OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL ...chdengineering.gov.in/pages/cgrf_order_end_jun17.pdfVivek Kumar, R/o House no. 1107-B, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh, vide his email dated

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

UT, CHANDIGARH-160009

BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRMAN SH. A.K.JAIN, MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER

Complaint No. - CP-36/2017 Date of Institution - 16.03.2017 Date of Order - 05.04.2017

IN THE MATTER OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 1107-B, SECTOR 46-B,

CHANDIGARH

.........COMPLAINANT

Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.

2. The SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6, Chandigarh.

.........RESPONDENT.

ORDER

1. Sh. Vivek Kumar, R/o House no. 1107-B, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh, vide his

email dated 16.03.2017 has filed a complaint for issuance of suitable directions

to Chandigarh Electricity Department for providing details of sundry charges or

any other unusual charges debited in consumers account. He quoted his case

that Rs. 3420/- were added as sundry charges in his last electricity bill dated

10.02.2017. Without giving any details in the bill. On his representation on

17.02.2017 and after pursuing with electricity sub division no.6, the bill was

revised on 23.02.2017, but still details of sundry charges and correction

thereafter were not sent to him.

2. The above complaint, registered as complaint no. CP-36/2017 was forwarded to

the Nodal officer XEN ‘OP’ Division No.3 vide letter dated 17.03.2017 for Para

wise comments and supply of consumption data of last 3 years with a copy to

consumer with request to submit written complaint duly signed within 5 days.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 6 vide his letter no 921 dated

24.03.2017 has filed his reply stating that the complainant’s meter was stolen

and new meter was installed on 13.05.2016. The bills for the period 10.11.2015

to 13.05.2016 were overhauled on the basis of previous consumption from 11/16

to 05/15 @ 1451/6 =242 units per month. An amount of Rs. 3420/- was debited

as sundry charges. The consumer represented through an application to review

the case and to charge the average from 10.01.2016 to 03.05.2016 on the basis

of previous consumption from 10.01.2015 to 10.05.2016 @ 212 units per month.

In consideration to his application, an amount of Rs. 1448/- has been withdrawn

and credited to the consumers account. The consumer was duly informed by sub

division on 23.02.2017 and he showed his satisfaction.

4. The hearing in the case was fixed for 05.04.2017. On the date of hearing the

complainant didn’t attend and SDO re-iterated that the sundry charges levied

were explained to the consumer and also revised to his entire satisfaction. The

complainant’s main request is to send the details to consumer whenever sundry

charges are raised. The SDO further informed that whenever the amount is more

that Rs. 10,000/-, a prior notice is send to the consumer for raising any objection

by him if he decides so.

5. The Forum observes that the complainant of the consumer has been redressed

and Chandigarh Electricity Department is already intimating the consumer

whenever charging beyond Rs. 10,000/- is done. It may not be practically

possible to intimate all details wherever charging is for petty amounts that too

through computerization process. Complaint is disposed off as per above

observations.

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

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

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

compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after

having it properly numbered and indexed.

(JASWINDER SIDHU) (A.K.JAIN) (R.K.ARORA) N. MEMBER MEMBER, CGRF Chairman, CGRF

mailto:[email protected]





IN THE MATTER OF SHRI SURJIT SINGH, HOUSE NO. 486, SECTOR 40-A,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Surjit Singh, R/o House no. 486, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh, through his

application dated 21.03.2017, submitted that his meter got defective for which he

made the request to concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.10 about 7-8

months back. The meter was replaced after 5-6 months on 29.11.2016,

thereafter Rs. 9405/- was levied in the bill as sundry charges stating that he

made the payment of all the bills received in the past. He requested for review of

the amount of the bill.



wise comments along with consumption data of last 3 years. Directions were also

issued to accept Rs. 3500/- (about 50% of the amount charged through sundry +

the current cycle charges) and not to disconnect the connection till disposal of

the case.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 10 vide his letter dated

24.03.2017 a copy of which was also forwarded to the Nodal Officer submitted

that the burnt meter of the consumer was replaced on 29.11.2016 with “reading

not visible”. Thereafter it was observed that the burnt meter didn’t record any

consumption since 06.06.2015. The account was overhauled from 06.10.2015 to

29.11.2016 @ 130 units per month on the basis of consumption recorded during

the period 06.08.2014 to 06.08.2015. He further submitted that inadvertently the

same period was included both ways resulting into charging excess amount. It

was noted that Rs. 3591/- was found charged in excess. The SDO submitted that

this amount was adjusted through sundry charges and allowance register and

would be reflected in the next bill to be issued to the consumer. He enclosed

copy of MCO, the consumption data along with basis of overhauling and also the

revised bill after allowing sundry allowance of Rs. 3591/-.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 06.04.2017. The complainant didn’t attend.

The SDO re-iterated the written submissions. The complainant was contacted on

telephone and was explained that the case was reviewed and refund of Rs.

3591/- was allowed to him, he showed his satisfaction. The SDO Electy. Sub

Division no. 10 present during the hearing also assured of providing all help and

details if in case the complainant required any further clarifications.

5. With above observations, that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed, the complaint is considered disposed.












IN THE MATTER OF SHRI SATWANT SANDHU, HOUSE NO. 1569, SECTOR 38-

B, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Satwant Sandhu, R/o House no. 1569, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh, through his

application dated 07.03.2017, received in the office of CGRF on 15.03.2017

through speed post, pointed out that the new reading printed in the bill as on

21.01.2017 is on higher side as compare to actual reading on the meter. He

enclosed copy of the bill dated 25.02.2017, showing the new reading as 60719

and the photograph of the meter with reading as 60594 as recorded on

07.03.2017.



wise comments along with consumption data of last 3 years, along with a copy to

the complainant.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 10 vide his letter dated

24.03.2017 a copy of which was also forwarded to the Nodal Officer submitted

the reply stating that the meter reading was got verified as 60665 on 15.03.2017,

confirming that the meter reader recorded inflated reading on 21.02.2017. He

further submitted that the bill of the consumer was amended from 21.11.2016 to

15.03.2017 on the basis of the verified reading. He further submitted that access

amount paid by the consumer will be credited in the next bill. He also enclosed

the copy of the amended bill and the past consumption data.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 06.04.2017. The complainant didn’t attend.

The SDO re-iterated the written submissions. The complainant was contacted on

telephone and was explained that his bill has been revised on the basis of

reading on 15.03.2017. The complainant showed his satisfaction. The SDO

Electy. Sub Division no. 10 present during the hearing also assured of providing

all help and details if in case the complainant required any further clarifications.

5. With above observations, that the grievance of the complainant has already been

redressed, the complaint is considered disposed.












IN THE MATTER OF SHRI LOVELY BHATIA, SCO NO. 59-60, SECTOR 9-D,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Lovely Bhatia, Manager Sales, SCO no. 59-60, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh,

through his email dated 06.04.2017 lodged a complaint that there was

breakdown of electricity in sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Stating that they are facing

huge problem due to non-availability of electricity during business hours, he

requested to resolve the problem at the earliest.

2. The above complaint, registered as complaint no. CP-51/2017 was forwarded

through email to the Nodal officer XEN ‘OP’ Division No.1 for taking further action

and submit report within 5 days. A letter was sent in confirmation vide memo no.

544 dated 06.04.2017, with a copy to the concerned SDO as well as to the

complainant.

3. The complainant through subsequent e-mail dated 10.04.2017 showed his

satisfaction to the action taken by the Electricity Department for resolving the

problem they were facing due to non-availability of electricity. Confirming that the

fault has been repaired by the Electricity Department, he showed his satisfaction

and also stated that his complaint can be closed.

4. The Forum in its meeting held on 10.04.2017 considered the email dated

10.04.2017 and noted that the grievance of the complainant was redressed by

the Electricity Department to his satisfaction. In view of his request that the

complaint can be closed the Forum doesn’t find need to call a hearing and

considered the complaint as disposed.












IN THE MATTER OF SHRI HARJINDER SINGH, HOUSE NO. 1827, FIRST FLOOR,

SECTOR 22-B, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Harjinder Singh, R/o House no. 1827, First Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through

his letter dated 24.03.2017, has filed a complaint that the Electricity Department has

levied heavy sundry charges in the electricity bill due to meter defective. He has stated

that no intimation was given to him in this regard. He has further stated that he

requested concerned SDO electricity vide letter diary no. 47, dated 23.01.2017 and letter

dated 16.02.2017 but no reply has been given by the concerned department. Further in

continuation to his above complaint the complainant vide his letter dated 06.01.2017

requested that he is interested to pay the current bill as it is difficult for him to pay the

entire amount in single instalment. Accordingly the Nodal Officer i.e. XEN Electy. ‘OP’

Division no.1 was requested to except current cycle charges till disposal of the case.

2. The above complaint, registered as complaint no. CP-48/2017 was forwarded to the

Nodal officer XEN ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide letter dated 24.03.2017 for Para wise

comments along with consumption data of last 3 years, along with a copy to the

complainant.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 1 vide his letter dated 12.04.2017 filed

his reply along with consumption data of the consumer for 06/13 to 12/16. He has stated

that meter of the consumer was found defective and replaced vide MCO no. 71/495

dated 04.12.2015. Average has been charged @ 1444 units per month for the period

12.04.2015 to 11.12.2015 on the basis of future consumption for the period 12.04.2016

to 12.10.2016 as the meter display was found defective. Notice-cum-bill for payment of

short assessment was sent to the consumer vide memo no. 3125, dated 20.12.2016, for

Rs. 50432/-

4. On the date of hearing on 18.04.2017 both the parties were present. The complainant

stated that he has purchased the first floor in 12/14 and shifted in 06/15. He contested

that charging on future basis is not correct as he built up his load by way of installation of

AC’s subsequently after 3-4 months of his coming to the house. The RA contended that

the consumption of the consumer is very heavy and average has been correctly

charged.

