6.2015, 25.8.2015. 23.10.2015 and 23.12.2015 have been

issued on average basis. He visited the sub division and gave written

request for issuance of bills on reading but still his electricity bills

continued to be issued on average basis.



letter dated 29.1.2016 for comments, action taken report and the

consumption data for last three years. In the meanwhile, as requested,

the complainant submitted his complaint duly signed on 5.2.2016 in the

office of CGRF. The complaint was listed for hearing on 8.3.2016 vide

letter dated 16.2.2016 with directions to Nodal Officer to submit the reply

by 4.3.2016.


submitted parawise comments. He submitted that the load of the

consumer was got checked vide ECR dated 15.2.2016 and the connected

load was found to be 7.155 KW. The meter was replaced vide MCO dated

15.7.2015 affected on 1.1.2016 being dead stop. He further stated that

as the meter was dead stop, average was being charged which would be

reviewed on the basis of future consumption as the past consumption is

on very lower side. He supplied consumption data of the consumer also.

4. On the date of haring on 8.3.2016, the complainant as well as RA of the

Sub Division No.9 were present. The RA stated that the dead stop meter

was replaced on 1.1.2016 and the bills issued during the year 2015 were

on average basis on this account. The complainant however stated that

the meter was replaced in the month of September 2015 and not on

1.1.2016. He also submitted that the AC as per ECR was installed in

the month of June 2015 and prior to that there was no AC in his house.

He supplied copy of Invoice dated 10.6.2016.

5. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, it was observed

that the meter became defective during the period 11/2014 to 1/2015.

Thereafter bills were being issued on the basis of average (1480 units)

from March 2015 onwards with meter status code ‘D’ with same reading

as 12336 (new and old). The next bill for the period 7/2015 to 9/2015

was issued with new reading as 96, but on average basis for 1480 units

with meter status code ‘F’ (meter at site different as per record). The

next bill from 9/2015 to 11/2015 was also issued on ‘F’ Code with new

reading as 341. The consumption data confirmed that the meter was

replaced in the month of September 2015 as stated by the complainant

and not on 1.1.2016. The ECR also showed that among the connected

load there was one AC of 2 ton capacity besides Microwave, Refrigerator,

Geyser etc, in the total load of 7.155 K.W. The complainant further

stated that AC was of capacity 1.5 ton and not 2 ton as per the Invoice

dated 10.6.2015 provided by him.

6. On the basis of the analysis of the consumption data, the Forum

concludes that the meter was replaced in the month of Sept.2015 and

not on 1.1.2016, as stated by the Sub Division. Further as AC was

installed by the consumer on or around 15th June 2015, the Nodal Officer

is directed to get overhaul the account as under:-

Sr.No. Period Basis of Overhauling

1. 11/2014 to 15.6.2015 On the basis of consumption

recorded during the corresponding period in the year

2013-2014 i.e. from 11/2013 to15.6.2014

2. 15.6.2015 to date of

MCO in Sept. 2015 (Date of MCO is to be

ascertained as per record).

On the basis of future

consumption to be recorded during the corresponding period

in the year 2016.

3. From date of MCO onwards

On the basis of actual reading recorded by the replaced meter.

Compliance in respect of Sr. No.1 and 3 be reported within 21 days

after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed

by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.

7. The complaint stands disposed with the above directions


















In the matter to Shri Prince Sharma, House No.157-A, DRDO

Residential Colony, Sector-42A, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Prince Sharma, Deputy Director, resident of House No.157A, DRDO

Residential Colony, Sector 42-A, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated

22nd Jan. 2016 stated that the electricity meter installed at his residence

is not working, as the reading is same as per the last bill issued. He

requested for checking and replacement of the defective meter.



letter dated 24.2.2016 for comments and taking appropriate action.

Simultaneously the case was listed for hearing on 8.3.2016 with copy to

the SDO and the complainant.

3. On the date of haring on 8.3.2016, the complainant did not appear. The

RA appearing on behalf of the Sub Division No.9 stated that MCO had

already been issued and expected to be executed in a day or so. He was

directed to submit the details after affecting the MCO.

4. The Forum observing that MCO has already been issued and the meter

would be replaced shortly as per the request by the complainant,


















In the matter to Shri Yogesh Kumar, House No.517A, Sector 31-A,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Yogesh Kumar, resident of House No.517A, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh

vide his e-mail dated Jan. 20, 2016 lodged a complaint about the problem

being faced by him in respect of Power availability in the morning.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-12/2016, was forwarded


vide letter dated 22.1.2016 for comments/action taken report with a

copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 4.2.2016

addressed to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 with a

copy to CGRF stated that the complaint regarding the Power supply by

the consumer was redressed to his satisfaction. He also enclosed a letter

by the complainant in this respect.

4. The Forum observing that the complaint of the consumer has already

been redressed to his satisfaction, considers the complaint as disposed.

















In the matter to Shri Manpreet Singh, Director, TBRL, House No.771,

Sector 29-A, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Manpreet Singh, resident of House No.771, Sector 29-A, Chandigarh,

vide his letter dated 5.10.2015 stated that his bills for the period

7.7.2014 to 7.7.2015 were prepared on fictitious readings.



vide letter dated 06.10.2015 for supplying para-wise comments/action

taken report with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated

5.11.2015 submitted that the bills of the consumer were issued on

average basis being ’F’ Code wrongly put in the meter blank during the

period 7.9.2014 to 7.1.2015. The electricity meter of the consumer was

replaced on 23.6.2014 being defective. He further stated that the

account of the consumer has already been overhauled as per actual

consumption by the meter and a sum of Rs.8005/- has been refunded, to

be reflected in the bills to be issued in the month of December 2015.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 24.11.2015, the complainant

raised that his bills were not being issued properly as per his complaint

made to the CGRF.

5. The Nodal Officer vide letter dated 26.11.2015 was directed to submit

specific response to the issues raised by the complainant regarding the

old and new meter reading in the 3 bills as mentioned in his

representation. A reminder in this respect was also issued o n

11.12.2015.

6. The AEE through his letter dated 12.1.2016 clarified that the account of

the consumer has already been overhauled and an amount of Rs.8005/-

was adjusted. He also confirmed that the complainant who was residing

in Government Accommodation paid the revised bill of Rs.34740/- on

16.10.2015.

7. The Case was again listed for hearing on 10.3.2016, the complainant did

not attend. The RA of the Sub division present during the hearing

supplied a copy of letter dated 24.2.2016 written by the complainant

requesting for issuance of NDC as he surrendered the Government

Accommodation. The details of the account overhauled on the basis of

actual reading were also supplied. He also supplied consumption data of

the consumer wherein it was noted that most of the bills were issued on

L-Code. The bills for the period 7/2014 to 1/2015 were issued on F’ Code

through on oversight as stated by the RA during the hearing.

8. Considering the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed to

his satisfaction, the complaint is considered as disposed.



















In the matter to Prop. Bajrang Fastenersm Plot No.181/21,

Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Prop. Bajrang Fasteners, Plot No. 181/21, Industrial Area, Phase-1,

Chandigarh vide his representation received in the office of CGRF on

1.1.2016 submitted that his industrial plot was lying vacant since long

and only chowkidar was residing yet he received electricity bills of the

factory on average basis from 3/2015 to 8/2015 @ Rs.4000/- Per Month.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-01/2016 was forwarded to


letter dated 05.1.2016 for supplying para-wise comments/action taken

report with a copy to the complainant.


addressed to the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 with a

copy to CGRF stated that the electricity bills to the complainant were

issued on ‘D’ Code for the period 3/2014 to 8/2015, with average @ 149

units per month. However, during the period 3/2015 to 8/2015 average

was increased to 4000 units per month in view of the connected load of

the consumer. When the consumer challenge the bill, his premises was

got verified to be lying vacant as per report dated 11.2.2016. He further

stated that very low consumption was observed after replacement of the

meter on 16.7.2015. Accordingly on the basis of verification report and

the consumption of the replaced meter, the electricity account of ther

consumer was overhauled w.e.f. 7.3.2014 to 16.7.2015 on the basis of

future consumption from 7/2015 to 12/2015 i.e. @ 528 units per month.

A sum of Rs. 58750/- has been adjusted on account of overhauling to be

reflected in the next bill. He also supplied copy of SJO, MCO and the

consumption data for last three years.

4. On the date of hearing on 10.3.2016, the complainant did not appear.

The RA of the Sub Division reiterated written submission.

5. The Forum observing that the account has already been overhauled after

physical verification, considers the complaint as disposed.


















In the matter to Shri Davinder Kumar, House No.170, Phase-I, Ram

Darbar, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Davinder Kumar, resident of House No.170, Phase-I, Ram Darbar,

Chandigarh vide his e-mail dated Oct. 20, 2015 stated that he visited the

office of the Sub Division on 9.10.2015 and requested for change of his

faulty meter which was not replaced till filing of the complaint.



letter dated 21.10.2015 for parawise comments/action taken report with

a copy to the complainant. Due to non receipt of reply within stipulated

time, reminder was issued to 17.11.2015 followed by reminders dated

11.12.2015 and 14.1.2016.

3. The complaint was listed for hearing on 10.3.2016, the consumer did not

attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the

meter had already been replaced on 24.11.2015. He supplied a copy of

MCO and forwarding the letter written to the office of S.E. Electy. ‘OP’

Circle, U.T., Chandigarh in this regard.

4. The Forum observing that the grievance of the consumer had already

been redressed, considers the complaint as disposed.



















In the matter to Shri Vimal Gupta, ASCO Optical Ind., 0508,



Versus




Order

1. Shri Vimal Gupta of M/s ASCO Optical Ind, 0508, Industrial Area, Phase-

2, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 29th December, 2015 stated that

though he made payment of the bill on due date yet surcharge was levied

in the next bill.



letter dated 04.1.2016 for parawise comments/action taken report with a


3. The complaint was listed for hearing on 10.3.2016, the consumer did not

attend. The RA present on the behalf of the Sub Division supplied a copy

of written reply dated 9.3.2016 wherein it was admitted that the

surcharge was wrongly added by the Computer for the bills issued for the

period 24.9.2015 to 24.10.2015 and 24.10.2015 to 24.11.2015 though

the payments were made within due date. He further submitted that

amount of surcharge -Rs.150 +136=Rs.286/- has been adjusted

manually through Sundry Charge and Allowance Register after discussion

with the Incharge Computer Cell and the refund will be reflected in the

electricity bill to be issued in the month of April 2016.

4. On the basis of written reply and oral submissions during the hearing by

RA, the Forum observes that the grievance of the complainant has

already been redressed with preparation of Sundry allowance amounting

to Rs.286/-to be reflected in the bill to be issued in the month of April

2016. With these observations, the Forum considers the complaint as

disposed. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to keep a watch that

the computer also do not adjust wrongly picked up surcharge on its own

in near future.

. “The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by

the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before

















In the matter to Dr. G.D. Bansal, House No.2177, Sector-15,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Dr. G.D. Bansal, resident of House No.2177, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 18.1.2016 stated that his electricity meter got

burnt in June 2014. The meter was changed after he deposited the cost

of meter as Rs.1550/- on 10.6.2014 on the advice of the Sub Division.

However, subsequently in the bill dated 8.10.2015 a sum of Rs.1550/-

has again been added towards the cost of the burnt meter. He requested

for refund of amount charged twice. He enclosed copy of bill and the

letter written to the Sub Division.



letter dated 20.1.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to

the complainant. The complainant also submitted written complaint on

25.1.2016 as requested by the Forum.


submitted that the burnt meter of the consumer was replaced on

13.12.2014. As per request of the consumer, refund entry of Rs.1550/-

was duly passed by his office. It came to notice, however, that meter of

the consumer was earlier changed on 12.10.2013 as burnt when the cost

of meter was not charged when replaced. The Internal Auditor,

therefore, asked to Ledger Keeper for overhauling of the account and the

refund was not allowed. He also supplied copy of both the MCOs and

consumption data of the consumer.

4. The Case was listed for hearing on 11.3.2016, the consumer did not

appear. The SDO reiterated his written submissions. The Forum

observed that the cost of meter charged in the bill pertains to the cost of

the burnt meter, replaced on 12.10.2013 and thus charging by the sub

division is in order. Further from the consumption data it was observed

that for the period 8/2013 to 10/2013, no average was charged to the

consumer. Also during the period 6/2014 to 10/2014 average was

charged, but for the period 10/2014 to date of MCO i.e. 13/14 /14 no

average was charge for the burnt meter remained in operation. The

Forum, therefore, agrees with the Sub Division that the account of the

consumer is required to be overhauled for the period burnt meter was

replaced (during 2013 and also during 2014), on the basis consumption

recorded in the past for the corresponding period

5. With the above, complaint is considered as disposed.

















In the matter to Smt. Manjit Kaur, Assistant Manager, New India

Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, SCO 37-38, Sector-17, Chandigarh.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Smt.Manjit Kaur, Assistant Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office, SCO 37-38, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through e-mail

dated 18 Jan. 2016 stated that the electricity bill for November to

December 2015 has not been delivered to them which may delay the

payment before due date.




the complainant. The case was listed for hearing on 11.3.2016 with the

request to the Nodal Officer to ensure submission of the reply by 8th

March 2016 vide letter dated 23.2.2016.


submitted that the bills of the group were generated on 22.1.2016

which was delivered to the consumer. Confirmation on telephone of the

same was obtained on 27.1.2016. He stated that the complaint was

premature as it was made before the generation of the bill.

4. On the date of hearing on 11.3.2016, the complainant did not appear.

The Forum observing from the written reply of the Sub Division noted

that complaint was premature and also that bill was delivered before the

due date.

5. With above, the complaint is dismissed.

















In the matter to Smt. Inderjit Kaur, House No.341, Sector 35-A,

Chandigarh.

……..Petitioner

Versus




Order

1. Smt. Inderjit Kaur, resident of House N0. 341, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh

through her representation dated 8.2.2016 stated that the house where

she was residing is in the name of her father who passed away on 7th

Sept. 1978. One three phase electricity connection is already existing in

the name of her father. However, they are two legal heir of her father’s

property and residing at same house in separate portions. A Civil suit is

pending in the court regarding share percent of the said property. She

applied for a new electricity connection for the same house which was

refused by the SDO. She further stated that she also approached Lower

Court for grant a new connection. She enclosed letter of AEE Sub/Division

No. 7 and the information sought under RTI with the application.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-24/2016, was forwarded to



the complainant.


submitted that one number three phase electricity connection is already

existing in the said house. As per rules of the department only one

connection can be released for one floor as per instructions circulated

vide letter dated 12.1.2001. The site was also got checked and found

that there is only ground floor existing at the premises, as such the

second electricity connection could not be released for the ground floor.

He also informed that a case is pending for adjudication in the Hon’ble

Court of Shri Paramjit Singh, Additional District & Session Judge,

Chandigarh to install two separate electricity connection at the premise

with next date of hearing on 17.3.2016.

4. The case was notified for hearing on 14.3.2016, the complainant besides

her brother Shri Sukhdev Singh, The other legal heir of said property

appeared. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.7 re-iterated his written

submissions that 2nd electricity connection cannot be allowed at the same

floor and also that the case is already in the Court. The brother of the

complainant agreed to withdraw the case from the Court in case

department agrees to release the connection in favour of his sister. He

stated that her sister was living in separate portion and as such the new

electricity connection be released in her name for proper accounting for

which he has no objection.

5. The Forum noting that the complainant was living in a separate portion

and was one of the legal heir of the said house, directs the Nodal Officer

to release the connection in favour of the complainant provided the case

in the Court for release of 2nd connection is withdrawn. The new

connection be released after fulfilling the various formalities provided

under Regulations 3.5(3) of the Supply Code Regulations. The consent of

Shri Sukhdev Singh, brother of the complainant, other legal heir

regarding no objection may also be obtained.



















In the matter to Shri Gautam Ranjan Das, House No.629, Sector 32-

A, Chandigarh.

……..Petitioner

Versus




Order

1. Shri Gautam Ranjan Das through his e-mail dated 3rd March, 2016 stated

that he was to get the refund of stands security against his previous

electricity connection at House No.629, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh. The

payment was not being made due to non availability of cheque for the

last two weeks.



vide letter dated 10.3.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy

to the complainant. Simultaneously the complaint was notified for


3. On the date of hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant did not attend.

The SDO stated that refund of security deposit has already been released

to the consumer through cheque on 14.3.2016. He also showed the

receipt of the same by the consumer. The complainant through e-mail

dated 16.3.2016 also confirmed that the problem was being resolved.

4. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already

been redressed, consider the complaint disposed.


















In the matter to Shri Anil Salwan, Manager of RBI, Flat No.656A,

Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

……..Petitioner

Versus




Order

1. Shri Anil Salwan, Manager, RBI through his complaint dated 1.2.2016

pointed out wrong generation of electricity bill of Flat No.656A, RBI

Colony, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. He submitted that the meter was

changed and in the current bill, the corresponding units of old meter were

added where as the previous bill was prepared on average basis.



letter dated 03.02.2016 for comments/action taken report along with

consumption data with a copy to the complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div. No.6 vide his letter dated 17.2.2016

submitted that the meter of the said flat was replaced on 6.11.2015. He

further stated that bill for the period 28.10.2015 to 28.12.2015 will be

revised on the basis of future consumption recorded by the new meter as

past consumption data is not available. He also conveyed that connected

load was checked and found to be 4.130 KW.

4. During the hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant did not attend. The

SDO present during the hearing, stated that the account of the consumer

will be overhauled on the basis of future consumption. The Forum from

the consumption data, observed that since December 2013 the bills were

prepared either on Nil consumption or average consumption as the meter

was found to be dead stop.

5. The above proposal by the SDO regarding overhauling of account on the

basis of future consumption is accepted in the absence of past

consumption data. The Nodal officer is directed to get the A/c overhauled

when sufficient data of the replaced meter becomes available. The

complainant is also requested to pay current bill subject to adjustment at

later date.




















In the matter to Shri Gulshan Arora, Booth NO.309, Sector 32-D,

Chandigarh.

……..Petitioner

Versus




Order

1. Shri Gulshan Arora, tenant of Booth NO.309, Sector 32, Chandigarh

through his complaint dated 9.11.2015 stated that in Jan. 2014, he

changed the trade from Baker’s to Garments (General Shop). In the bill

with issue date 22.10.2015 he was charged an amount of Rs.40,566/- on

account of overhauling of his account for the period meter remained

defective. He stated that his consumption after change of trade w.e.f.

Jan.2014 was much less as compared to the consumption recorded during

the period Baker shop was there . He stated that overhauling on the

basis of the prior consumption is not in order and requested for reworking

out the charges.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-66 of 2015, was

forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’

Division No. 3 vide letter dated 10.11.2015 for comments/action taken

report along with consumption data for last three years with a copy to

the complainant.


submitted his comments that the meter which became defective on

26.11.2013 was replaced on 28.9.2015 being dead sop. Thereafter the

account was overhauled w.e.f. 26.11.2013 to 28.9.2015 on the basis of

previous consumption recorded during the period November 2012 to Nov.

2013. He supplied copy of MCO and consumption data.

4. On the date of hearing on 13.1.2016, the Complainant stressed that his

electricity consumption during his change business was quite on lower

side as compared to the consumption when he was running a Baker’s

shop and thus charging on that basis is not justified. The SDO was

directed to verify the statement of the complainant about change of his

business and also the load and position of AC(s) in the shop. The

necessary directions were conveyed to the Nodal Officer vide letter dated

15.1.2016. n the mean time, the complainant vide his letter dated

22.1.2016 submitted an affidavit regarding change of his trade w.e.f.

Jan. 2014 duly attested by the Notary.

5. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 9.3.2016 submitted the ECR

dated 25.1.2016 regarding the checking of the load and stated that the

load was found within sanctioned load.

6. On the next date of hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant as well as

Shri Madan Mohan who recently took over the charge of Sub Division

No.6, from Shri Krishan Verma, were present. Shri Madan Mohan stated

that he would ascertain the date of change of business from the

neighbours/meter reader and in case contention of the complainant is

found true, the account of the complainant would be overhauled in two

parts as under:-

For the period prior to change of business, the account during the

period meter remained defective, would be overhauled on the basis of

consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the recent past.

Further for the period after change of business, the account up to the date

of MCO would be overhauled on the basis of future consumption recorded

by the meter, for the corresponding period.

7. On the basis of above, the Forum directs the Nodal Officer to take

further action as per verification of the actual date of change of business

and get the account overhauled on the lines of suggestions made by the

SDO and convey the factual position within 21 days to the Forum. The

complainant is also requested to make the payment of Rs.20,000/-

towards sundry charges levied in the bill issued on 22.10.2015 subject to

the adjustment at a later date.

8. Complaint is disposed with the above directions.















Complaint No. - GR-13/2016 Date of Institution - 21.1.2016 Date of Order - 16.03.2016 In the matter to Shri Ramesh Lal, SCO 32, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

……..Petitioner

Versus



Order

1. Shri Ishwar Chand on behalf of Shri Ramesh Lal through his complaint dated

21.1.2016 stated that the electricity bill was received on 16th Jan. 2016 for

Rs.41021/- for SCO No.32, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh which included sundry

charges. On contacting the Sub Division, it was conveyed that the meter was

defective for the period 8.4.2013 to 6.6.2015 and after replacement the account was

overhauled on the basis of average consumption for the period 8/2012 to 8/2013.

He enclosed copy of the bill and notice received from the sub division.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-13/2016, was forwarded to the

Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated

27.1.2016 for comments/action taken report along with consumption data with a


3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div. No.6 vide his letter dated 4.2.2016 submitted that

the dead stop meter was replaced on 6.6.2015 and the account during the period

meter was defective (for the period 8.4.2013 to 6.6.2015) was overhauled on the

basis of previous consumption from 8/2011 to 8/2012. Accordingly an amount of

Rs.3609/- was debited to the consumer through sundry charges. On A/c of less

recovery.

4. On the date of hearing on 10.2.2016, both the SDO and the complainant were

present. Representative of the complainant stated that they were not aware that the

meter were defective and were under the impression that mechanical meter was

being replaced with electronic meter. They also contested that continuation of

defective meter for such a long period. The SDO attributed the delay in replacement

of meter to non availability of meters and shortage of staff. He also stated that the

consumer never approached the Sub Division for replacement of meter. The details

of overhauling were provided to the complainant who sought time to study the

consumption.

5. Thereafter the case was notified again for hearing on 16.3.2016. The complainant

did not attend. The Forum observed that overhauling of the account should have

been from 10/2012 to 6.6.2015 on the basis of one year consumption recorded

during the period 10/2011 to 10/2012.

6. The Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled on the basis of

observations made by the Forum as above. Compliance reported within 21 days

after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble

JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.















In the matter to Shri Tejinder Singh Bagga, House No. 315, Sector

49-A, Chandigarh.

……..Petitioner

Versus




Order

1. Shri Tejinder Singh Bagga, resident of House No. 315, Sector 49-A,

Chandigarh through his representation dated 2.2.2016 stated that his

meter became defective on 2nd June 2015 as he noted that the reading

was same. He brought it to the notice of the SDO concerned for taking

further action. Till his meter was changed, he was receiving the bill on

average basis which he was paying regularly. Simultaneously the matter

was pursued with the Sub Division for replacement of meter. For the bill

issued on 24.1.2016 after replacement of meter the sundry charges were

levied amounting to Rs.16104/-. Further the meter was changed for

which neither he was contacted nor any information was given to him. In

view of the facts that he constantly pursued with the department for

replacement of the defective meter and the payment of the bills issued on

average basis, he preyed that sundry charges amounting to Rs.16104/-

should not be charged to him. He also pointed out that during this

period his son moved out and also consumption was neglible although

the bills were issued on average basis.



vide letter dated 03.02.2016 for comments/action taken report along

with consumption data for last three years with a copy to the

complainant.


submitted parawise comments that the dead stop meter was replaced on

14.12.2015 and the account of the consumer was overhauled for the

period 26.2.2015 to 14.12.2015 on the basis of consumption recorded

during 2014-15 @ 585 units per month. An amount of Rs.16014/- was

debited on account of less charging as per Hon’ble JERC norms.