5. The Forum observes that meter has shown erratic and low consumption from 04/15 to

12/15 i.e. for 8 months when compared with consumption after 12/15. The respondent

SDO has rightly overhauled the defective period from 12.04.2015 to 11.12.2015 (8

months) but the basis taken as 12.04.2016 to 12.10.2016 (6 months) is not correct. The

base period should also be taken for 8 (instead of 6 months) months from 12.04.2016 to

12.12.2016 i.e. 1228 units per month (2666+3278+2718+1161= 9823/8 units), exactly

the same months as that of defective period. Forum decides that charging may be

revised from 1444 units to 1228 units per month. Secondly for the payment of the bill not

paid, surcharge may not be levied in case the consumer clear all the dues in lumpsum.

Further for the part payments made in the recent past, the late payment surcharge be

levied on the outstanding amount rather than full amount of bill.

6. The complaint disposed off as per the above orders.


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

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

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

indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SHRI KARORA SINGH, HOUSE NO. 2265, GROUND

FLOOR, SECTOR 45-C, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Karora Singh, R/o House no 2265, Ground Floor, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh,

through his email dated 28.03.2017, submitted that he had made an application

to the Electricity Department for replacement of his single phase meter with three

phase meter on 28.04.2016 and deposited an amount of Rs. 11250/-. He further

submitted that the meter was replaced with a three phase meter but the cable

was not replaced due to non availability in the store as stated by the J.E.



wise comments, along with a copy to the complainant with request to submit

written complaint within 5 days.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 9, vide his letter dated

12.04.2017, submitted that the consumer applied for extension of load on

28.04.2016 with a request for change of meter to three phase. He further

submitted that the consumer is using only one phase through three phase meter.

The consumer is supposed to lay down three phase cable from the meter to his

main switch. The extended load had already been reflected in the bill.

4. On the notified date of hearing on 18.04.2017 the complainant didn’t attend. The

RA present on behalf of sub division submitted that the work of laying 4 core

cable from meter to the main switch is to be laid by the consumer himself at his

own cost. The department is not supposed to replace this cable along with the

meter.

5. The Forum agrees with the view expressed by the respondent SDO. The

complainant may lay the three phase cable of appropriate size at his own cost to

take full benefit of the three phase meter. With above observation case stands

disposed.








OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON

ER. ADRASH JAIN, MEMBER,

SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.

Complaint No. - CP-39/2017 Date of Institution - 16.03.2017

Date of Order - 20.04.2017

In the matter to M/s. Anupreet Kaur Mavi, House no.40, Type TF, Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh.

………………..Petitioner

Versus

1. The XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.

……………….Respondents

ORDER

1. M/s. Anupreet Kaur Mavi, resident of House no. 40, Type TF, Sector

14, Chandigarh, through e-mail dated 16.03.2017, stated that the

electricity bill dated 09.02.2017 has been issued for an amount of Rs.

2743/- which includes an arrear of Rs. 1258/- of the pervious bill.

She submitted that the pervious bill was paid online on 18.01.2017,

vide transaction no. 201837212. She requested for getting the bill

corrected.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CP-39/2017 was

forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1

for Para wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated

17.03.2017, with the request to the complainant to submit the


3. The Nodal officer vide his letter dated 03.04.2017, forwarded the

reply submitted by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 4, wherein he

submitted that the consumer made the payment of Rs. 1258/-, on

18.01.2017 after the due date (29/12/2016) was over. As the

consumer made the payment after expiry of due date the same was

not reflected in the next bill as data had already been processed. He

however confirmed that the amount would be reflected in the next

bill.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 19.04.2017 vide letter dated

06.04.2017, with a copy to the complainant. The complainant did not

attend. Observing that the nodal officer has confirmed that the

payment has been made by the complainant but after the due date.

It would be reflected in the next bill to be issued in the month of April

2017. The complaint is considered as disposed with these

observations. The complainant however may visit the sub division in

case the disputed amount is not reflected in the bill issued in April

2017.

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

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

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

from the date of receipt of this order.”

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

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

consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the

record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.

(J.S SIDHU) (A.K. Jain) (R.K.ARORA)

MEMBER, CGRF MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRMAN,CGRF






IN THE MATTER OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 114/9 SECTOR 9,

PANCHKULA


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, R/o House no. 114, Sector 9, Panchkula, through his letter dated

29.03.2017, has filed a complaint that the electricity meter from SCF No.9, Sector 26,

Chandigarh, was removed on 29.09.1997. After the removal of meter, an amount of Rs.

159557/- is outstanding against Sh. Radhakrishan in whose name connection was

running for which a notice has been served by the Electricity Department vide memo no.

83, dated 09.01.2017. He has further stated that the said SCF was purchased by his

father Sh. Bhagwan Dass from Sh. Radhakrishan on 03.03.1993. He has not received

any notice regarding defaulting amount since 31.03.1993 nor any amount has been

debited in the subsequent bills. Had this amount been informed in 1997, then atleast he

would have saved the interest charges on it. HE expressed that it is very difficult to pay

this huge amount after 20 years. Along with the complaint he has attached SDO ‘OP’

sub division no.2 notice no. 83, dated 09.01.2017, addressed to Sh. Radhakrishan to

pay defaulting amount of Rs. 157557/- .




complainant.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 2 filed his reply through XEN Electy.

‘OP’ division no. 1, vide memo no. 3367, dated 03.04.2017 stating that meter was

removed during the period 10.03.1998 to 10.05.1998 on account of defaulting payment.

At that time the defaulting amount was Rs. 35920/-. An annual surcharge of 10% has

been levied every year as per the prevalent rules and the total amount of Rs. 157557/- is

recoverable as on date. The SDO has further stated that the complainant has purchased

the property in 03/93 and he is liable to pay the arrears of electricity dues.

4. On the date of hearing both the parties were present. The complainant didn’t contest the

original defaulting amount but prayed that he may not be charged the surcharge, which

has been levied for last 20 years @ 10% per annum. The respondent SDO could not

give any satisfactory reply as to why the amount was not debited 20 years back and

efforts made to recover the amount there and then.

5. The Forum observes that the amount is rightly recoverable but the electricity department

didn’t take action at appropriate time resulting into accumulation of account due to levy

of annual surcharge @ 10%. The Forum observed that the amount of annual surcharge

levied @ 10% by the department is not in line with Tariff orders issued by Hon’ble JERC

for the year 2013-14 onwards. The relevant provisions of the Tariff order for the year

2013-14 at NP-209 are reproduced below:

“ 11) Delayed payment surcharge shall be applicable to all categories of consumers.

Delayed payment surcharge of 2% per month or part thereof shall be levied on all

arrears of bills. Such surcharge shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of one rupee.

Amount less than 50 paisa shall be ignored and amount of 50 paisa or more shall be

rounded off to next rupee. In case of permanent disconnection, delayed payment

surcharge shall be charged only upto the month of permanent disconnection.”

As the tariff order comes into force w.e.f April 2013, it is clear that

no surcharge is leviable after 31.03.2013.

6. The Forum observed that the Electricity Department while working out the recoverable

amount his levied surcharge for 2015 as well as 2016. The Forum also finds merit in the

submissions made by the complainant that had the amount been conveyed earlier, he

would have been saved the levy of annual surcharge and it is difficult for him to pay the

total accumulated amount in lumpsum at this stage. After deliberating on all the above

issues, the Forum directs the Nodal Officer to re-workout the outstanding amount after

levying the annual surcharge upto 2014. The Forum also allows the complainant to clear

the outstanding amount so workedout in 10 equal monthly instalments without levy of

any future surcharge during these 10 months. It is however left upto the complainant to

pay in lumpsum in order to obtain a new electricity connection, as intended by him

during the hearing.

7. The complaint stands disposed with above observations and directions. Compliance be

submitted within 21 days of the issuance of orders failing which penalties may be

imposed by the Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the EA 2003.





indexed.




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

BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON

ER. ADRASH JAIN, MEMBER,


Complaint No. - CP-46/2017 Date of Institution - 23.03.2017

Date of Order - 24.04.2017

In the matter to Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Lakhmir Singh, R/o Village Maloya, U.T., Chandigarh.


Versus



ORDER

6. Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Lakhmir Singh, resident of Village Maloya,

U.T., Chandigarh, through letter dated 23.03.2017, stated that the

electricity connection bearing number 410-AP10-0032B which existed

in the name of his late father Sh. Lakhmir Singh at the address house

no. 329, village Molaya, U.T. Chandigarh, is disconnected on account

of non deposit of electricity bill amount Rs. 50075/- as per letter

26.04.2016. Complainant requested for setting aside the demand of

Rs. 50075/- and also for restoration of electricity connection in his

name.

7. Complainant has disclosed in his complaint that the present dispute

dates back to the year 2010 when the bill number 646 dated

9.11.2010 with an amount of Rs. 42,195/- which included the sundry

charges was delivered to him. This bill was challenged before the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh and

the complaint of the complainant u/s 12, of CPA 1986 was allowed

and the demand of Rs. 42,602/- was set aside. The electricity

department while challenging this order approached State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission U.T Chandigarh, which was pleased

to dismiss the complaint of the complainant declaring it being non

maintainable before the Consumer Forum, in the light of judgement

of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as “U.P Power

Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad.”

8. The complainant while raising this issue before this Forum has prayed

for the restoration of the electricity connection, questioning of sundry

charges as demanded in the bill for the month Oct. 2010 to June

2011 and also sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- on

account of harassment and mental agony against the respondent

electricity department.

9. On receipt of the complaint the same was registered as CP-46/2017,

and a notice bearing memo no. 469 of dated 27.03.2017, was

forwarded to the Nodal officer of the concerned Sub Division for Para

wise reply to the points raised by the complainant with directions to

supply the copy of reply to the complainant as well within 10 days.

10. The answering responded electricity department submitted its

preliminary objections along with brief history of the case and Para

wise reply to points raised by the complainant.

11. The case was listed for hearing on 20.04.2017, however the

complainant did not attend the hearing while SDO and the R.A of the

concerned Sub Division were present. The case was deliberated and

reserved for orders.