4. On the date of hearing on 16.3.2016, the complainant reiterating his

written submissions stated that they were away on L.T.C for 15 days to

Andaman & Nocobar Islands, as such average for the period they were

away should not be charged. Subsequently he provided the Office Order

with regard to sanctioning of LTC in his favour from 15.6.2015 to

30.6.2015 issued by Deputy Director Administration, P.G.I., Chandigarh.

With regard to delay in replacement of meter despite pursuance by

complainant, the SDO stated that meter could not be changed due to non

availability of the meters/shortage of staff. He stated that the sundry

charges were levied after overhauling the account with the average

worked out on the basis of corresponding period in the recent past.

5. The Forum on the basis of the LTC sanctioned order provided by the

complainant, directs the Nodal Officer not to charge the average for the

period 15.6.2015 to 30.6.2015 when the complainant was on Earned

Leave for availing LTC. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the

receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by



















In the matter to Shri Anurag, S/o Shri Darshan Chand, SCF No.25,

Sector 27-C, Chandigarh..

……..Petitioner

Versus




Order

1. Shri Anurag through his representation dated 9.3.2016 submitted that a

false theft case has been implicated against his electricity connection on

his NRS connection at SCF No.25, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh. He stated

that business of sweets is being running at the shop for last 40 years and

there has been no act of mischief on their part with regard to the

electricity connection. His connection was checked on 5.11.2015 and the

load was found within sanctioned load. The meter was removed on the

plea that seals were not found in order. The meter was checked in the

Lab on 16.2.2016 and the accuracy was found O.K. After opening the

meter it was pointed out that the seals are tempered with and an

additional wire was found inside the meter. He showed his innocence and

stated that the meter was installed outside their premises and they have

not played with the meter and refuted the allegations of the department.

They also prayed for setting aside the penalty.



vide letter dated 11.3.2016 for comments/action taken report along with

consumption data with a copy to the complainant. Simultaneously the

hearing of the case was fixed for 21.3.2016.


submitted that the appeal is not maintainable as the assessment notice is

made due to theft case. The Chandigarh Administration, Home

Department Notification vide No. 8/7/2-1H(8)-2011/17800 dated

3.10.2011 has designated the courts of all the Additional Session Judges

in Union Territory of Chandigarh as Special Courts for the Union Territory

of Chandigarh for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences

referred to in section 135 to 139 of Electricity Act-2003. On the basis of

above, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the date of hearing on 21.3.2016, the complainant as well as SDO

were present. SDO relied upon the notification dated 3.10.2011 and

pressed for dismissing the complaint. The complainant with regard to

Regulations notified by Hon’ble JERC that the grievance relating to theft

under Section 135 of the Electricity Act are not to be treated as complaint

showed his dis-satisfaction and that the provisions of the Act against the

consumer interest are not fine.



Regulations, 2009 notified on 31 July. 2009 clearly provides that any


as complaint. The attention was drawn towards definition (e) under

Regulation 2 which reads as under:

“(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of

electricity by the licensee. Provided that the following shall not be considered as the complaint. (i) Any grievance arising out of

applicant of sections 126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of the Act.”

In view of above Forum concludes that it has no jurisdiction in the

present case.

6. With above observations, the case is considered as disposed.

















In the matter Shri Ravinder Mohan Wahee, SCO 6-7, Sector 17-B,

Chandigarh.


Versus


2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.04, UT, Chandigarh. 3. The A.O. Haryana Slum Clearance Board, Bays No.11-14,

Sector-4, Panchkula.


Order

1. Shri Ravinder Mohan Wahee, Manager of M/s Harman & Sons, SCO 6-7,

Sector 17-B, Chandigarh vide his representation dated 22.12.2015 stated

that his firm is running a tailoring shop at the above mentioned premises

which is owned by Shri G.K. Garg. All the electricity connections in the

building are, however, in the name of Shri Suresh Chand. His firm was

getting Power Supply from a separate meter A/c No. 104/1743/7053GP2.

In the bill for the period June 2015 to August 2015 sundry charges

amounting to Rs.1,76,631/- were added which he submitted that does

not belong to them.




complainant. Due to non receipt of comments within stipulated time

reminder was issued on 14.1.2016.


27.1.2016 submitted parawise comments on the representation of the

complainant. He submitted that the electricity connection bearing A/c

No. 1743/705412U in the name of Shri Suresh Chand was disconnected

due to non payment of electricity bill and after serving a notice dated

7.8.2015, the outstanding amount of Rs.1,76,631/- against this

connection was transferred to the one out of two Accounts

(1743/7043G2) of the complainant as both electricity connections are in

the name of Shri Suresh Chand. The ACD available with the Sub Division

was adjusted before transferring the amount. The complainant failed to

make the payment and the connection bearing A/c No. 1743/7043G2

was temporarily disconnected in view of provision of Regulations 9.2(10)

of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations. Thereafter the defaulting

amount was transferred to another account in the same name which is

being used by the complainant namely Shri Ravider Moihan Wahee. He

prayed for dismissal of the complaint as amount was transferred in line

with the Supply Code Regulations and the Commercial Instruction dated

16.5.2013 of the Electricity Department.

4. In the meanwhile, the complainant vide his letter dated 29.1.2016

requested for acceptance of current consumption charges and not to

disconnect his electricity connection. The Nodal Officer was accordingly

directed to accept the current consumption charges only vide letter dated

1.12.2016. Simultaneously the case was listed for hearing at the earliest

possible date i.e. 4.2.2016 for taking a final view. The hearing was

postponed to 12th Feb. 2016 as the concerned SDO conveyed his inability

to attend the hearing on 4th Feb. 2016 due to his pre-occupation in some

court case.

5. On the date of hearing on 12.2.2016, the complainant as well as RA of

the Sub Division No.4 were present. The complainant briefly conveyed

the following facts.

That the building consists of basement, ground floor, first floor, 2nd

floor and 3rd floor with electricity connections as detailed below, all in the

name of Shri Suresh Chand.

Basement - One independent connection.

Ground Floor -Three Independent connection including 2 connections belonging to that of the complainant.

1st,2nd & 3rd floor -All floors with independent connections were occupied by one tenant namely Haryana Slum

Clearance Board, Haryana Government Department.(herein after mentioned as ‘Board’).

6. He stated that Board handed over possession all the floors during March

2015 after shifting their own building in Panchkula and vacating the

same.

The RA of the Sub Division further stated that all the three

connections feeding electricity to ‘Board’ on 3 floors were disconnected

due to non payment of the electricity bills. The ACD was adjusted to

clear the defaulting amount in respect of 2nd floor and 3rd floor. The

defaulting amount of the first floor, however, could not be cleared even

after adjusting the ACD and was transferred to one of the electricity

connection at Ground floor in the name of same consumer but being

used by the complainant. He further elaborated that the meter of the 1st

floor was found defective and account was overhauled w.e.f. 19.2.2014

to 24.4.2015 on the basis of past consumption before transferring the

amount. He also informed that Board through their letter dated

22.1.2016 has offered to clear the defaulting amount from 1.7.2014 to

13.3.2015 pertaining to them stating that they had paid the electricity

bills up to June 2015. It was further stated in the letter that the above

electricity connection pertains to 3 parties i.e. ‘Board’, Premi Tea Stall

and M/s Harmon & Sons and therefore, the bill pertaining to ‘Board’ may

be conveyed to them. The RA supplied a copy of letter from the Board.

The above position as stated by the ‘Board’ that the electricity

connection was feeding to 3 tenants was contrary to the facts narrated

by the complainant. It was, therefore, thought proper to make ‘Board’

as party in the case.

7. The case was notified to be heard again on 25.2.2016 with directions to

Nodal Officer to check and confirm the factual position about the

connection as stated by the complainant. The necessary directions were

issued vide letter dated 16.2.2016 with copy to the Accounts Officer of

the ‘Board’ with the request to make it convenient to attend the hearing

on 25.2.2016 to work out all the details of outstanding amount of the bill.

8. On 25.2.2016, the Accounts Officer as well as Care Taker of the Board

attended the hearing besides the complainant and the SDO ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.4. The Accounts Officer informed that they shifted in their

own building at Panchkula and vacated the rented accommodation in

Sector-17 on 12.4.2014 but the physical possession was not handed over

and the case was put up to Haryana Government for permission. The

Haryana Government was considering shifting of some other offices of

the State Government to this building vacated by the Board. In between

the owner moved the Court for vacation/physical possession on the plea

that the allotting the premises to some other Government Department

would be subletting. The physical possession of the building was

ultimately handed over on 15.3.2015 after the Court Order on the

application by the owner. The A.O. stated that the electricity bills up to

30.6.2014 amounting to Rs.15495/- were paid by them in August 2014

and since the all floors were vacant from April 2014 onwards the

electricity consumption would be almost nil.

9. The SDO stated that the meter of the First Floor was found defective

(display defective) in April 2015 and accordingly the account was

overhauled from the date the bills were issued on average basis i.e. from

19.2.2014 to 24.4.2015 (Date of MCO) on the basis of consumption

recorded during the period 2/2013 to 2/2014. He also supplied a copy of

MCO and basis of charging and the consumption data from 19.4.2013 to

19.4.2015.

10. On the facts, as stated by the complainant and Accounts Officer of Board,

it appears that there was practically no consumption of electricity on any

of the first, 2nd or 3rd floor of the building once the Board shifted their

office to Panchkula. Thus it appeared that the overhauling done by the

Licensee of the account does not appear to be right action. The only

recoverable amount after June 2014 (Date up to which the electricity bill

was paid) could be of minimum/fixed charges and meter rental and other

rentals, if any. The SDO, however, requested for granting week’s time

to study the case stating that he took over the charge of the Sub Division

recently on transfer.

The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 during hearing of another case on

21.3.2016 agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Forum as stated in

Para 10 above.

16. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate the charges

to be recovered from Haryana Slum Clearance Board in line with the

inference drawn in Para 10. The charges debited to the Account of the

complainant are set aside. The compliance be reported within 21 days



11. With these observations and directions, the complaint is considered as

disposed.





















In the matter Prof. Satish Kumar Soni, House No.659, Sector-12,

PEC, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Asso. Prof. Satish Kumar Soni, Department of Mechanical Engg., PEC

University of Technical, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated Nov. 26,

2015 stated that his electricity bill for his residence (House No.659,

Sector-12, PEC Campus, Chandigarh) issued in the month of September

2015 amounting to Rs.12626/- was quite on higher side. He challenged

the meter and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.500/- with the concerned

Sub Division. A check meter was installed and it was observed that the

meter installed at his residence was 197% fast. The SDO, however,

refused to overhaul the account and sent the meter for further testing in

the Lab. He requested for charging the bill as per the check meter

report.




complainant. In the meanwhile the complainant submitted written

complaint duly signed along with the receipt of fee of Rs.500/- and the

representation to the SDO.

3. The Nodal Officer, Xen. i.e. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated

18.1.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the concerned SDO ‘OP’

Sub Division No.4 duly countersigned. In the reply the SDO stated that

the complainant challenged the meter on 28.8.2015 and a check meter

was installed. The disputed meter was found to be fast by 197.14% and

was replaced vide MCO dated 19.9.2015. Thereafter the meter was sent

to M&P Lab as per advice of the Internal Auditor posted in his office. The

meter was tested in the presence of the consumer on 13.10.2015 and

was found to be working O.K. with errors within permissible limits. He

enclosed consumption data of last three years, copy of MCO and M&P Lab

report.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 25.2.2016 when the complainant

reiterated his written submissions stating that the account should have

been overhauled on the basis of check meter report. The SDO could not

attend the hearing and the hearing was continued to 25.2.2016. The

complainant expressed his inability and stated that he has no further

submissions to make in this case.

on 25.2.2016, the facts of the case were deliberated with the SDO

and his attention was invited to the Supply Code Regulations No.7.5(2)

reproduced below:-

7.5(2) “A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter,

if he doubts its accuracy, or meter reading not commensurate with his consumption, stoppage of meter, damage of seal by applying to the

licensee along with the requisite testing fee. The licensee shall test the meter within 30 days of receipt of complaint as provided in Standards of

Performance of Distribution Licensee Regulations. Preliminary testing of

meters can be carried out at the premises of the consumers through electronic testing equipment.”

(i) In case the meter i found O.K., no further action shall

be taken.

(ii) In case the meter is found fast/slow by the licensee, and the consumer agrees to the report, the meter, shall

be replaced by a new meter within 15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to the month in which the

dispute has arisen shall be revised in the subsequent bill as per the test results. In case meter is found to

be slow, the additional charges may be recovered in

instalments not exceeding three, if the consumer shows

his inability to pay at a time.

5. The SDO, however, requested for granting week’s time to study the case

stating that he took over the charge of the Sub Division recently on

transfer.

The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.4 during hearing in another case on

21.3.2016 though did not dispute the check meter report but expressed

his reservation of giving relief to the complainant in view of subsequent

check of meter in the Lab.

6. The Forum is of the view that once the meter was found to be running

fast as per check meter report, the action should have been taken as per

Regulations 7.5(2) (ii) of the Supply Code Regulations. Once the

consumer agreed with the report, his bills for previous 3 months prior to

the month in which dispute arisen should have been revised as per the

test report.

With regard to contradictory reports of Check Meter and the Lab, the

Forum is of the view that Check Meter Captures the meter reading

jumping event whereas such events may not get noticed as the meter is

tested for short duration.

18. In view of above and the provisions in the such Regulations 7.5(2)(ii) of

Supply Code the bills of the consumer be revised as per provisions of the

Supply Code . Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of

the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as

per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.

19. With above directions, the complaint stands dismissed.







20. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent

to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for

compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after

having it properly numbered and indexed.








In the matter to Shri Meharban Singh, SCO 1050, Sector 22-B,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Meharban Singh, SCO 1050, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh vide his letter

dated 23.12.2015 made a complaint regarding wrong inflated bill sent to

them by the Electricity Department. He also requested that his

connection should not be disconnected till the decision by the Forum.




taken report with a copy to the complainant. Directions were also issued

for not to disconnect the connection till the disposal of the complaint.

3. Subsequently Shri Meharban Singh vide his letter dated 4.2.2016,

received in the office on 5.2.2016, submitted detailed representation that

the electricity department demand of electricity bill for Rs.5,55,175/- is

wrong for which they approached the concerned Sub Division. From the

contents of the representation, it appears that demand was on account of

charging due to wrong application of the meter multiplier after

replacement of CT/PT meter in Feb.2014. It was also pointed out that

their connection stands disconnected despite the orders passed by the

CGRF. This complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP

Division No.1 for comments as the reply to the earlier representation

dated 4.1.2016 was not received by the Forum. Due to non receipt of

reply to Forum’s letter dated 4.1.2016, reminder was issued on 9.2.2016

while enclosing the complaint dated 04.02.2016 by the consumer.


23.2.2016 submitted that the complainant has also filed the case in the

District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh vide

Complaint NO.53 of 2016 for the similar relief and therefore, the

complaint is not maintainable as per CGRF Regulations. He enclosed

copy of the application filed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh.

5. The complaint was listed for hearing on 22.3.2016, the consumer as well

as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No. 1 were present. The consumer admitted

that they had moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II,

U.T. Chandigarh for the relief. They were informed that since they have

approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, U.T., the

CGRF can not entertain the complaint. The complainant preferred to

pursue the complaint filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressa

Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh.

6. With above observations that the complainant has already approached

the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , U.T., Chandigarh, the

CGRF can not entertain the complaint, the complaint stands disposed



















In the matter Shri Dinesh Prashar, House No.737, 2nd Floor, Sector-

22, Chandigarh.


Versus


2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.01, UT, Chandigarh. 3. Shri Rakesh Prashar, House No.1030, Sector-37, Chd.


Order

1. Shri Dinesh Prashar, resident of House No.737, 2nd floor, Sector 22-A,

Chandigarh vide his representation dated 2.9.2015, received in the office

of CGRF on 3.9.2015 made a complaint against the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.1 and Shri Rakesh Prashar, resident of House No.1030, Sector 37-B,

Chandigarh. The complainant stated that he was in possession of 2nd

floor of the House No.737, Sector 22-A Chandigarh. The first floor was in

the possession of Shri Rakesh Prashar. The ground floor is occupied by

Shri Pawan Prashar. All the three floors had separate electricity meter

and separate account for each floor. Shri Rakesh Prashar (Respondent

No.3) occupant of 1st floor shifted to House No.1030, Sector 37-B,

Chandigarh about ten years back. He stopped making payment of his

electricity connection at first floor and the electricity connection was

disconnected by the electricity department on account of default in

payment. In the bill issued on 8.4.2015 the defaulting amount of Shri

Rakesh Prashar was added to the complainant’s bill amounting to

Rs.1,13,897/- . The matter was taken up with the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.1 stating that the amount relates to Shri Rakesh Prashar who is

running a Juice Bar in Shop No.28, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh and at

present residing at House No.1030, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh. The matter

was taken up with the SDO for transferring the amount to the account or

Shri Rakesh Prashar, the defaulter. However, no action was taken by the

SDO and the applicant was forced to approach Permanent Lok Adalat.

The Electricity department submitted in the Permanent Lok Adalat that

the amount was transferred in line with the Sales Manual Instruction 179

as both electricity connections are existing in the name of Smt. Sant

Kaur. Shri Rakesh Prashar was also impleaded who appeared on

22.07.2015 and admitted his possession of the first floor, though he

accepted his liability but pointed out faults in the meter reading. The

Permanent Lok Adalat, however, dismissed the application of the

applicant vide order dated 17.8.2015.

Thereafter the applicant approached the Pb & Hr. High Court through

CWP No.17860 of 2015. The Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order

dated 28.8.2015 stayed the recovery of amount and disconnection of

electricity for 15 days/ till filing an application to the CGRF. In view of

above background that the complainant prayed that the disputed amount

relating to Respondent No.3 i.e. Shri Rakesh Prashar be set aside and

further name of the electricity connections existing in the name of Smt.

Sant Kaur be corrected in the record as Smt. Sant Kaur is fictitious name,

the property belongs to Lt. Shri Satkam Prashar. He also prayed for

refraining the electricity department from disconnection of his supply.




complainant. Due to non receipt of reply, a reminder was issued to the

Nodal Officer for supplying comments on the application within five days

for taking further action vide letter dated 14.10.2015. Further reminder

was issued on 2.11.2015 with the directions to submit the following

details specifically

a) Reply along with comments on applicants letter submitted on

2.11.2015. b) Not to disconnect the supply.

c) As the person not residing since 2001, then how the bill became R.70,000/-.

d) Why the connection was not disconnected when the consumer first became defaulter.

e) Whether bill on reading. f) 50% of disputed amount not being got deposited in view of c&d above.

Only current bill amount to be deposited.

Subsequently the case was notified for hearing on 16.11.2015.

3. On 16.11.2015, the complainant and his sister and SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.1 were present. The reply submitted by the SDO was deliberated and SDO

was directed to supply additional information.

i) Last 5 years consumption of all the floors.

ii) PDCO date of the first floor. iii) The period along with amount, the first floor occupant was

defaulter. iv) Load of the first floor,

v) Units of old meter (26356 units were added at the time of MCO in

the bill for the period 3/2013 to 5/2013 of the first floor. How these units when the previous bills were being issued on ‘Z’ code on same

reading/one unit.

It was also decided that the 3rd respondent (Occupant of first floor) invited for hearing.

vi) To confirm in April 2013 all the meters were replaced (Mechanical to

Electronic).

The necessary directions were issued vide letter dated 18.11.2015

with a copy to Shri Rakesh Prashar (Respondent No.3, House No.1030, Sector

37-B, Chandigarh) for making it convenient to attend the next date of

hearing.

4. Shri Rakesh Prashar through his letter dated 25.11.2015 admitted that he is a

co-owner of the house and is in possession of entire first floor of the said

house. He shifted his residence to Sector-37 in Nov. 2001 and since then

living there. He submitted that h no one was living on the first floor and the

electricity bills being received on the basis of fixed charges and meter rentals

were paid up to 10.3.2013. However, the bill received on 7.6.2013 was

prepared on the basis of a new replaced meter for the consumption of 88

units only but included energy charges of Rs.1,15,782/- for the old meter.

The next bill was current consumption charges of Rs.6486/- besides the

arrears of previous bill. The next bill dated 12.10.2013 was for current

consumption charges of Rs.4118/- with a total amount of bill of Rs.72,188/-

and so on. Subsequently the meter was got removed. On the basis of bills

issued up to 10.3.2013, he submitted that on one was residing on the first

floor.

5. The reminder was issued to the Nodal Officer on 11.12.2015 for submitting

the details as the proceeding of the last hearing on 16.11.2015.

6. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 vide his letter dated 22.12.2015 submitted

the consumption details of all the three connections along with sanctioned

load and arrears etc., copy of PDCO for connection of first floor. He also

confirmed that all three meters were electronic.

7. The case was taken up for hearing on 11.2.2016, the complainant as well as

SDO along with his RA were present but Shri Rakesh Prashar did not attend.

It was noted that copies of MCOs issued during period 3/2013 to 5/2013 were

not supplied by the SDO. He was directed to provide the copies of the MCOs

and details of the units charged at the time of issuance of next bill after

effecting the MCO.

8. Thereafter the case was notified for hearing on 22.3.2016 with copy to Shri

Rakesh Prashar to make it convenient to attend the hearing. The SDO vide

his letter dated 18.3.2016 supplied the copies of MCOs as discussed in the

last hearing. He also stated that the final readings of old meter were

intermingled in the MCO effected on 29.4.2013 which were corrected

subsequently in the month of August 2015 and revised bill of Rs.53124/- in

respect of A/c No. 2253/0737/01 (2nd floor) was issued to the complainant.