12. We have minutely perused the complaint of the complainant, detailed

reply of the respondent electricity department along with the

documents placed on record by the parties and are of the view that

the initial demand to the notice raised by the responded electricity

department was on account of a routine checking on 30.09.2010,

when the complainant was found using electricity by directly

connecting one phase of the connection to an electric lamp. The

inspecting team declared it to be a clear case of electricity theft and

served a demand notice vide memo no. 4015 dated 07.10.2010

demanding an amount of Rs. 42195/- to be deposited within a week

failing which the electricity connection could be disconnected. Both

the documents, the inspection report dated 30.09.2010 and the

demand notice dated 07.10.2010 were duly received by the

complainant under his signatures but failed to make good the

payments demanded by the respondents, and preferred to challenge

the same before the DCDRF U.T. Chandigarh.

13. Without going into the merits of the compliant and considering the

preliminary objections of the respondents electricity department we

prefer to dismiss the same on the point of its maintainability before

this Forum as per the Regulation no. 2 (e) (i) & (ii) of the JERC’s

Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers

Regulations 2009, reproduced here in below.

***************

“ 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

compliant, namely –

(i) Any grievance arising out of sections 126, 127, 135

to 139, 142, 143, 149, 152 and 101 of the Act.

(ii) Any matter pending before, or decided by, any court

of law, or authority (except an authority under the control of

the licensee) or the Forum, and”

***************

As the case of the complainant falls under the section 135 of

electricity act 2003, and also that the complainant had already raised

this issue before the Consumer Forum under Section 12 of CPA 1986,

the complaint of the complainant deserve to be dismissed being not

maintainable. The complainant is left to seek remedy for redressal of

his grievance before appropriate authority/Court as per law.

14. The complaint is dismissed being not maintainable with

aforementioned observations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the

record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.

(J.S SIDHU) (A.K. Jain) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRMAN,CGRF


OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5

TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING




IN THE MATTER OF DR. MAYANK PURI, HOUSE NO. 3243, SARGODHA H.B. SOCIETY,

SECTOR 50, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Dr. Mayank Puri R/o, House no. 3243, Sargodha H.B. Society, Sector 50, Chandigarh, through

his application dated 06.03.2017, submitted that the electricity bill dated 24.02.2017, received by

him on 03.03.2017, included sundry charges of Rs. 31391/-. The sub division, when contacted,

could not explain the details of the sundry charges to his satisfaction. He mentioned that on

3.09.2015 he had submitted an application for getting his electricity meter checked but the same

was not inspected or changed for more than 6 months. During this period the electricity bills were

being issued on average basis. In mid November the employees of the Electricity Department

came and told that unless he deposit the electricity bill amounting to Rs. 36770/- his electricity

supply will be disconnected. Thereafter he was getting normal bills but now again 31,391/- has

been included as sundry charges. In his application he also mentioned that he has been residing

alone and his electricity uses was quite less as compared to the usage when the house was

rented to M/s Mahindra & Mahindra. He also levelled charges of misbehaviour and rudeness

against the staff of the sub division. The application dated 03.09.2015 and some of the electricity

bills were enclosed with application.

2. The above complaint, registered as complaint no. CP-30/2017 was forwarded to the Nodal officer

XEN ‘OP’ Division No.4 vide letter dated 06.03.2017 for Para wise comments along with

consumption data of last 3 years, with directions to accept Rs. 10,000/- out of the current bill and

not to disconnect the connection till disposal of the case.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9 vide letter dated 17.03.2017 submitted his

reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer as well as to the complainant. The SDO in his reply

submitted that the electricity meter of the applicant was replaced vide MCO dated 16.10.2015

affected on 21.10.2015 being meter defective. Thereafter the consumer account was overhauled

for the period 25.01.2015 to 21.05.2016 @921 units per month on the basis of past consumption

recorded during the period 05/12 to 05/13. Short assessment of Rs. 31391/- was assessed and

charged in the bill dated 24.02.2017. He also submitted that the charges were explained to the

applicant at the time of his visit to sub division, but he was not satisfied and didn’t not agree to

pay the same. He also enclosed the consumption data and copy of MCO along with his reply.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 22.03.2017 vide letter dated 20.03.2017 which was attended

by RA of the Sub Division. The applicant sought adjournment. Accordingly a fresh date of hearing

was notified as 08.04.2017 vide letter dated 28.03.2017. On this date of hearing the complainant

as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. With reference to taking the base for overhauling

as 05/12 to 05/13 by the sub division the applicant submitted that during that period the flat was

rented to M/s Mahindra & Mahindra who vacated the same in 09/13. He himself shifted in the flat

during Nov-Dec 2013 and was residing alone since then. He also showed a lease agreement

executed with M/s Mahindra & Mahindra effective from 01.07.2012. He also enclosed a letter by

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra indicating their intention to vacate the premises on 30.04.2013. The

applicant stated that though the notice for vacation was 30.04.2013 they actually vacated the

premises in 09/13. On the basis of above he submitted that the base period taken by the sub

division for overhauling is not correct as the same pertains to a period when some other person

was residing. He also supplied a copy of a letter dated 30.12.2015 addressed to the SDO Electy.

‘OP Sub Division no. 9 pointing out that though the bills were showing the meter reading as

40891 the actual reading on the meter was 41428 with the request to get the electricity meter

checked. The RA of the Sub Division on the other hand sticking to the charging done by the sub

division submitted that the applicant didn’t point out when the bill was being issued as low as 79

units or 131 units. In response to query by Forum the RA stated that base period was not taken

immediately preceding the period to be overhauled as the consumption during 2013-14 was

inconsistent. He also could not explain the readings recorded on the bill and the actual reading as

per MCO/the application dated 30.12.2015 by the complainant. The RA was directed to produce

the reading record and the report of J.E on the basis of which the MCO was issued to replace the

meter. The next date of hearing fixed for 27.04.2017.

5. On 27.04.2017 the complainant as well as RA of the sub division were present. The RA showed

the original checking report by the J.E on the request made by the complainant on 30.09.2015.

As per the report, the J.E declared the meter as dead stop on 08.10.2015 on the back of the

application. A copy of the above was also handed over during the hearing. With regard to original

meter reading record, he expressed his inability stating that the same has not received back from

the computer centre.

6. From the consumption data supplied by the sub division, the Forum observes that the

consumption during the period 2012-13 was consistent ranging from 378 units during winter cycle

of 2 months to 4136 units during summer cycle of two months. The consumption dropped

significantly after 11/13 and recorded only 1752 units till 09/14 in 10 months period during which

the bills were issued on average basis for one reason or the other. The consumption during

subsequent months was also less before the meter became defective in 05/15 and bills were

started to be issued on average basis. After replacement of meter in 05/16 the consumption of

the order of 500 to 600 units per cycle of two months has been observed. The drop in

consumption after 11/13 may be on account of vacancy by the previous tenant and occupancy by

the complainant. The Forum also observes that the meter reading was shown as 40891 in 05/15

and remained same till 03/16. However the reading as per MCO was 41425 which was also

pointed out by the complainant in 12/15. The recording of wrong reading could not be explained.

Based on the documents supplied by the complainant and the consumption data

analysis, it is clear that the complainant occupied his house in or around 11/13 and prior to that

the flat was occupied by a different person. Thus the basis taken by the sub division as 05/12 to

05/13 for overhauling the account from 01/15 to 05/16 is not correct, not being immediate

preceding year and pertaining to a different occupant. Since the consumption for the immediate

proceeding period is not consistent as objected by the sub division, the Forum directs the Nodal

Officer to take future consumption of the complainant from 05/16 to 05/17 as the base for

overhauling the account. The Nodal Officer may also issue suitable instructions to the staff to be

courteous to the consumers. Compliance be submitted within 21 days of the reading to be taken

on 25.05.2017 failing which penalties may be imposed by the Hon’ble JERC as per relevant

sections of the EA 2003. The complaint stands disposed with above directions.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2

nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,

Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

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

being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever required. File be

consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF DR. SUDHIR MALIK, HOUSE NO. 1619, PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY,



Versus




ORDER

1. Dr. Sudhir Malik, a tenant of, House no. 1619, Progressive Society, Sector 50-B,

Chandigarh, through his application, submitted in the office of CGRF on 28.03.2017,

stated that he was receiving the electricity bills with a negative amount in the past.

Suddenly he received the next bill amounting to Rs. 47478/- for the period 24/9 to 24/11.

When contacted, the concerned ‘OP’ sub division no. 9, he was informed that the high

consumption was for the period he was receiving the bills on MMC basis or with negative

amount. He was assured that the consumption would be divided over the period he was

receiving minimum consumption bills. However nothing was done by the sub division

and the next bill was prepared on the current cycle consumption with arrears of the

previous bill. Enclosing the copies of some of the bills, he prayed for treating the high

consumption for the period 05/16 to 09/16 over the period 01/15 to 09/16.

Simultaneously he requested for wavier of surcharge/penalty.




complainant. The case was simultaneously notified for hearing on 18.04.2017.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9 vide letter dated 12.04.2017

submitted his reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer as well as to the complainant. The

SDO in his reply submitted that the bills to the complainant were being issued on

consumption basis upto 01/15. Thereafter the bills were continued to be issued for nil

consumption except for 2 bills which were issued for ‘1’ and ‘6’ units till 03/16 whereafter

the bills are being issued on the basis of consumption. Submitting that the energy bills

were issued on consumption basis in the past, the SDO stated that the premises might

be lying vacant resulting into issuance of bills on nil or very small consumption. He

prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The consumption data was also submitted.

4. The complainant didn’t attend the hearing on 18.04.2017 and was afforded another

opportunity be re-notifying the case for hearing on 27.4.2017. The complainant visited

the office of CGRF on 26.04.2017 expressing his inability to attend hearing scheduled

for 27.04.2017. He requested for treating the high consumption recorded during the

period 05/16 to 09/16 over the period 01/15 to 09/16. The complainant further stated that

he was very much residing at the premises and is not aware why the bills were being

issued with negative amount. He also submitted that his only request was for treating the

high consumption bill over the period. He was not contesting that high consumption

recorded (8203 units) for the period 05/16 to 09/16 was on account of jumping of reading

or due to some other defect in the meter. On the date of hearing the RA present on

behalf of the sub division pointed out that the bills were being issued on reading basis.