On the next date of hearing on 22.3.2016, owner of the first floor namely Shri

Rake sh Prashar did not attend. The SDO stated that all the accounts of the

said house have already been overhauled and the defaulting amount pertains

to the electricity consumption as per readings recorded by the meter. During

the hearing, it also came to the notice that the complainant along with his

brother Shri Rakesh Prashar (To whom the defaulting amount pertains as per

such division) are running a joint shop in Sector-22 market namely Prashar

Juice Bar, Shop NO.28, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

9. Observations:

From the consumption data, copies of MCOs and PDCO supplied by the

Sub Division, the following observations have been made.

i) Connection No.2253/0737/02 with Meter No. CHSE 1627322 for First Floor –owner Shri Rakesh Prashar.

a) From 10.1.2010 to 10.9.2012 the bills were prepared on same

reading 14141 with meter status O.K. b) During the period 9/2012 to 11/2012, the consumption was only 1

unit where after again uptill March 2013 no consumption was recorded on the meter. The reading on 10.3.2013 was 14142.

c) The mechanical meter was replaced with electronic meter on 29.4.2013 along with meter of other connection for 2nd floor

belonging to the complainant. d) AT the time of MCO, the readings of the meter removed from first

floor and 2nd floor got intermingled and the reading of old meter of

2nd floor was entered against the meter of first floor and vice-a–versa with the result that though the meter of 2nd floor was removed

at reading of 14152 (the same reading as on 14.3.2012) yet due to mentioning of reading of meter of 2nd floor as 40498 instead of

14142 actual reading of First Floor, 26356 units 26356 (40498-14142=26356) were debited to the account of first floor (thereby

issuing the bill for around Rs.1 lac.) to Shri Rakesh Prashar. Thereafter he stopped making payment of his electricity bill due to

receipt of such huge bill though he was not living on that floor. e) From the consumption data as supplied by the Sub Division in

respect of first floor and 2nd floor it appears that electricity consumption of first floor was being booked to the 2nd floor and vice-

a-versa and continued from the date of MCO (29.4.2013) to 10.3.2014. This is apparent from the past consumption of both the

accounts. Thus in another words the intermingling of readings could

not be detected till 10.3.2014. f) In view of intermingling from initial reading of new meter -4 as on

29.4.2013 to 4973 as on 10.3.2014, consumption of 4969 units belonged to the complainant though booked against electricity

connection for first floor in the name of owner of the first floor (4973-4=4969).

g) On the other hand the consumption from meter reading 8 as on 29.4.2013 to 262 as on 10.3.2014 i.e. (262-8=254 units ) belonged

to first floor and not 2nd floor. h) As per PDCO dated 4.2.1014, the reading of the meter at the time of

effecting PDCO in respect of first floor was only 5232 as on 5.2.2014.

Copies of the consumption data in respect of first floor and 2nd Floor,

MCOs of first floor and 2nd floor and PDCO are placed at Annexure A, B, C, D

& E respectively.

On the basis of above observations, it is seen that during the period

29.4.2013 to 10.3.2014 the total units booked to electricity connection for

2nd floor were 254 units against 4969 units which were actually consumed

but booked to electricity connection of 1st floor due to intermingling of

reading. In view of above observations, the actual consumption of the first

floor after replacement of meter on 29.4.2013 to date of PDCO is calculated

as under:-

Meter reading at the time of PDCO =5232

Initial reading of MCO = 004

Total Consumption =5228

The extra consumption booked to 1st floor though consumed by 2nd floor=4969-254 =4705(as per ‘f’ & ‘g’ above)

Actual consumption required to be booked

to 1st floor=5228-4705=523 units = 523

Simultaneously 4705 units are required to be debited to the

Account of 2nd floor for the period 29.4.2013 to 3.5.2014 due to

intermingling of reading.

10. Decision:

On the basis of above observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul

the account i.e. 2253/0737/01Y for 1st floor and 2253/0737/02A for 2nd

floor from 29.42013 onwards. The outstanding amount in respect of

electricity connection bearing A/c No. 2253/0737/02A for 2nd floor be debited

to the electricity connection in the name of Prashar Juice Bar, Sector-22,

Chandigarh. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the

order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per


The Nodal Officer is also directed to check/verify the name of the

electricity/connection from record/documents to be supplied by the

complainant and effect change of name in case of any discrepancy.

11. With above directions, the complaint is disposed.

21. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent

to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for

compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after

having it properly numbered and indexed.


DA/Annexure A, B, C , D &E.












In the matter to Shri Pankaj Arora, Flat No.1706B, RBI Colony,

Sector-44B, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Pankaj Arora, Resident of House No. 1706, R.B.I. Colony, Sector 44-

B, Chandigarh through his complaint dated 2nd March 2016, received in

the office of CGRF on 4.3.2016, submitted that his bill for Flt No. 1706 B,

Sector 44-B for the period 25.11.2015 to 25.01.2016 was prepared on

inflated reading i.e. 8901 against the meter reading of 1338 units as

found on date.




taken report with a copy to the complainant. Simultaneously it was

indicated that the case would be heard on 23.3.2016.


submitted that the bill was corrected after verification of the reading with

adjustment of Rs.35490/- to be reflected in forthcoming bill to be issued

on 20.4.2016. He also stated that revised bill was sent to the consumer

on 17.3.2016 and enclosed copy of same.

4. On the date of hearing on 23.3.2016, RA, on the behalf of the ‘OP’ Sub

Division No.9, submitted the written reply stating that the reading was

got verified on 15.3.2016 and the bill was revised from Rs.35862/- to

Rs.4158/-. He also corrected the bill brought by the complainant and

desired that the revised amount of Rs.4158/- be paid before 30th of the

March 2016. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to ensure that

requisite advices are sent to Computer Centre so that the next bill

prepared is correct.

5. Observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed , complaint is considered as disposed.















BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND SHRI R.L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.) MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 628 Date of Institution - 12.9.2014 Date of Order - 23.3.2016 In the matter M/s Punjab Waste Plant Co. Pvt. Ltd., 92, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Jagdish, Managing Director, Punjab Waste Plant Co. (P) Ltd., 92, Industrial

Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh vide his application dated 12.9.2014 submitted that he

received a notice from the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 on dated 21.8.2014 for Rs.

4,93,608/- on account of short assessment for the period 27.5.2012 to 30.4.2014.

The amount was included in the bill dated 3.9.2014. The Short assessment was

revised to Rs.6,98,991/- vide revised Notice dated 9.9.2014. Simultaneously the

provisional notice dated 21.8.2014 was cancelled by the Sub Division. On

contacting the Sub Division they were told that the short assessment was on

account of Blue Phase CT not contributing to the load. They showed their ignorance

to CT/PT and working of energy meter and requested for withdrawal of the amount.

In the mean time, SDO was also requested to allow them to pay the current

consumption charges. The complainant also stated that they were being charged

meter rent of Rs.500/- P.M. though the meter was provided by them. The request

was also made on this account not to charge meter rent hence forth and refund the

amount already charged. The notice issued by the Sub Division, Copy of the bills

and representation made to the Sub Division were attached along with the

representation.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy.

‘OP’ Division No.2 for examined and submission para wise comments vide letter

dated 22.9.2014..

3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 17.10.2014

duly countersigned by the Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’ Division No.2 submitted

the written reply as under:-

a) The Electricity Connection of the complainant was checked by team constituted

for the purpose on 15.7.2014. During testing it was found that Blue Phase CT of

11 KV meter was not contributing to 100% Energy recorded by the meter. The

accuracy test conducted on the meter at site showed that the meter was slow by

32.26% (First instance) and 31.72% in the subsequent instance. The retrieved

MRI data confirmed the exact date and time since when the failure had occurred

as 27.5.2012.

b) A Provisional Notice was issued on 21.8.2014 for depositing a sum of Rs.4,93,608/-

on account of short assessment from 27.5.2012 to 30.4.2014 due to non

contribution of Blue Phase CT of 11 KV meter(as per MRI data). However, later on

a calculation mistake was detected and a revised notice was served on 9.9.2014 to

pay a sum of Rs.6.98.996/-.

c) Regarding charging of Meter rent, he stated that the record would be checked

and amount would be refunded in case it is found that meter belonged to consumer.

d) The SDO submitted that the department had only charged the legitimate and

lawful amount for which the consumer had already used the electricity. He also

enclosed the copy of notice issued to the Complainant, copy of MRI data, Copy of

calculation sheet, copy of ECR and Report of M/s YMPL.

4. In the mean while the complainant vide his letter submitted in the office on

31.10.2014, further submitted that all the seals were found intact at the time of

checking, working of CT/PT unit was found O.K as per ECR report. The testing done

on 15.4.2014 was not done as per installation and operation of Meter Regulations

2006. Further MRI data as supplied was incomplete and does not disclose the Blue

CT short at all during the period 27.5.2012 to 30.4.14. The Managing Director of the

Co. also stated that CT/PT was damaged in May 2014 and was replaced with a new

unit by the Department during May 2014 itself. He requested for the MRI data taken

before the replacement of meter if any. He also based his argument that there was no

error in connections of CT supply to the meter and no such temper was ever detected

in the retrieved MRI data. Thus establishing that only accuracy of the meter is at

dispute, he therefore, requested for testing of the meter in Lab. The consumer also

stated that they made the payment of the short assessment charges in the month of

September 2014.

5. The complaint registered as Complaint No.628 was listed for hearing on 30.12.2014.

The complainants as well as Nodal Officer along with concerned SDO and RA of the

Sub Division were present. During deliberations, the presence of representative of the

testing agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case was thereafter notified

for hearing on 3.3.2015, on which date the Nodal Officer, the complainant as well as

representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the representative of meter

manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not make himself available for the

hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL also desired for some more time to study

the MRI data. The Nodal Officer was requested to contact the representative of the

Meter Manufacturer and intimate the convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-

ordinating with representation of M/s YMPL. During hearing the representative of the

complainant desired that the meter lying with the Sub Division be also got tested in lab

for accuracy. Necessary directions were issued vide letter dated 18.3.2015. The XEN

Elect. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide his letter dated 14.05.2015 submitted that the mater

laying with the AEE Elect. ‘OP’ Sub Division No. 5 was tested on 30.04.2015 in the

presence of the consumer representative. He enclosed test results, the meter was

found slow by 35.73%. Inference was drawn that it was on account of Blue Phase CT

not contributing.

6. The case was again notified for hearing on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF. The

complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 along with RA of

the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL who carried out the

checking and representatives of the Meter Manufacturer were present.

7. The representative of the complainant stated that CT/PT unit got damaged on

6.5.2014 was replaced on 15.7.2014, the billing during this period was done on

average basis. At the time of checking on 15.7.2014 it was observed that one CT (Blue

Phase) not found contributing. The meter was replaced and was sealed for testing

and was subsequently tested in the lab and found to be slow with Blue Phase CT not

contributing. The representative of the complainant stated that probably meter (Blue

Phase CT) became defective when CT/PT unit got damaged on 6.5.2014. He further

agreed that the MRI data provided by the Sub Division does not show any event that

Blue Phase CT was missing during the period 23.8.2001 to 12.2.2014 as per event

type ‘CTF’. The MRI data only shows CT reversal and current unbalance from time to

time. Shri Malik, representative of the testing agency i.e. M/s YMPL stated that as per

MRI data Blue Phase CT of the meter stopped contributing on 27.5.2012 and the

event continued thereafter which was also found at the time of testing in the Lab. He

did not agree with the opinion of the complainant representative that the defect

occurred when external CT/PT unit got flashed on 6.5.2014.

The Nodal Officer supplied the consumption data and stated that consumption

data shows that the consumption increased subsequently after replacement of the

meter on 15.7.2014. On the request by the representative of the complainant the

Nodal Officer was directed to supply MRI data downloaded from the meter from time to

time including the downloaded data along with load survey with a copy to the

complainant. Mr. Yogesh of M/s Secure Meter joined the discussion and stated that

Blue Phase CT of the meter stopped contributing w.e.f 27.5.2012 and continued

thereafter as clear from the MRI data. He also ruled out the possibility of meter CT

getting set right intermittently after 27.5.2012. He also ruled out the possibility of only

Blue Phase CT of the meter getting damaged due to flash of external CT/PT on

6.5.2014. He stated that in that even all the CT of the meters would have got

damaged.

8. On submissions of the details by the concerned sub division, the complaint was listed

for hearing on 8.12.2015 along with other similar cases. The complainant

representative, Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2, AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.5 and AEE

Enforcement were present. The MRI data/consumption data was deliberated but no

conclusion could be drawn during the hearing. It was decided to discuss the MRI data

with Nodal Officer and AEE Enforcement and representative of Testing agency/ Meter

Manufacturer for taking a final view.

9. The complainants as well as concerned SDO were present during the next hearing on

27.1.2016. With regard to the complainant’s submission that meter was supplied by

them and as such charging of meter rental is not in order, the SDO stated that meter

belonged to the department which is also clear from the Meter No. i.e.