Moreover the consumer did not reacted on receipt of minimum nil consumption bills. The

RA was asked to produce the meter reading record but he expressed his inability stating

that the same is submitted to the computer centre along with bimonthly data and they do

not receive the same back. This point was also taken by him in another case no.CP-30

of 2017 titled Dr. Mayank Puri verses Division no.4, sub division no. 9.

5. From the consumption data supplied by the sub division, the Forum observed that the

bill for 11/14 to 01/15 was issued for 501 units whereafter the bills continued to be

issued on nil or negligible consumption till 03/16. The consumption recorded for 03/16 to

05/16 is 6 units whereas the next bill for the period 05/16 to 07/16 was issued on ‘I’ Code

on account of in consistency in the reading. As per the reading record the consumption

for the period 05/16 to 07/16 worked out 7230 units and the consumption for 07/16 to

09/16 on the basis of reading was 973 units. Since the bill for the period 05/16 to 07/16

was issued on average basis, the bill for the period 05/16 to 09/16 was issued for 8203

units. From the copy of the bills submitted by the complainant along with his application,

the Forum observes that the negative amount bills were being generated on account of

refund of ACD as the new ACD workedout Rs. 199/- only against old ACD of Rs. 2533/-

due to issuance of almost nil consumption bills. The connected load of the consumer is

7.48KW. Considering the diversity factor as 1.0 and load factor as 30% the maximum

possible consumption during 2 months period works out to 3231 units whereas as per

consumption data supplied by the sub division along with meter reading implies that

consumption of 7230 units were recorded during the period 05/16 to 07/16.

6. On the basis of above analysis it is clear that the bills for the period 01/15 to 05/16 were

not prepared on the basis of actual reading being recorded by the meter for some

unexplained reasons. Further as the complainant is not contesting that the high

consumption was on account of meter jumping or due to some other default but was

requesting for dividing of this high consumption over the period 01/15 to 09/16 to have

the benefit of slab tariff. The Forum considering all the facts discussed above, directs the

Nodal Officer to treat the consumption of the bill for the period 05/16 to 09/16 over the

period 01/15 to 09/16 allowing the complainant the benefit of slab tariff. Further the ACD

may be revised on the basis of this revised consumption. The delayed payment

surcharge may be workedout on the basis of revised amount to be calculated as payable

on the due date of the bill i.e. 11.11.2016. For further period, till payment, the surcharge

be calculated on the balance amount after excluding the part payments made, if any.

The request made by the complainant for wavier of surcharge cannot be entertained as

he failed to make any payment of the bill disputed by him as clear from the bill issued for

the period 09/16 to 11/16 and also 11/16 to 01/1. Compliance be submitted within 21

days of the issuance of orders failing which penalties may be imposed by the Hon’ble

JERC as per relevant sections of the EA 2003.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. RAJESH GUPTA, HOUSE NO. 260/1, SECTOR 45-A,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Rajesh Gupta, R/o House no. 260/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, through his

application addressed to SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9 with a copy forwarded to

CGRF through e-mail on 07.04.2017, pointed out that the bill for the period 12/16 to

02/17 was prepared for inflated consumption treating the new reading as ‘8920’.

However, the reading as noted by him after receipt of the bill was ‘982.8’ for which he

attached the picture of the meter along with his application sent through email on

07.04.2017. He therefore stated that the 3 digit reading was wrongly recorded as 4 digit

reading by ignoring the decimal point.



comments along with supply of consumption data of last 3 years, with a copy to the

complainant.


submitted his reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer as well as to the complainant. He

submitted that the reading was got verified by J.E on 10.04.2017 as ‘1071’ and

submitted that the bill was prepared with current reading as 8920 whereas the actual

reading was only 892. He also submitted that the bill of the complainant was revised vide

sundry item 93/73 dated 24.04.2017 and that the adjustment would be reflected in the

forthcoming bill to be issued on 26.05.2017.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 27.04.2017 vide letter dated 21.04.2017. The

complainant visited office of CGRF in the forenoon of 27.04.2017 and expressed his

inability to attend the hearing fixed in after noon schedule at 3.00 PM. The reply received

from the sub division was shared with him for which he showed his satisfaction to the

action taken by sub division to redress his grievance. The RA present during the hearing

reiterated the written submissions.

5. Observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed by the sub

division to his satisfaction, the complaint is considered as disposed.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF DR. SINDHUJA, HOUSE NO. 1080, 2ND FLOOR, SECTOR 15-B,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Dr. Sindhuja, R/o House no. 1080, 2nd Floor, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh, vide his email

dated 16.03.2017, has filed a complaint regarding consumption of excessive 2695 units

for the period 12.12.2016 to 12.02.2017. He has stated that the consumption is not co-

relating with the electricity they consume on daily basis. He has requested for checking

of his meter.


Nodal officer XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide letter dated 17.03.2017 for Para wise

comments, along with a copy to the complainant as well as SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub

division no. 4.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.4, through the Executive Engineer,

Electy. ‘OP’ Division no.1, memo no. 3946, dated 11.04.2017 submitted his reply stating

that the meter was got checked on 29.03.2017 and working found in order. The reading

of meter has further gone to 20666 units from 20025. The bill of the consumer is as per

reading of the meter and is in order. The consumption details has also been supplied for

12.10.2015 to 12.02.2017. The hearing in the case was fixed for 19.04.2017, when the

complainant didn’t attend. To give another opportunity next hearing was fixed for

09.05.2017 and the complainant still didn’t attend.

4. The Forum observes that the department has got the meter checked and found working

in order. The complainant is also not pursuing his complaint diligently. The Forum

decides to dismiss the complaint.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. CHARANJIT SINGH, HOUSE NO. 77/8, SUBHASH NAGAR,

MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH


Versus

1. The Addl. S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.



ORDER

1. Sh. Charanjit Singh, R/o House no. 77/8, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh, has

filed a complaint dated 23.03.2017 stating that he has applied for two electricity

connections for 1st and 2nd floor of his house on 24.10.2016. All necessary documents

and fees have been deposited. On 27.12.2016 he was informed telephonically to

deposit the security and service connection charges of Rs. 3000/- per connection and

the same were also paid on 27.12.2016. However the Electricity Department vide its

notice dated 07.03.2017 informed that due to narrow/congested streets, the applied

connection cannot be released as one number electricity connection is already running

in the same premises. The complainant has further stated that in his area many floor

wise connections have already been released.


Nodal officer Addl. S.E., ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide letter dated 27.03.2017 for Para wise

comments, along with a copy to the complainant as well as to SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub

division no. 8.


submitted his reply stating that due to narrow/congested streets, it is not possible to lay

extra/heavy service lines due to which more than one connection cannot be released.

Necessary advice in this regard from higher authorities has already been sought.

4. On the date of hearing on 09.05.2017 the complainant was represented by Sh. V.B.

Khanna and Sh. Narinder Sharma, and an authority letter dated 09.05.2017 to this effect

was submitted.

5. During the hearing on 09.05.2017, the SDO informed that due to narrow streets and

other issues including safety, it was decided not to release new connections in such

cases and advice was sought from higher authorities as already submitted in his written

reply. Subsequently after considering all aspect, the new connection was released as

per request of the complainant. The authorised representative of complainant confirmed

release of connection and expressed his satisfaction. He however requested for

payment of compensation for delay as per Section 43 of IEA 2003.

6. The Forum observes that the complaint has already been resolved. With respect to oral

request made by the authorised representative for payment of compensation during the

hearing, it was noted that complainant in his original complaint had not made any

demand for compensation. Moreover, CGRF is not competent to order any

compensation as such the prayer of the complainant cannot be acceded to. The

complaint is disposed of as per the above observations.





indexed.





BEFORE: SH. A.K.JAIN, MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER


IN THE MATTER OF SH. NARESH KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 1079-F, SECTOR 7-B,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o House no. 1079-F, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh, vide his email dated

18.03.2017 has filed a complaint regarding fast running of meter, stating that he is

receiving bill of double the amount than his previous bill. He has further stated that meter

no. installed is CHSC194547 instead of CHSC1954557 which is written on the electricity

bill. He has requested to get the meter checked.



comments, along with a copy to the complainant as well as SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub

division no. 8.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2 by XEN Electy. ‘OP’ division no.1

vide memo no. 3861 dated 10.04.2017 has filed his reply stating that meter of the

complainant has been got checked vide SJO no. 6/323, dated 24.03.2017 and found

working in order. The meter no. has been corrected in the billing records

4. The hearing in the case was held on 19.04.2017, wherein the complainant was not

present. To afford him another opportunity another date of hearing was fixed for

11.05.2017 wherein both the parties were present. The respondent SDO again

confirmed that meter no. has been changed in the record. The complainant again stated

that his meter is running fast and requested that old mechanical meter be installed in

place of electronic meter. SDO stated that now mechanical meter of all consumers have

been replaced in compliance to JERC instructions. The consumer was explained that as

per policy decision all mechanical meter have been replaced with electronic meter and

now it is not possible to install mechanical meter. In case he is not satisfied with the

working of the meter he can challenge the meter by depositing Rs. 150/- as meter

challenge fee, after which a check meter will be installed in parallel with the existing

meter. The result of the checking meter will be binding of both the parties.

5. Keeping in view the above discussions and material on record the complaint is

dismissed.





indexed.

(JASWINDER SIDHU) (A.K.JAIN) N. MEMBER MEMBER, CGRF







IN THE MATTER OF SH. HARI LAL, HOUSE NO. 445, BAPU DHAM COLONY, PHASE-1,

SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH.


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Hari Lal, R/o House no. 445, Bapu Dham Colony, Phase-1, Sector 26, Chandigarh, vide his

letter dated 07.04.2017 has filed a complaint stating that, there are three families living in the

above said house and there are two electricity meter installed. He is forced to share meter with

Sh. Gulab Chander Yadav and there is always fight for settlement of the bill, as he uses very less

electricity but has to share huge amount with Sh. Gulab Chander Yadav. They have one sub

meter also but they do not follow the reading of sub meter. He is the only earning member of the

family, so he cannot pay this much bill and requested to allow one more electricity connection in

the house.


XEN ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide letter dated 07.04.2017 for Para wise comments, along with a copy

to the complainant as well as to the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2.

3. The respondent SDO vide The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Divn no.1, memo no. 4882,

dated 02.05.2017 has filed his reply stating as under:

(i) That the premises in question where the applicant want to install new separate electricity

connection is a very small unit allotted by the Chandigarh Administration under

rehabilitation scheme and is not feasible. As per record already following two no.

connection are running in the premises.

S.

No.

Name & address A/c No. Meter No. Connected

load

1. Sh. Bhulai, H.No. 445, B.D.C., Ph-1, Sec-26, Chd.

2658/044501W CHSE215145 2.280KW

2. Sh. Ram Braksh, H.NO. 445, B.D.C., Ph-1, Sec-26, Chd.

2658/044602Y CHSE98472 0.480KW

Plot is very small and the actual owner sold the small plot into three parts to different

three persons. But the said plot cannot be sold by the actual owner to anyone as the

same is under rehabilitation scheme. Moreover proof of ownership of premises has not

been provided by the complainant/applicant as required vide JERC Regulation 3.5 (3) of

Electricity Supply Code 2010.

4. The case came up for hearing on 11.05.2017 and the respondent SDO reiterated following points

again:

(i) That third domestic connection cannot be released in one plot.

(ii) That release of new connection is not technically feasible.

(iii) That the complainant failed to provide any proof of his legal occupancy i.e. ownership or

bonafied tenant.

5. The contention of the respondent SDO that more than one domestic connection cannot be

released in the same premises is not tenable, as there are no such instructions of the department

or JERC. So long separate dwelling units have been carved out in the same plot, each unit can

avail separate domestic connection. However in the instant case since the dwelling units have

been allotted by the government under rehabilitation scheme and if there is any such condition

the same needs to be adhered to.

The second submission given by the respondent SDO that connection is not technically

feasible is also not accepted. Since the LD system has already been laid in that area and

the premises under question is already being serviced. There is no problem envisaged in

releasing another connection of very small load.

The last but most important contention of respondent SDO that the applicant has

to prove his legal occupation of the premises is very much in order. Unless and until the

complainant submit proof of his legal occupancy of the dwelling unit viz;a;vizownership,

succession or rent deed, the application for release of new connection cannot be

accepted.

6. Keeping in view the above observations, the Forum is of the opinion that the application for

electricity connection at this stage cannot be accepted as the complainant has failed to prove his

bonafide of being a lawful owner or occupant of the premises, where he is seeking connection.

However he may again approach the Electricity Department with admissible proof of his being a

legal and bonafide occupant of the premises.







(JASWINDER SIDHU) (A.K.JAIN)

N. MEMBER MEMBER, CGRF






IN THE MATTER OF SH. DEEPAK JAIN, SCO 45, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH.


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Deepak Jain, R/o House no. 20, Sector 8, Panchkula, vide his letter dated

09.04.2017 has filed a complaint stating as under:

(i) That his electricity meter bearing account no. 102/2656/804503K installed at

SCO no. 45, Sector 26, Chandigarh is not being shifted by the Electricity

Department from back side to front side.

(ii) That he has got his load increased for another tenant to whom he has rented out

the front half portion recently.

(iii) That there are three meter installed in the premises and the department has

agreed to extend the load instead of installing new meter for incoming new

tenant.

(iv) But now the department is not shifting the meter whose load has been got

increased due to ongoing litigation for non payment of rent with the back tenant

to whom back portion has been given for godown purposes (Transport

Company).

(v) That it will be easy for him to install a small sub meter at the back whereas major

load of the new tenant in front will be catered in case meter is shifted to the front

side.

(vi) The complainant has prayed that Electricity Department may be directed to shift

the meter on to the front side and demanded compensation also for the loss of

rent due to delay in shifting and new tenant brought in.



comments along with a copy to the complainant as well as to the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub

Division no.2. The case was simultaneously notified for hearing on 20.04.2017.

3. The first hearing in the case was held on 20.04.2017, wherein both the parties were

present. The respondent SDO informed that J.E. has already visited the site and he has

reported that a dispute is going on between the tenant (whose meter has to be shifted in

the front) and the complainant/owner. The SDO requested for allowing some more time

for exploring various possibilities/options to resolve the issue. Accordingly next date of

hearing was fixed for 26.04.2017, when both the parties didn’t attend.

4. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2 vide memo no. 2124, dated

08.05.2017 reiterated his earlier statement that meter could not be shifted due to

ongoing court case pending in the District Court. The tenant is not allowing entry to the

premises, where meter in question is installed. He has further stated that the

complainant has reduced the load from 29KW to 5KW (of meter requested earlier for

shifting) and applied extension of load from 21KW to 44KW of another connection. The

SDO confirmed that above arrangement will be carried out without any objection.

5. On 11.05.2017 the respondent SDO stated that load has been increased of another

connection from where the load of the prospective tenant will be fed.

6. Keeping in view the above discussion the Forum observes that the complainant has

been resolved and same is disposed of as per above observations.





indexed.

(JASWINDER SIDHU) (A.K.JAIN) N. MEMBER MEMBER, CGRF



ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING


BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRMAN

SH. A.K.JAIN, MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER

Complaint No. - CP-64/2017

Date of Institution - 25.04.2017

Date of Orders - 19.05.2017

IN THE MATTER OF SH. R.S. Grewal, HOUSE NO. 1519, Pushpac Complex,



Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. R.S. Grewal, R/o House no. 1519, Pushpac Complex, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh,

through his application submitted in the office of CGRF on 25.04.2017, submitted

that he had challenged the electricity meter with the sub division. The electricity

meter was found faulty on checking. He requested for overhauling of his account and

refund of the excess payments made by him.



comments along with consumption data, with a copy to the complainant as well as to

SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.6 .

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.6, vide his letter dated 03.05.2017

submitted his reply with a copy to complainant as well as to the Nodal Officer. The

respondent SDO submitted that the consumer challenged the electricity meter on

14.02.2017 being running fast. A check meter was installed. As per check meter

report the meter was found running fast 92%. The defective meter was replaced on

14.03.2017 and the account of the consumer was overhauled from 26.08.2016 to

17.03.2017 (date of MCO). On the basis of past consumption recorded during the

period 08/15 to 02/16. An amount of Rs. 15350/- has been credited to the consumer

account to be reflected in the next bill. He also enclosed the consumption data and

the copy of MCO and check meter report along with his reply.

4. On the date of hearing on 18.05.2017 both the parties were present. The

complainant submitted that the period from 04/16 to 08/16 during which the meter

recorded high consumption then the past, has not been overhauled. The SDO stated

that the account has been overhauled for 6 months period prior to request made by

the consumer as per the instructions.

5. The Forum observes that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the sub

division treating the meter as defective on the basis of the consumption recorded in

the past. The bills were not revised on the basis of test results of the check meter

i.e. meter found fast by 92%. The Regulation 8.1 (16) of the Supply Code provides

that for the duration when the meter remains non functional, average monthly

consumption of corresponding billing month/billing cycle of previous year is to be

adopted for recovering the energy charges. From the consumption data, it is

observed that the meter started recording more than double the consumption from

06/16 onwards as compare to consumption recorded during the corresponding

cycle(s) in the past. The consumption for the period 04/16 to 06/16 as 1044 units is

however comparable with the corresponding consumption in the past as depicted in

the table below:

Consumption recorded during the cycle

Month/year 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

4-6 1944 934 1044

6-8 1213 2821

8-10 972 1008 2124

10-12 642 500 1418

12-2 617 573 1284

From above it is clear that the meter started behaving in an erratic manner and

recorded more the double consumption from June, 2016 onwards and not from April,

2016 as being contested by the consumer. In view of the above the Nodal Officer is

directed to overhaul the consumption recorded during the period 06/16 to 02/17 on

the basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding months in the year

2015-16. The overhaul done by the sub division is set aside. Compliance be

submitted within 21 days of the order failing which penalties may be imposed by the

Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the EA 2003. The complaint stands disposed

with above directions.

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

make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for

JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd

Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,

Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the

date of receipt of this order.”

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.

(JASWINDER SIDHU) (A.K.JAIN) (R.K.ARORA)

N. MEMBER MEMBER, CGRF Chairman, CGRF






IN THE MATTER OF SH. RAJ KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 104/06-I, SECTOR 32-A, ITBP

COLONY, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Raj Kumar, R/o House no. 104/06-I, Sector 32-A, ITBP Colony, Chandigarh, has

filed a complaint dated 25.04.2017 as under:-

(i) That they occupied the above house in 05/16.

(ii) That they are receiving excessive bills as under:

(a) Bill no. 078090 dated 21.08.2016 Rs. 12742/- (first bill) (b) Bill no. 100237 dated 24.10.2016 Rs. 10274/- (c) Bill no. 044534 dated 23.02.2017 Rs. 8568/-

(iii) That they have contacted the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub division no. 6, after receipt of

bill @ Sr. No. (a) above and it was assured that the bill of the next month will be

corrected and even this bill may be deposited along with the next month bills.

(iv) That the next bill dated 24.10.2016 has also been received very excessive. They

have deposited Rs.23929/- including late fee & no solution has been provided in

spite their written application.

(v) That they have challenged the meter by submitting an application but before

action could be taken, the existing meter has been declared defective and

removed from the site. No action was taken on their application challenging the

meter.

(vi) That they have requested for checking of their load which was later on checked

by department.

(vii) That the SDO also purposed to get the meter checked in the laboratory and also

suggested them to approach CGRF for resolution of the grievances.

The complainant prayed that in view of the above submissions refund may be

allowed for excessive bills.



comments, along with a copy to the complainant as well as to SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub

division no.6 .

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.6, vide his memo no. 1437, dated

04.05.2017 submitted his reply as under:-

(i) That for the billing period 25.05.2016 to 25.07.2016 first bill was issued for

Rs.2068/-

(ii) The meter was replaced vide MCO no. 20/214 dated 30.11.2016 as the meter

terminal was found burnt.