CHET0465/CED01205. Had the meter was provided by the consumer, the Code would

have been “CHPVT-0-465” and not “CHET0465/CED01205. It appeared that the initial

meter belonged to the department but replaced meter after checking by Enforcement

Wing might have been provided by the consumer. The SDO was directed to check

the factual position and not to charge any rental in case the meter belonged to the

consumer. With regard to downloading of MRI data from the meter, the SDO stated

that the meter was checked for the first time in May 2014 after installation. The MRI

data was not taken at the time of replacement of CT/PT unit in May 2014. The

technical expert of the consumer stated that load survey was not taken by the

department at the time of downloading of MRI data.

SDO pointed out that the consumption data shows that consumption

increased substantially after replacement of meter due to installation of a correct

meter. The representative of the consumer was asked to supply their authenticated

production data for the last 7-10 years. The consumer promised to supply the details

within 10 days. The SDO was also directed to supply the up to date consumption

data. The technical experts of the consumer specifically stated that there is no

increased in consumption after replacement of meter rather it has declined in certain

months where as the consumption increased in some months. He also agreed that

the conclusion could be drawn once the consumer supplies the consumption data for

the previous years.. He also raised the issue that the secure make meter are not as

per approved specification of the PSPCL or any other agency in India. He insisted for

30 days load survey. He pointed out that the temper data do not specifically mention

Blue Phase CT missing on any date in the record from 2001 to date.

10. In view of the technical expert insisting for load survey, the Nodal Officer was directed

to supply the fresh load survey and MRI data vide letter dated 2.2.2016 followed by

reminder on 29.2.2016, The matter was also taken up with the consumer to supply the

details of the production data as discussed in the hearing.

11. The consumer vide his letter dated 8.2.2016 demanded some more time to submit

data. Vide their letter dated 11.2.2016, he only supplied the Power consumption data

for last five years stating that it will not in the interest of justice to co-relate their power

consumption to their yarn production in Kilogram in view of the following:

i) That they produce shoddy/wool waste yarns and the production depends on

thickness of yarn as they produce yarns of different thicknesses.

ii) Suppose they produce 4 metric count (that means 4 meters yarn per gram), the

production will be more i.e. double as compared to 8 metric count (8 meters of

yarn per gram) and triple as compared to 12 metric count. They produce

different yarns from 3 metric count to 12 metric count.

iii) They produce yarns from wool waste, woollens Rage etc.& a number of

preparatory machines are associated with the production. If the wool or waste is

loose, it requires less preparatory and if it is hard, it has to be opened and then

spun. A lot of power is used in preparatory machines.

iv) They also export some items & have packing/pressing machines, which

consume electricity when there is order.

12. In view of above reply by the complainant it is not possible to co-relate the

production with consumption of the electricity. We, therefore, focused on the

“Cumulative Temper Status Report” downloaded through MRI and he consumption

data annexed as Annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.

On the perusal of the Temper Status Report (Annexure ‘A’), we observe

that the current in B phase became ‘0’ (Zero) on 27.5.2012 and continued except

for figure of ‘1’, ‘2’ or ‘3’ amps during brief spells during the period 1.7.2013 to

18.10.2013 on ‘3’ occasions at 9.46.23 hrs. on 1.7.2013, 1.11.46 hrs. on 14.9.2013

and at 19.01.11 hours on 18.10.2013, though in between recorded events, the

current in Blue phase was zero. On these 3 occasions, the current in blue phase

was very very less as compared to currents in other phases (1 amp. against 17

amp., 3 amps against 7 amps and 2 amp against 7 amps). Thus practically the

current in blue phase was negligible and contributing very little in recording of the

consumption. This clearly established that the blue phase was not contributing in

recording of the full electricity being consumed since 27.5.2012, and continued till

testing of the meter by the team on 15.7.2014.

It has also been observed from the consumption data (Annexure ‘B’) that

considerable increase in consumption was observed after the deficiency in the

meter was set right at the time of testing/checking during July 2014. The increase

in consumption after July 2014 onwards was consistent as compared to

consumption recorded in the past since 2011.

13. Decision:

On the basis of inference drawn in the above Para No.12, the Forum concludes that

Blue Phase CT stopped contributing to recording of 100% energy by the meter

w.e.f. 27.5.2012 and continued till date of checking on 15.7.2014 when it was

observed that the meter was recording less by 31.72%. The subsequent checking

of the meter and also the consistent increase in consumption after replacement of

correct meter support the above conclusion. The Forum, therefore, is of the view

that the short assessment worked out by the ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 is in order.

The complaint finds no merit and is thus dismissed.











Complaint No. - CG-47/2015 Date of Institution - 27.09.2015 Date of Order - 28.03.2016 In the matter to Smt. Tapati Chakraborty, House No.6306, Rajiv Vihar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Smt. Tapati Chakraborty, resident of House No.6306, Rajiv Vihar, Manimajra, Chandigarh

through his e-mail dated 27 Sept., 2015 stated that the input voltage of the electricity supply

being received at her residence is in the range of 257-270 volts which is much above the

rated voltage to be supplied. Some appliances got damaged.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CG-47/2015 was forwarded to the Nodal

Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for para-wise comments

vide letter dated 29.09.2015 with a copy to the complainant. A reminder was also

issued on 14.10.2015 and 17.11.2015.


submitted the reply stating that concerned area in-charge visited the site 2/3 times

in the morning (9 AM to 10 AM) and checked the voltage in the presence of the

complainant, the same was found in the range of 230-240 volts which is

permissible limit of the rated voltage to be supplied. He also stated that the

allegations levelled by the complainant regarding damaged of appliances due to

over voltage are not correct, as the whole society is fed from 1000 KVA Transformer

from tubewell feeder emanating from 66 KV BBMB. No such complaint from any

other residents of the society has been received. In case some appliances got

damaged that may be due to internal fault in the wiring.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.12.2015 vide letter dated 30.11.2015

with a copy to the complainant. On the date of hearing on 15.12.2015, the

complainant stated that she was observing high voltage during evening hours. The

SDO of Sub Division No. 8 was present during the hearing reiterated his written

submissions.

On the next date of hearing on 28.03.2016, the complainant did not attend. The

RA present on behalf of Sub Division No. 8 provided the details of Voltage checked

on 17.03.2016 and on 23.03.2016 as under:

Date R Phase Y Phase B Phase

17.03.2016 242V 244V 247V

23.03.2016 at 2:45 P.M 240V 242V 241V

The premise was found locked, as such the complainant could not be contacted

on them details.

5. The Forum observing that the voltage being supplied to the complainant was within

permissible limit of the rated voltage, does not find any merit in the complaint.

Further no other person from the society has lodged similar complaint. Complaint

stands disposed with the above observations.










BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND

SHRI R.L. MITTAL, MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 629


In the matter M/s Golden India Steels (P) Ltd., Plot No.128,



Versus




Order

1. Shri Saroop Singh, Director, Golden India Steels (P) Ltd., Plot No.128,

Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh vide his representation dated

15.10.2014 made a representation against the final notice issued by SDO,

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 for Rs. 4,38,555/- due to short assessment for

the period 17.7.2012 to 17.7.2014. He submitted that his electricity

connection was checked vide ECR No.46/522 dated 17.7.2014. On the

basis of ECR and MRI data, the notice for short assessment was issued

by the SDO. He stated that the company does not agree with the

assessment and he challenged the assessment notice raising following

objections.

i) The test was not done as per the installation and operation of

meters Regulations 2006 issued by the CEA. The temper shown in

the MRI data as “CTS” for a while and restoring after small time is

no temper in the light of appended schedule III-2(i) to these

regulations. The CTs cannot remain shorted for four years

continuously.

ii) It was the duty of Licensee to install a correct meter and maintain it

through periodical testing as per Clause 7.4 of the Supply Code

2010.

iii) As per ECR, the meter was tested at site for accuracy with the

Standard Reference Meter and found to be within limits. It has

not been displayed that how the meter has been tested in isolation

to the CT/PT without disturbing the TTB.

iv) He raised suspicion that the connection of CT has been disturbed at

TTB during the testing itself.

v) The short assessment has been made in a hypothetical way. The

meter was found O.K and CT /PT also been tested separately found

OK then it is the only disturbance of TTB which confused the

testing party for which consumer cannot be penalized.

He, therefore, prayed that the assessment notice be

stayed till the pendency of their complaint. He enclosed Copy of ECR

Report, Notice issued by the SDO, MRI data and applications made to the

concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5.

2. The comments of the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’

Division No.2 were called vide letter dated 22.10.2014.

3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 submitted para-wise

comments vide letter dated 18.12.2014 duly countersigned by the

Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’ Division No.2. He stated that the electric

connection at the premises was checked on 17.7.2014 by the team

constituted for the purpose of Onsite Testing and checking of 11 KV

CT/PT equipment and meters by the third party (NAB Accredited Lab).

During testing it was found that Red, Yellow & Blue Phase CTs were not

contributing to 100% energy being recorded by the meter. The testing

was carried out as per provisions contained in Supply Code Regulation,

2010 notified by Hon’ble JERC. The retrieved MRI data showed that the

defect was continuing w.e.f. 16.8.2008. Accordingly, his office issued a

notice asking the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.4,38,555/- on

account of short assessment w.e.f. 17,7,2012 to 17.7.2014 due to non

contribution of Red, Yellow & Blue Phase CTs. The MRI data was

retrieved both before and after conducting the test. With regard to the

complainant plea that he cannot be penalized, the AEE submitted that he

has not been penalized but the notice has been issued for charging of

actual units consumed by the complainant during the period in reference.

Onsite Testing/Checking was carried out by the department with M/s

YMPL (third party) and during testing it was noticed that electric

connection was not contributing to actual energy being used by the

complainant. The AEE enclosed copy of Notice, MRI data,

Consumption/ECR Report and Report of M/s YMPL.

4. The complaint registered as Complaint No.629 was listed for hearing

on 30.12.2014 along with other similar cases. The complainants as well

as Nodal Officer along with concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 were

present. During deliberations, the presence of representative of the

testing agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case was

thereafter notified for hearing on 3.3.2015, the Nodal Officer, the

complainant as well as representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the

representative of meter manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not

make himself available for the hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL

also desired for some more time to study the MRI data. The Nodal Officer

was requested to contact the representative of the Meter Manufacturer

and intimate the convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-ordinating

with representation of M/s YMPL. Necessary directions were issued vide

letter dated 18.3.2015. A reminder was also issued on 30.7.2015.

5. Thereafter the case was again heard on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF.

The complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5

along with RA of the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL

and representatives of the Meter Manufacturer were present. Shri R.L.

Mittal, Independent Member was on leave. The concerned AEE explained

that all the 3 screws phases were found semi-tightened at TTB at position

No.1,4 & 7 thereby resulting into less contribution of the electricity

recorded by the meter. As per downloaded MRI data, defect occurred in

2008 but the charging was done for 2 years in view of Section 56 (2) of

the Electricity Act 2003. Shri Yogesh representative of M/s Secure Meter

from the data opined that it is apparent that the defect occurred in 2008.

The complainant stated that they are doing the job of coil cutting with

load of 303 KW. The coil is lifted from trucks and then put on un-coiler

before the machine is set the heavy motor load is required for lifting of

coils and its cutting. He stated that out of the total time of 2-3 hours

taken for the whole process, the electricity is consumed for only about 25

minutes for lifting/cutting of the coils. At the maximum 3 coils can be cut

in a day. He pointed out that their consumption pattern has not under

gone any major change after the testing when the noticed defect was

removed. The Nodal Officer was asked to supply complete downloaded

data of the complainant.

6. On the next date of hearing on 8.12.2015, the complainant as well as

Nodal Officer along with AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 and AEE Enforcement

were present . The representative of M/s YMPL who conducted the

testing did not attend. The MRI/Consumption data was analysed.

However, no conclusion could be drawn from the data supplied by the

concerned Sub Division. It was decided that the MRI data would be

discussed with representative of M/s YMPL and AEE Enforcement in the

presence of Xen ‘OP’ Division No.2 The AEE Enforcement stated that the

continuation of the event could have been from the date of last checking

of the premises. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer was requested to

confirm/intimate whether it was first checking/testing of the meter or

earlier inspection prior to that data was undertaken. He was directed to

supply details in the later case.