(iii) That the bills have been issued on actual consumption basis from 25.05.2016 to

28.11.2016 (Date of MCO).

(iv) The bill for the period 25.07.2016 to 25.09.2016 was issued on average basis for

2068 units which was adjusted during the period 25.09.2016 to 25.11.2016.

(v) As the bills have been issued on actual consumption basis hence, no

adjustment/refund is admissible as per departmental instructions.

Keeping in view the above submissions, the respondent SDO has prayed that

complaint may be dismissed and consumer directed to pay the bills.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder dated 11.05.2017 to the above reply of

respondent SDO. They have stated that they do not agree with the explanation given by

the SDO. The respondent SDO has got their appliances (load checked) and the

consumption is not commensurate with their checked load. The SDO has not correctly

adjusted their excessive bills and the meter has shown incorrect excessive reading. With

the new meter installed and with the same appliances, their two months bills is barely

Rs.460/-.

5. The complainant telephoned on 15.05.2017 informing that they have vacated the house

from ITBP colony and shifted to house no. 385, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh and requested

for early resolution of the complaint so that their electricity bill could be finalised as they

have to give NOC Certificate to the ITBP.

6. The hearing in the case was fixed for 18.05.2017. Wherein both the parties were

present. The complainant stated that the consumption of the new meter is very less

which proves that the old disputed meter was defected and recorded inflated

consumption. It was also stated that the supply were connected directly immediately

after release of connection in 05/16. Here the SDO submitted the only neutral was

connected directly due to which there is possibility of meter running fast. The respondent

SDO also supplied the checked load of the complainant/consumer as under:-

(i) Fan 2*60= 120W

(ii) TV 1*100=100W

(iii) CFL 4*15=60W

(iv) PP 1*1000= 1000W

(v) Washing Machine 1*750=750W

(vi) Fridge 1*200=200W

(vii) AC Split 1.5T- 1*2250=2500W

(viii) 1 Tube light 1*40=40W

Total = i.e. 4.77 KW.

He also supplied copy of PDCO as per which the meter reading at the time of

PDCO was 2612 on 19.04.2017.

7. It is clear from the above discussions that the working of the disputed meter was not

normal as it recorded 5942 units (8 months) during the period 05/16 to 30.11.2016

against 220 units recorded by the new meter from 30.11.2016 to 19.04.2017 (about 41/2

months), the date of PDCO. The checked load also doesn’t support the meter reading of

5942 units during 8 months period. Since the connection was new the past consumption

data is not available. Further the consumption data for the replaced meter mostly

pertains to winter months where as the disputed period comprises of summer period as

well. The wife of the complainant who attended the hearing stated that her husband, a

Sepoy, is presently posted in Vishakhapatnam. They originally belongs to Jammu but

presently residing in Chandigarh to pursue the education of her daughters. The

accommodation where the complainant was residing consisted of two room set.

8. Keeping in view the above factors the Forum, taking a lenient view, directs the Nodal

Officer to overhaul the account from the date of connection to replacement of meter @

flat 400 units per month. As the connection has already been disconnected, the refund, if

any, be made through cheque. Compliance be submitted within 21 days of the issuance

of the orders failing which penalties may be imposed by the Hon’ble JERC as per

relevant sections of the EA 2003. The complaint stands disposed with above directions.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SMT. PARMINDER KAUR & SH. DHARAM SINGH, HOUSE NO.

3322/1, SECTOR 45-D, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Smt. Parminder Kaur & Sh. Dharam Singh, R/o House no. 3322/1, Sector 45-D,

Chandigarh, submitted a complaint dated 04.04.2017 to the SDO with a copy to CGRF

on 11.04.2017. Stating that the sub division installed a new meter treating the old meter

(purchased by them) as burnt, the complainant insisted that the meter has in working

order. Though sundry charges amounting to Rs. 1715/- and Rs. 9992/- were paid in

protest but it was requested to supply the bifurcation and the details.




SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.9.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9, vide letter dated 24.04.2017

submitted his reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer. The SDO in his reply submitted that

the meter of consumer was replaced on 19.09.2016 being meter burnt. Therefore the

account of the consumer was overhauled for the period 12.07.2016 to 19.09.2016, on

the basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding period 07/15 to 09/15 and

Rs. 9992/- was assessed. He further submitted that inadvertently the bill already paid

was not adjusted which has been done now and benefit of Rs. 3242/- has been credited

to be reflected in bill to be issued on 11.06.2017. He also informed that Rs. 1715/- is

SOP charges of 498 units of consumption for the period 12.11.2016 to 12.01.2017. He

also enclosed the consumption data as well as the copy of MCO and basis of

overhauling.

4. Two opportunities were afforded to the complainant on 27.04.2017 and 23.05.2017, but

he complainant didn’t attend. The RA present on behalf of sub division explained that the

details of charges has already been explained during their visit to the sub division.

5. The Forum observing that the necessary details had already been provided and the

adjustment of amount already made has been done, consider the complaint as

disposed.





indexed.







Complaint No. - CP-58/2017 Date of Institution - 12.04.2017 Date of Orders - 24.05.2017

IN THE MATTER OF SH. SUNIL SINGH, FLAT NO. 3074, BLOOD DONORS SOCIETY, SECTOR

50-D, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Sunil Singh, GPA holder of Flat no. 3074, Blood Donors Society, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh,

through his letter dated 07.04.2017, received in the office of CGRF on 12.04.2017, stated that

sundry charges of Rs. 14974/- were levied by the sub division for the period 11/13 to 07/14

treating the meter as defective. He further submitted that against his application for a three phase

electricity connection with connected load of 10.080KW, single phase meter was installed due to

shortage of three phase meters. The flat remained vacant and was occupied only during 10/14 for

which the necessary documentary evidence such as the rent deed and the statement from the

neighbours was provided to the sub division. He requested to wavier of sundry charges.


XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.4 vide letter dated 18.04.2017 for Para wise comments along with

consumption data, with a copy to the complainant as well as to SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division

no.9

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9, vide his letter dated 22.05.2017 submitted

his reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer. The SDO submitted that the electricity metre was

replaced on 23.07.2014 being defective. Thereafter the account of the consumer was overhauled

for the period 25.11.2013 to 23.07.2014 @ 500 units per month on the basis of future

consumption recorded during the period 09/14 to 09/15. The short assessment of Rs. 14974/-

was charged in the bill through sundry charges which was objected by the consumer. He also

supplied the consumption data and the copy of SJO with regard to change/replacement of the

single phase meter to three phase meter.

4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 23.05.2017 vide letter dated 16.05.2017. Both the

parties were present during hearing. The complainant submitted that the flat remained

unoccupied since 2009 when the same was take on GPA. The flat was rented out only in 10/14

and necessary evidence in respect of the rent deed along with statements by neighbours and an

affidavit by him to the effect was submitted to the sub division. The flat was in raw condition and

after slight renovation it was rented out in 10/14. The RA of the sub division submitted that the

meter was found defective as per the SJO report at the time of installation of three phase meter.

Accordingly the account was overhauled.

5. The Forum on the basis of consumption data supplied by the sub division observes that there

was practically nil consumption from 01/13 to 09/14 when the new meter was installed. The meter

reading of 171 in Nov 2012 as per the consumption data also points out that only 150 odd units

were consumer since 2009 which also suggest that the flat was unoccupied since 2009. The

consumption from 11/12 to 06/14 was only 7 units and during the period July 2014 to replacement

of meter as 37 units also suggests that the statement made by the consumer with regard to his

flat lying unoccupied, appears to be correct.

6. On the basis of above, the charging done by the sub division is set aside. The Nodal Officer is

directed to bill the consumer on the basis of recording of the reading by old as well as new meter.

The complaint stands disposed off with above directions. Compliance be submitted within 21

days of receipt of the order failing which penalties may be imposed by the Hon’ble JERC as per

relevant sections of the EA 2003. The complaint stands disposed with above directions.

“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a

representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State

of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd

Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,

Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-

[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”











IN THE MATTER OF SH. SAHIL GULERIA, HOUSE NO. 876, SECTOR 41-A, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Sahil Guleria, R/o House no. 876, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh, has filed a complaint vide email

dated 17.04.2017 that he has been charged sundry charges of Rs. 1709/- in the billing cycle

01.01.2017 to 01.03.2017. He has further stated that two bill have been issued for the same

billing cycle one of which has already been paid.




no.9.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9, vide Endst no. 3036-37, dated 22.05.2017

submitted his reply stating that adjustment of Rs. 1594/- has already been made.

4. The complainant didn’t attend on notified date of hearing despite notice was sent through email

as well. The RA submitted that the necessary relief has already been provided to the complainant

and requested for the disposal of complaint.

5. The Forum observing that the complaint has already been redressed, consider the complaint as

disposed.













IN THE MATTER OF SMT. SONIKA CHAUDHARY, HOUSE NO. 1609/2, SECTOR 44-B,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Smt. Sonika Chaudhary, R/o House no. 1609/2, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh, has filed a

complaint vide email dated 19.04.2017 that their bill for the period 25.11.2016 to

25.01.2017 amounting to Rs. 16267/- seems to be abnormal in comparison to past

consumption. On contacting the sub division, the SDO informed that auditors have levied

the sundry charges.







(i) That electricity connection stands in the name of Sh. Neeraj Dhiman having

sanctioned load of 7 KW under domestic category.

(ii) That the meter was replaced vide MCO no. 114/770 dated 2.09.2016 affected on

10.09.2016 being meter dead stop.

(iii) That the consumer account has been overhauled and average charged with

effect from 25.03.2016 to 10.09.2016 @586 units per month on the basis of

previous consumption of 03/15 to 09/15 and amount assessed to Rs. 13327/-.

(iv) That the consumption data and copy of the MCO has been attached with the

reply.