7. On the next date of hearing on 19.1.2016, the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 ,

AEE Enforcement along with RA were present. During the hearing the

AEE stated that no checking of the premises was carried out earlier. The

consumption data as well as MRI data was seen but no agreement could

be reached on the date of continuation of the defect.

8. From the MRI data it was observed that on 16.8.2008 (the date being

specified by the Licensee as occurrence of the fault), the event of ‘ND”

(Neutral Disturbance) was found to have occurred which was restored on

16.8.2008 itself after about 10 hours. The occurrence of event of ‘CTS’

(CT short) occurred at regular intervals since 19.10.2012 and was

restored after some hours/days/months. On Close scrutiny it was noted

that during these events the current in particular phase was quite on

lower side as compared to current in other two phase. This implies that

full current was not being fed into the meter and thus the meter did not

record full quantum of power being drawn. As in some cases, the event

continued for months together, the occurrence of event on A/c of

unbalancing of the load drawn was ruled out in such cases. The

Consumption data from 2007 to 2015 did not show much variation

particularly in the year 2012 onwards. The consumption after setting

right the defect also did not show any substantial increase during the

later part of the year 2014 or in year 2015. The complainant insisted that

their business was more or less, same during all these years and offered

to submit the Sales Tax Certificate in support of his statement. The Nodal

officer was also requested to supply fresh MRI data/load survey vide

letter dated 2.3.2016 followed by a reminder on 29.2.2016 but the same

has not been received despite reminder.

9. In response to CGRF letter dated 02.02.2016 followed by 29.02.2016, the

complainant vide his letter dated 02.03.2016 submitted financial

transactions in respect of two firms- M/s G.I. Steels and M/s GMP Steels

(P) Ltd. which were incorporated after splitting of the original Company

namely Golden India Steels (P) Ltd. between two brothers. The quarter

wise total sales for the period 2013-14 onwards as supplied along with

the electric consumption is indicated below:-

Period Total sales (Rs)

Year Quarter G.I. Steels. ‘A’

GMP Steels ‘B’

Total A+B

Electricity consumption

2013-1

4

1st 1601525 2956928 4558453 19130

2nd 1602624 1342685 2945309 29960

3rd 2512445 1356762 3869207 13360

4th 3321498 1232231 4553729 23460

2014-1

5

1st 1800296 1041271 2841567 20570

2nd 2447650 965257 3412907 25910

3rd 1732054 1655650 3387704 27650

4th 3023222 1279648 4302870 18740

2015-1

6

1st 2655032 1347003 4002035 23040

2nd - 1543692 - 21430

3rd - 1493069 - 10870

The above compilation shows lot of variation in total sales vis-a-vis

power consumed. To analyse further we tried to co-relate/analyse the

above with the MRI date. From the MRI data, attached as Annexure A, we

observed that the event of ‘CTS’ (CT Short) occurred on following

instances and continued for more than a month:

a) From 19.10.12 to 21.11.2012 – 39 days

b) From 08.12.12 to 05.04.2013 – 117 days

c) From 05.08.13 to 27.10.2013 – 83 days – spread over 2nd and 3rd

quarter of 2013-14.

d) From 23.01.14 to 23.03.2014 – 58 days – during 4th quarter 13-

14.

For the events at (a) & (b), the sales data has not been furnished so

we focus on the events as per & (c) and (d). The occurence of these

events during 2nd/3rd quarter of 2013-14 and 4th quarter of 2013-14

indicating that full current was not being fed to the meter, explains to

some extent the reasons for comparatively less consumption of

electricity during these quarters though total sales were quite higher

during these quarters. However, no conclusion can be drawn due to

huge variation in figure of sales vis-a-vis consumption during

particular quarters. It is also possible that figures of sales may not

relate to consumption of electricity of a particular quarter but the

electricity consumed in the previous quarter(s).

10. Conclusion & Decision:

The checking & testing report of CT/PT and meter clearly shows that the

screws of TTB at position No.1,4 & 7 were found semi-tightened and

thus showing errors as “Large CT ratio error in R&Y Phase and over

current error in B Phase.” The accuracy results were found within

permissible limits after opening of the screws at position No.1,4 & 7 of

TTB i.e after removing the defect of large CT ratio error and current

error.

The MRI data establish that full current was not being fed to the

meter at various times resulting into less recording/registering of

electric consumption. Such events were recorded as CTS (C.T. Short)

with Occurrence and Restoration of the event and duration. The event

continued since 19.10.2012 as per data in the Cumulative Tamper

Status Report downloaded with MRI attached as Annexure “A”.

In view of above, we are of the view that the short assessment

needs to be reworked out only for the period when the meter was not

registering full consumption as per “Cumulative Tamper Status Report

(Annexure A). It has also been noted that the data includes period as

small as 37 minutes which could be on A/c of current imbalance as

well. We are therefore, of the view that all such period which are less

than 1 day be excluded while working out revised short assessment.

In the above back ground, the short assessment for

Rs.4,38,555/- (83700 units) is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to

recalculate the short assessment for the occurrences of the event ‘CTS’

recorded in the Cumulative Tamper Status Report where the duration of

the event is more than 24 hours. Compliance be reported within 21 days



11. With the above directions and decision, complaint is considered as

disposed.















Complaint No. - GR-07/2016 Date of Institution - 18.01.2016 Date of Order - 28.03.2016 In the matter to ShriRaj Kumar Gandhi, Gandhi Service Station, Opposite 5 Peer, Near Vishkarma Mandir, Mansa Devi Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



Order

1. Shri Raj Kumar Gandhi through his complaint received in the office of CGRF on

18.1.2016 submitted that electricity connection was not being released for the

recently constructed temporary shed for the Service Station at Mansa Devi Road,

Manimajra though the A&A Form etc. were deposited on 26.3.2014. He further

stated that a letter was recently received from the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8,

Manimajra that decision on his case will be taken only after the decision of CGRF in

another case. The applicant stated that the case of Shri Rajesh Mahajan has been

decided in his favour but the electricity connection has not yet been provided to the

applicant on the basis of CGRF decision in that case. He further stated that he has

already one service station at Manimajra with valid electricity connection for which

he is paying the bills regularly.

2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-07/2016, was forwarded to the

Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated

20.01.2016 for supplying para-wise comments/action taken report with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 4.2.2016 confirmed

that as per CGRF order the temporary connection to Shri Rajesh Mahajan has

already been released. The complainant was requested vide letter dated 28.1.2016

to attend to his office for taking further action on his application. He also informed

that since one electricity connection at site already exists in the name of the

complainant, 2nd connection may not be allowed.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 28.3.2016, the complainant as well as RA

of the Sub Division were present. The RA agreed to provide temporary NRS

connection to the applicant but the applicant requested for regular permanent

connection. The Forum is of the view that temporary connection is for specific

purposes which are temporary in nature. The complainant is requesting for a

connection which is of permanent nature . The RA also raised the issue to

safeguarding the dues of electricity department. The complainant stated that he has

three more connections in the area and in case of default the amount may be

transferred to any of these connections. He also promised to supply the details of

the connections to the Sub Division.

5. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to release regular NRS connection to

the applicant after fulfilling the formalities as provided in the Supply Code. The

details of the existing three connections in the name of consumer may also be had

for transferring the outstanding amount to those accounts in case of default by the

consumer in payment of bills against this connection. Compliance be reported within

21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by
















In the matter to Shri Atul Gandhi, House No.62, Sector-2,

Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. Shri Atul Gandhi, resident of House No.62, Sector-2, Chandigarh through

his complaint received in the office of CGRF on 8.1.2016 submitted that

his bill on the basis of meter reading during the year 2015 were quite on

higher side as compared to bills issued during 2014. He also supplied

comparative statement of the bills issued during the year 2014 and 2015.



vide letter dated 11.1.2016 for comments along with consumption data

with a copy to the complainant.


15.2.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division

No.2 duly countersigned. The AEE in his reply stated that the meter of

the complainant remained defective for the period 3.7.2015 to 8.1.2016

during which average @ 10225 units were charged bi-monthly. The

defective meter was replaced on 8.1.2016 and the account was

overhauled on the basis of past consumption. He supplied last three

years consumption, copy of MCO and SJO.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 24.2.2016, but complainant

could not make it and requested for adjournment stating that he was

struck on the way while coming back from Delhi.

5. The case was subsequently notified for hearing on 29.3.2016, the

complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The

complainant raised that bill issued during May to July 2015 for 20006 was

very much on higher side as compared to his average bill in the range of

5000-6000 units before the meter became defective. The RA stated that

the consumption during the period Jan. to May 2015 was on lower side

and pointed out that the higher consumption during May to July 2015

could be on account of accumulation. The Forum after considering the

aspects of accumulation felt that the consumption of 20000 units (3 times

the highest consumption in the past) was on very very higher side as

compared to average consumption in the past. The accumulation of

reading as pointed out by RA could not be more than 5000 units and thus

gap of about 9000 units could not be explained. On the other hand the

meter becoming defective thereafter suggest that the reading in May

2015 could be on account of inflated or meter becoming defective.

After deliberations, it was agreed that the account of the consumer may

be overhauled from Jan. 2015 to date of MCO i.e. 8.1.2016 on the basis

of consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2014.

6. The Forum on the basis of above directs the Nodal Officer to overhaul the

account of the consumer for the period Jan. 2015 to Jan.2016 on the

basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2014.




7. With above directions, complaint is disposed.



Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:















In the matter to Smt. Shivinder Kaur, House No.30, Sector 2A,

Chandigarh..


Versus


2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No2, UT, Chandigarh.


Order

1. Smt. Shivinder Kaur, resident of House No.30, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh

through her complaint dated 17.2.2016 submitted that the electricity

department incorrectly charged the average consumption for the period

3.1.2014 to 15.1.2015 for the first floor, as the first floor was vacant

from year 2012 till September 2015. She also stated that while taking

the average, summer peak months were considered. Notice for

Rs.1,65,635/- issued by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2 was attached.



vide letter dated 18.02.2016 for comments and also to verify the

occupancy status of first floor of the house as per the statement of the

complainant. The complainant was also directed to make payment of

Rs.50,000/- besides current cycle charges. Simultaneously the case was

notified for hearing on 29.3.2016.


9.3.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2

duly countersigned. The AEE in his reply stated that the complainant did

not inform the Sub Division about the portion of the first floor being

vacant from June 2012 to September 2015. He further submitted that for

charging the average for the period meter remained defective (1/2014 to

1/2015), future consumption from 5/2015 to 11/2015 was taken has

pointed out by the Internal Auditor. On the basis of consumption, he

further stated that it appeared that the meter remained defective from

September 2012 but the average was charged only for one year, keeping

in view the provision of Section 56 of the Electricity Act. With regard to

charging on the basis of future consumption, he submitted that since

reliable past data was not available, the I.A. suggested charging on future

consumption basis. He supplied photo copy of last four years

consumption, MCO, half margin and notice issued to the consumer. He

also confirmed that as per orders of the CGRF, the complainant made

payment of Rs.50,000/- plus current cycle charges.

4. On the date of hearing on 29.3.2016, the complainant’s husband as well

as RA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant submitted a

letter indicating the vacancy position of first floor as under:-

1. Ashoo vacated on = June 2012

2. Renovation & minor repair = July 2012 to Nov.2012 3. Self-occupied for marriage of Son =December 2012 to Feb.2013.

4. House Vacant = March 2013 to August 2014. 5. Occupied by Mr. Doabia = September 2014 to till date.

6. Reported damage meter on = December 2014 and meter was installed in the month of Dec.

2014.

The complainant’s husband also provided photo copy of the Lease

Deed in support of above dates and a letter asking the tenant Ashoo to

vacate the first floor on 30th June 2012 as per Lease Deed dated 11th

Jan.2012 supplied by them.