4. The complainant as well as the RA of the concerned sub division were present during

hearing on 23.05.2017. The complainant pointed out that immediately on receipt of

abnormally low consumption in bill for the period 05/16 to 07/16, they approached the

sub division with the request to check the meter. On finding the meter dead stop on

30.08.2016, the same was replaced on 10.09.2016 by the sub division. The sub division

overhauled the account from 03/16 onwards upto date of MCO whereas the overhauling

should have been done for two months period only from 05/16 to 07/16. The RA on the

other hand submitted that the consumption for the period 03/16 to 05/16 was very much

on lower side as compared to consumption recorded during the period 03/15 to 05/15

and less than the consumption recorded during the Jan to March in 2015 and in 2016 as

well, suggesting that the meter got defective during the period 03/16 to 05/16. The

complainant gave the reason that the consumption during 03/16 to 05/16 was on lower

side as they were not residing for most of the time in their flat. They however failed to

produce any documentary evidence in support of their statement.

5. The Forum after analysing the consumption data concludes that the overhauling done by

the sub division is in order and dismiss the complaint.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF THE SDO, ELECTRICAL, SUB DIVISION NO.3, SECTOR-31,

CHANDIGARH


Versus

1. The Additional S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.



ORDER

1. A complaint dated 10.03.2017 from the SDO, Electrical, Sub Division no.3, Chandigarh

was received in the office of CGRF on 14.03.2017. It was submitted that an electricity bill

amounting to Rs. 1,05,012/- for the period 06/16 to 08/16 with consumption of 14591

units was received. The same was challenged on 16.09.2016 before the due date as the

consumption was much higher than the normal consumption. The next bill for the period

08/16 to 10/16 was again inflated bill and included the arrear of the previous bill. On

08.11.2016. A new energy meter was installed thereafter. The consumption of the new

meter is less than 1500 units for 3 months and is comparable with the previous meter

consumption before it became defective/malfunctioned. In the meanwhile the supply was

disconnected due to non payment by the sub division no.5. The applicant requested for

reconnection of supply and also overhauling of account for the period inflated

consumption was recorded by the meter.


Nodal officer Addl. S.E., ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide letter dated 15.03.2017 for para wise


SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.5. The Nodal Officer was also directed to restore the

connection on deposit of Rs. 50,000/- out of the outstanding amount by applicant.


submitted his reply duly countersigned by the Nodal Officer Addl. S.E. Electy. ‘OP’

division no.2, with a copy to applicant. He stated that the applicant challenged the

accuracy of meter by depositing Rs. 500/- on 23.09.2017. A check meter was installed

on 23.09.2016 in series with the existing meter. The existing disputed meter was found

18% fast as per check meter report. Accordingly a refund of Rs. 43,056/- was allowed to

applicant in the bill issued on 10.01.2017. The refund was on account of adjustment of

consumption for the period 04/16 to 10/16 as per check meter report. Due to non

payment, the connection was disconnected, but restored after the payment of Rs.

50,000/- made on 24.03.2017 as per interim orders of the Forum. Stating that the refund

has already been allowed, the SDO requested that the applicant be asked to clear the

outstanding amount of Rs. 1,98,284/- as per the bill issued on 09.03.2017 after

adjustment of Rs. 50,000/- already deposited. The consumption data and the copy of

check meter report and MCO was enclosed with the reply.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 24.05.2017, both the parties were present. The

applicant submitted that the consumption recorded for the period 06/16 to 10/16 was of

the order of 13/14,000 units per cycle against maximum consumption of around 1800

units recorded during past period of 3 years. Further submitting that no AC’s were being

used in the office, he stated that the inflated consumption was due to malfunctioning of

the meter. The respondent SDO submitted that as per the check meter report the

account for 6 months has already been adjusted and no further relief can be provided.

On other hand the applicant insisted for overhauling on the basis of past consumption,

stating that the consumption recorded during the disputed period was more than 6 times

which is not possible.

5. The Forum on the basis of submissions made by the applicant as well as SDO observes

from the consumption data provided by the sub division that the maximum consumption

for any billing cycle from 02/14 to 04/16 was 1871 units during the period 12/15 to 02/16.

The consumption for subsequent months from 04/16 to 06/16 was 2902 units, from

06/16 to 08/16 was 14591 units and from 08/16 to 10/16 was 13099 units. the

consumption of the replaced meter was also of the order of 400-500 units per month.

6. On the basis of check meter report as well as the consumption recorded during the

period 06/16 to 10/16, it is clear that the meter malfunctioned in or around June 2016 as

the consumption recorded during the disputed period is very much on higher side as

compared to past consumption during last 2 years. The Forum doesn’t agree with the

adjustment done by the sub division on the basis of check meter report. As it is evident

that the meter malfunctioned, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account from

09.06.2016 to 08.11.2016 (date of MCO), on the basis of consumption recorded during

the corresponding period in the year 2015 i.e. from 09.06.2015 to 09.10.2015.

Compliance be submitted within 21 days of the receipt of the order failing which

penalties may be imposed by the Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the EA 2003.

The complaint stands disposed with above directions.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. IQBAL SINGH KALSI, HOUSE NO. 107, SECTOR 10,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Iqbal Singh Kalsi, R/o House no. 107, Sector 10, Chandigarh, through his application

dated 18.04.2017, submitted that in recent electricity bill an amount of Rs.6780/- of

previous bill has been shown as arrears, although the payment for the same was made

through cheque. On verification from the HDFC bank he found that the Electricity

Department did not present his cheque amounting to Rs. 6524/- to the bank. On enquiry

from the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ sub division no.2, he gathered that his cheque was bounced

resulting into inclusion of bill amount including surcharge as arrears in the current bill. He

requested to provide the details why the cheque bounced, when it was submitted before

due date.


Nodal officer XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide letter dated 18.04.2017 for para wise

comments/action taken report along with consumption data, with a copy to the

complainant as well as to SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.5.

3. The Nodal Officer XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ division no. 1 forwarded the reply submitted by the

concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.4, vide his letter dated 22.05.2017. He

stated that the complainant submitted the cheque dated 14.02.2017 of HDFC bank

which was dishonoured due to the cheque issued in wrong name by the applicant i.e. in

favour of ‘Executive Engineer, MCPH Division no.2,’ instead of ‘SDO, Electricity ‘OP’

Sub Division no.2.’ He also enclosed the photocopy of the cheque along with the reason

of dishonour of cheque prepared by the Axis bank for ready reference. He further stated

that the cheque of the applicant bounced due to negligence of the complainant, so the

amount was reflected in the next bill. He enclosed photo copy of the Axis bank and the

concerned HDFC bank cheque.

4. The case was listed for hearing on 25.05.2017, both the parties were present. The RA

stated that the cheque was issued in favour of Executive Engineer, MCPH Division no.2,

instead of SDO, Electricity, ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2, Chandigarh, resulting into

dishonouring of the cheques. He also stated that the cheque is lying in the office of the

designated Nodal Officer for the purpose, i.e. SDO Electy. ‘OP’ sub division no.9. The

complainant requested for return of the dishonoured cheque. Accordingly the RA was

directed to get the cheque collected and return the same to the complainant at his

residential address. During deliberations, it was also gathered that the dishonoured

cheques are not being sent back to the consumers. The CED must ensure that the

dishonoured cheques are returned back to the issuing persons and instructions in this

regard to all field officers may be issued for meticulous compliance.

5. With above directions, the complaint stands disposed. Compliance be submitted within

21 days of the receipt of the order failing which penalties may be imposed by the Hon’ble

JERC as per relevant sections of the EA 2003. The complaint stands disposed with

above directions.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. VEERESH BERRY, HOUSE NO. 5178/3, MODERN HOUSING

COMPLEX, MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Veeresh Beery, R/o House no. 5178/3, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra,

Chandigarh, vide his email dated 02.05.2017 stated that the bill for last cycle was

exorbitant amounting to Rs. 37000/- for which a complaint was lodged with the SDO,

Electy., ‘OP’ sub division no.8 and Rs. 250/- was paid as meter challenging fee. On

checking it was found that the bill was prepared on wrong meter reading and he was

allowed to make part payment of Rs. 4000/-, which was deposited within due date.

However in next bill issued on 25.04.2017 Rs. 250/- as meter challenging fee has been

charged as sundry. He submitted that as the bill was wrongly generated which was

corrected subsequently, the department should not have charged the fee of Rs. 250/-.

Accordingly he requested that the reversal of charging of Rs. 250/- should be made.


Nodal officer Addl. S.E., ‘OP’ Division No.2 vide letter dated 04.05.2017 for para wise


SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.5. The complainant was also requested to submit



submitted his reply stating that the bill for period 11/16 to 01/17 was prepared on meter

reading. However when the consumer challenged the bill the meter reading when

checked/verified was found to be lower. Accordingly the bill of the complainant was

revised as per the verified reading. But inadvertently the challenge fee deposited by the

consumer could not be adjusted at the time of revision of the bill. Now the bill challenge

fee has been adjusted and necessary sundry allowances has been allowed vide S.I. No.

34/119 dated 05.05.2017. Hence the complaint regarding subject cited matter stands

resolved.

4. The complaint was listed for hearing on 25.05.2017. The complainant didn’t attend. The

respondent SDO present during hearing stated that the necessary relief has already

been provided to complainant as per his request. Thus his grievance redressed. The

complaint stands disposed with the above observations.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. JATIN SALWAN, HOUSE NO. 419, SECTOR 15-A,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Jatin Salwan, R/o House no. 419, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, through his email dated

02.05.2017 enclosed a complaint regarding problem in the street light pole no. 61,

installed on B Road of Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, in front of his house no. 419, Sector 15-

A, Chandigarh. Stating that the street light was not working for more than 2 weeks, he

requested for getting the same attended.



comments, with a copy to the complainant as well as to SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division

no.4. The complainant was requested to submit written complaint within 5 days.

3. The Nodal Officer XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ division no. 1 forwarded the reply submitted by the

concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.4, vide his letter dated 22.05.2017.

Wherein it was stated that the grievance of the consumer was redressed on 03.05.2017

and prayed that the complaint may be filed.

4. On the date of hearing on 25.05.2017. The consumer didn’t attend. The SDO confirmed

that the necessary action with regard to grievance was taken on 03.05.2017 and now the

street light is working.

5. Observing that the grievance has already been redressed, complaint was considered as

disposed.





indexed.