5. The Forum after co-relating the consumption with the statement of the

complainant noted that consumption dropped sharply from around 3000-

4000 units to 100-200 units w.e.f. September 2012 onwards. As per

MCO

dates 15.01.2015, the dead stop meter was removed at reading of

4751. This reading as per consumption data was existing on 03.03.2013.

Thus meter become dead around this period.

As per details provided by the complainant vide letter dated

29.03.2016, the First Floor, was self occupied for marriage of her son up

to Feb. 2013. As per Lease Deed the first floor was again let out w.e.f.

1.9.2014.

6. On the basis of above observations, the earlier overhauling on the basis

of half margin is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the

account of the consumer as under:-

i) Thus from 3/2013 to 8/2014 - Account be overhauled on the basis

of consumption recorded during the period 9/2012 to 3/2013.

ii) From 9/2014 to 15.1.2015 – on the basis of future consumption

recorded during the corresponding period 9/2015 to 1/2016.

Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the

order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per



















In the matter to Shri Ram Mehar, House No. 2783, Sector 25-D,

Chandigarh,


Versus




Order

1. Shri Ram Mehar, resident of House No.2783, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh

through his complaint dated 5.1.2016 received in the office of CGRF on

14.3.2016 stated that earlier the electricity connection was provided

through Contractor Shri Mishra. On the termination of contract of

Shri Mishar in October 2014. request was made for connections by

Electricity Department. When approached for NOC, Shri Mishra intimated

that Rs.3,06,223/- is outstanding. Stating that he has very lower income

on day to day basis, he requested for waival off the penalty and offered

to pay on the basis of meter reading from October 2014 on wards.



vide letter dated 15.03.2016 for supplying para-wise comments and other

details with a copy to the complainant. Simultaneously it was indicated

that the case would be heard on 30.3.2016.

3. The complainant visited the office of CGRF during last week and pointed

out that he received a notice from the Sub Division under Section 135

and on his request the original assessment amount was reduced to

around Rs.20,000/-.

4. The complainant was informed that case falls under Section 135 i.e. theft

for electricity and CGRF has no jurisdiction to entertain his complaint.

5. On the date of hearing on 30.3.2016, consumer did not attend. When

contacted on telephone, the SDO informed that the office was taking

action against the consumer for lodging FIR as he was drawing electricity

through a direct connection i.e. indulging in theft of electricity. He also

stated that consumer had not made any payment.



Regulations, 2009, notified on 31 July 2009, clearly provides that any


as complaint. The definition (e) under Regulation 2 which reads as under:

“(e) Complaint means an application made by a consumer before the Forum seeking redressal of any grievance with regard to supply of

electricity by the licensee. Provided that the following shall not be

considered as the complaint. (i) Any grievance arising out of applicant of sections 126,127,135,139,142,143,149,152 and 161 of

the Act.”

In view of above Forum concludes that it has no jurisdiction in the

present case.

7. With above observations, the case is considered as disposed.














BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON AND

SHRI R.L. MITTAL, OMBUDSMAN (RETD.) MEMBER.

Complaint No. - 631


In the matter M/s Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers’ Fed.

Ltd., Plot No.177, Milk Plant, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.


Versus




Order

1. General Manager, Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producers’ Fed. Ltd., Plot

No.177, Milk Plant, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through

application received in the office of CGRF on 31.10.2014 representated

against the notice by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 for short

assessment for R s.75,33,406/-. In the application it was stated that

their electricity connection was checked by the department on 22.7.2014

and thereafter initial assessment notice amounting to Rs,63,43,944/- was

served on 21.8.2014 stating that the Blue phase terminal at TTB Position

No.7 was found semi-tightened and thus the meter was found slow by

24.31%. Subsequently the amount was revised to Rs.75,33,406/- . The

issue was taken up with the concerned SDO on 17.9.2014, which was

replied by the SDO on 10.10.2014 without providing any relief. The

applicant raised the issues on method of testing, the non tempered seal,

MRI data which only indicate current unbalance Blue Phase etc. and

challenge the short assessment as per notice dated 9.9.2014. The ECR

report, notices issued by the sub Division and their representation to the

SDO were enclosed with the application.

2. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 for examining and submission of para wise

comments vide letter dated 17.11.2014.

3. The Concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated

18.12.2014 duly countersigned by the Executive Engineer Electy. ‘Op’

Division No.2 submitted the written reply as under:-

e) The Electricity Connection of the complainant was checked vide ECR

dated 22.7.2014 by team constituted for the purpose on site testing

of 11 KV CT/PT meter.. During testing it was found that Blue Phase CT

of 11 KV meter was not contributing to 100% Energy recorded by the

meter. The accuracy test conducted on the meter at site showed that

the meter was slow by 24.31% . The retrieved MRI data confirmed

the continuation of the defect since 14.6.2011.

f) A Provisional Notice was issued on 5.9.2014 for Rs.63,43,944/- which

was revised to Rs.75,33,406/- on account of short assessment w.e.f.

30.6.2012 to 22.7.2014 due to non contribution of Blue Phase CT. He

also stated that checking of 11 KV CT/PT unit and meter has been

carried out with the assistance of NABL accredited Lab (M/s YMPL)

and enclosed test report in this regard. He also confirmed that

checking was done on load/burden ranging from 5% to 120% as per

CEA guidelines stating that the department adopted the set procedure

as laid down in the rules. Short assessment of 1457139 units was

worked out on account of less contribution by Blue Phase as per MRI

data. The meter was checked with Accu-check to ascertain the

accuracy. He enclosed ECR Report, MRI data and the results of the

testing besides calculations of short assessment etc.

4. The complaint, registered as Complaint No.631, was listed for hearing on

30.12.2014 along with other similar complaints. The complainant as well as

Nodal Officer along with concerned SDO and RA of the Sub Division were

present. During deliberations, the presence of representative of the testing

agency and the meter manufacturer was felt. The case was thereafter

notified for hearing on 3.3.2015, the Nodal Officer, the complainant as well

as representative of M/s YMPL were present. But the representative of

meter manufacturer i.e M/s Secure Meter Ltd., could not make himself

available for the hearing. The representative of M/s YMPL also desired

some more time to study the MRI data. The Nodal Officer was requested to

contact the representative of the Meter Manufacturer and intimate the

convenient date for fixing the hearing after co-ordinating with

representation of M/s YMPL. Necessary directions were issued vide letter

dated 18.3.2015. A reminder was also issued on 30.7.2015.

5. The case was again notified for hearing on 22.9.2015 in the office of CGRF.

The complainant, Nodal Officer, Concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5

along with RA of the Sub Division besides the representatives of M/s YMPL

who carried out the checking and representatives of the Meter

Manufacturer were present.

6. The SDO reiterated written submissions. The representative of the

complainant stated that the MRI data showed Blue Phase unbalance which

was resetting occasionally and was not continuous as clear from the MRI

data. He therefore argued that charging for the whole period by the Sub

Division was not in order as the defect was not continuous.

7. On submissions of the details by the concerned sub division, the complaint

was listed for hearing on 8.12.2015 along with other similar cases. The

complainant representative, Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.2, AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.

No.5 and AEE Enforcement were present. The MRI data/consumption data

was deliberated but no conclusion could be drawn during the hearing. It

was decided to discuss the MRI data with Nodal Officer and AEE

Enforcement and representative of Testing agency/ Meter Manufacturer for

taking a final view.

8. The complainant was present during the hearing on 29.1.2016 but the SDO

did not attend. When contacted on phone, he requested for exemption as

he was tied up with some other official work. The representative of the

Company stated that their connection was checked on 21.5.2007 and was

found to be in order including accuracy of the meter. The technical expert

of the complainant raised that the meter of M/s Secure Meters is not on

approved panel of Punjab. Further in their case, the accuracy of CT/PT unit

and meter were found O.K. when checked independently. The temper data

as per MRI does not disclose any temper on the part of the consumer or

otherwise. He also insisted for load survey.

The complainant was requested to supply the production data for last

6-7 years for co-relating with consumption data.

The consumer promised to supply the details within 10 days. The SDO

was also directed to supply the up to date consumption.

9. In view of the technical expert insisting for load survey, the Nodal Officer

was directed to supply the load survey and MRI data taken a fresh. The

matter was also taken up in writing with the consumer supply the details

of the production data as discussed in the hearing. The load survey/fresh

MRI has not been received despite reminder and waiting for more than

one month.

10. The complainant supplied the production data for 2007-08 to 2014-15

vide letter dated 8.2.2016. The production data was co-related with the

consumption but no definite conclusion could be drawn as lot of variation

was observed in the ratio of Production in Litre per unit of electricity. The

compiled statement is placed at Annexure ‘A.

Left with no option we again focussed on the MRI downloaded

“Cumulative Tamper Status Report”. It has been observed that this report

captured, occurrence and restoration of only one event, namely ‘CUNB-B’

i.e. Load in balance in B phase. During the period 14.6.2011 to

22.7.2014, this event occurred for 50 times and restored after some time

ranging from as small as 5 minutes of 106 days, 14 hours and 12 minutes.

11. During all these occasions the current in B-phase was found to be quite o

n lower side as compared to current in other two phases though the

voltage in all three phases were same. The temper report is placed at

Annexure B.

12. This implies that full current was not being fed into the meter and thus

the meter did not record full quantum of power being drawn. As in some

cases, the event continued for months together, the occurrence of event

on A/c of unbalancing of the load drawn was ruled out in such cases. The

Consumption data from 2007 to 2015 during corresponding months did

not show much variation. The consumption after setting right the defect

also did not show any appreciable increase during the later part of the

year 2014 or in year 2015.

13. We have also tried to compare the consumption during corresponding

previous months when event CUNB_N was occurring more than 30 days

as detailed below:-

From 21.6.2011 to 5.10.2011 - 106 days 14 hrs. 12 minutes.

From 4.8.2013 to 5.9.2013 - 32 days 1 hr. 17 minutes.

But no conclusion could be drawn as lot of variation was observed.

14. Conclusion & Decision:

In the detailed report of the checking & testing of CT/PT and meter it was

observed as under:-

“ The CT/PT unit has been checked by R-ø instrument and found the

error at Blue phase as large CT Ratio Error. The TTB thereafter opened up by removing seals (at position 3 & 4 i.e. Seals S/S AO

13418 and paper seal S.No.54 Book No.256 and found that screws on TTB at position No.7 of Blue Phase is semi tightened (which should be

fully opened/loose AO13418.

□ O O O

R 1 2 3

□ O O O

Y 4 5 6

□ O O O

B 7 8 9

For contributing 100% energy consumption to Meter).

For further analysis, meter has been checked with HT Accu-check meter as in found condition and found as (-) 24.31% slow.

Thereafter the screws of TTB at Position 7 is opened/loose for

checking the CT accuracy and results are found within permissible limits.”

The MRI data establish that full current was not being fed to the

meter at various times resulting into less recording/registering of electric

consumption. Such events were clearly recorded as CUNB-B with

Occurrence and Restoration of the event and duration for which the event

continued since 14.6.2011 as per data in the Cumulative Tamper Status

Report downloaded with MRI attached as Annexure “B”.

In view of above, we are of the view that the short assessment

needs be reworked out only for the period when the meter was not

registering full consumption as per “Cumulative Tamper Status Report

(Annexure B). It has also been noted that the data includes period as

small as 5 minutes which could be on A/c of current inbalance as well. We

are therefore, of the view that all such period which are less than 1 day,

be excluded while working out revised short assessment.

In the above back ground, the short assessment for

Rs.75,33,406/- is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate

the short assessment by calculating the total duration by totally the

occurrences of the event ‘CUNB-B’ recorded in the Cumulative Tamper

Status Report where the duration of the event is more than 24 hours.




15. With the above directions and decision, complaint is considered as

disposed.












Documents

CGRF Orders for the quarter JAN -16 TO MARCH