IN THE MATTER OF M/s. NEHA SHARMA, HOUSE NO. 161, SECTOR 30-A, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. An email was received from M/s Neha Sharma, R/o House no. 161, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh on

23.05.2017, complaining the poor quality of street lights in sector 30-A. She requested for setting

right the street lights of the area and that of Pole no. 35 in front of house no. 161, sector 30-A,

Chandigarh in particular.


XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.3 vide letter dated 24.05.2017 for Para wise comments/action taken report.

The complainant was also requested to submit written complaint duly signed within 5 days.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.6, vide his letter dated 25.05.2017 submitted

that the maintenance of street light, pole no. 35 in front of house no.161, sector 30-A, Chandigarh

was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. He also enclosed a letter from the complainant

confirming the setting of street light and that her complaint has been resolved.

4. The Forum in its meeting held on 07.06.2017 observes that the grievances of the complainant

has been redressed to her satisfaction. The complaint is considered as disposed.













IN THE MATTER OF SH. KARANPAL, HOUSE NO.249/1, KHASRA NO.41/1/15,

VILLAGE MALOYA, U.T., CHANDIGARH & OTHERS.


Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.



ORDER

1. Following residents of village Maloya, U.T. Chandigarh, submitted a complaint that the

commercial electricity connection outside Lal Dora village Maloya, U.T. are not being

released by the Chandigarh Electricity Department on the plea that there is no policy of

Chandigarh Administration to release the commercial electricity connections. They have

stated that they require small commercial connections for their small shops/business.

They also gave an undertaking before the Electricity Department that their connections

may be disconnected at any time, if the Chandigarh Administration/ other authority raise

any objections in this regard. List of persons who have signed the above complaint is as

under:-

(i) Sh. Karanpal S/o Sh. Uday Singh, House no. 249/1, Khasra No. 41/1/15. (ii) Sh. Ajit Singh, S/o Sh. Rahu Ram, Khasra No. 22/54. (iii) Sh. Sant Ram, House no. 390, Khasra no. 25/3/1. (iv) Sh. Uday Singh, House no. 249, Khasra no. 41/6 (v) Sh. Uday Singh, House no. 249, Khasra No.41/15/1.



comments, with a copy to the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.10 as well as to the

complainants.

3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.10, vide letter dated 11.05.2017 has

filed his reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer as well as to the complainants. The SDO

in his reply submitted that presently no policy has been framed by the Chandigarh

Administration to release the commercial connection outside the Lal Dora of the villages.

Only domestic connections are being released as per commercial instructions

no.67/2013 dated 23.09.2013 issued by S.E. Electricity Chandigarh. He enclosed the

copy of the instructions along with his reply. He also enclosed a proposal submitted to

the XEN ‘OP’ division no. 4, for consideration and framing a policy for release of

commercial electricity connections under NRS category outside Lal Dora. on the lines of

release of connections in DS category.

4. On the first date of hearing on 24.05.2017, complainants as well as respondent SDO

were present. The SDO reiterated his contentions that as per policy/instructions of the

department only domestic connection can be released outside Lal Dora limits. However,

the case has already being recommended for release of NRS connections also. It also

transpired during discussions that in the past, commercial connections used to be

released on furnishing an affidavit duly approved by legal section of the Chandigarh

Administration. SDO also informed that the problem has cropped up as previously these

areas were serviced through “one point connection” to the contractor who used to give

commercial connections also. However this policy has been withdrawn and now the

consumers have to take connections directly from CED. SDO was directed to submit

copy of the above said affidavit for examination. On the next date of hearing on

07.06.2017 the case was again deliberated in detail. The respondent SDO submitted

complete commercial instruction no.67/2013 dated 23.09.2013 issued by S.E. Electricity

and copy of affidavit attached with Chief Engineer, U.T. Chandigarh, memo no.

G/2001/3390 dated 15.05.2001.

5. The Forum also obtained the copy of the note on the basis of which the policy of release

only domestic connection outside Lal Dora were formulated. The Forum observes that in

the year 2001, C.E., U.T. Chandigarh has allowed release of individual connections to

the residents outside Lal Dora after obtaining affidavit from the respective consumers. A

mere reading of the affidavit reveals that both domestic and NRS connections were

being allowed outside the Lal Dora. However vide notification dated 18.04.2002, the

CED migrated to the policy of “one point supply” under which a bulk connection was

released on the LT side of transformer to a contractor who used to further distribute the

electricity whereby both the domestic connection as well as commercial connections

used to be availed by the residents. “One point supply” was adopted by CED to curb the

menace of kundi connection and theft of energy. This policy was reviewed in light of

hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 05.09.2011 in LPA 637/2010 wherein

Hon’ble High Court was of the view that Electricity Department is a public utility service

and there should not be any middle man i.e. contractor in case of “one point supply.” The

Chandigarh Administration at that time approved as under:

“OK let us keep NRS connections separate. We may continue this only to household domestic connections and will make a proposal separately NRS connection after getting a survey done.” Since then the Chandigarh Administration has not come out with any policy for release

of NRS connection outside Lal Dora. Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 “Duty to

supply on request” provides for that every distribution licensee shall on an application by

the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within

one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. The only rider for not

supplying the connection is where LD distribution system doesn’t exists and in that

scenario Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider

necessary for electrification of such village/area. In the instance case the area where

complainants want to take commercial connections is very much serviced by CED & LD

system do exist. Similarly the JERC Supply Code Regulations 3.1 provides for supply of

electricity to the applicants if the area is duly electrified. Moreover as per regulation 3.3 it

is obligatory on the part of licensee to upgrade the distribution system to meet the

demand for electricity in its area of supply. There is no distinction between domestic and

commercial categories meaning thereby that there is no bar for release of commercial

connections in the areas where LD distribution system have already been laid.

6. Keeping in view the above discussions, the Forum decides to allow the complaint. The

NRS connections may be released outside Lal dora limits also subject to completion of

all required formalities of the CED and JERC Regulations.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF Ms. HARLEEN ASEES GILL, HOUSE NO. 5991, MHC,

MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Ms. Harleen Asees Gill, R/o house no. 5991, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh, has filed a

complaint vide her email dated 03.05.2017. She stated that she was harassed when she

went to the electricity department at Manimajra for change of name of her electricity

connection. She was not informed about all the required formalities/documents/NJST

etc. in one go and she had to shuttle between the e-sampark centre and the sub division

time and again for completing various formalities.



comments. The complainant was also requested to submit written complaint duly signed

within 5 days.

3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.8, vide his memo no.1719, dated

19.05.2017 has filed his reply as under:-

(i) That Sh. Asees Mohan Singh Gill, house no. 5991, MHC, Manimajra,

Chandigarh, visited his office for change of name of electricity connection of the

said house and was told all departmental formalities.

(ii) That the complainant submitted the complete file on 03.05.2017 along with

processing fee of Rs. 25/-.

(iii) The application was verified by the concerned J.E. for technical feasibility on

12.05.2017 after which the complainant deposited Rs. 3000/- on 15.05.2017 at e-

sampark centre as the electricity sub division are cashless offices.

(iv) That SJO no. 12/04 dated 15.05.2017 and PDCO no. 46/50 dated 15.05.2017 for

change of name were issued and then corresponding master file was sent on

15.05.2017 to the computer cell.

4. The first hearing in the case was fixed for 25.05.2017, when the complainant didn’t

attend. To afford another opportunity next date was fixed for 07.06.2017.

5. In the meantime the complainant vide her email dated 26.05.2017 again stated that they

have been asked to bring the meter outside the house.

6. On the hearing date 07.06.2017 the complainant was again absent.

7. The Forum observes that the complainant has raised issue regarding hassles faced by

consumers in getting new electricity connection or for jobs similar i.e. changing of name

etc. as they have to visit sub division office and then for payments to e-sampark centres.

She has objected to the shifting of meter from inside the house. The SDO contended

during the hearing that the complainant’s application has been processed quickly within

the frame work of guidelines, rules and regulations. The Forum is also of the opinion that

creation of e-sampark centres in Chandigarh are in no way any hurdle in the smooth

working of the Electricity Department. Still the Forum feels that in case there is possibility

of any further improvement, the S.E. Electricity Department may review and issue

suitable instructions in this regard. The complaint regarding bringing of meter from inside

the house is rejected as this is purely as per the policy of the department after

consideration of various factors. With above observations, the complaint stands

disposed.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. AJAY GROVER, SHOWRROM NO. 10-A, SECTOR 7-C,

MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Mrs. Bismi Patrick, Chief Finance Manager, KLG Group of Companies, 181/3B,

Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, vide email dated 07.03.2017 forwarded scanned

copy of a complaint duly signed by Sh. Ajay Grover that they have received bill dated

23.02.2017 for 32882 units amounting to Rs. 196868/- against their normal bill of

Rs.8000/- to Rs.12000/- approximately per billing cycle. It has been stated that the bill is

very much on higher side and meter has gone defective.




SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.9. Complainant was also requested to submit written

complaint within 5 days.

3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2, vide his memo no. 1356, dated


(v) That the present complaint before the hon’ble Forum is premature.

(vi) That the applicant has alleged for meter running fast/jumped, but the consumer is

first required to challenge the meter as per clause 7.5(2)(II) of Electricity Supply

Code 2010. The consumer has not availed the above remedy, hence the present

application may be dismissed on this ground only.

(vii) On merits the respondent SDO stated that meter reader has taken the readings

properly during the period 22.07.2016 to 22.01.2017 as under:-

Sr. No.

Period New Reading

Old Reading

Units Code

1. 22.7.16 to 22.9.16 4653 89259 15394 Q (round complete)

2. 22.9.16 to 22.11.16 15805 4653 11152 Z

3. 22.11.16 to 22.1.17 22141 15805 6336 Z

(viii) That the computer has generated bills of the above cycles on average basis

against ‘I’ Code treating the readings as inconsistent.

(ix) From the last three years consumption pattern of the complainant, it seems that

the reading taken by the meter reader is not proper w.e.f. 01/16 to 06/16.

(x) Due to this reason the accumulated bill has been sent to the consumer.

(xi) At present the reading of the above meter is 22748 as on 07.02.2017.

(xii) That this office is ready to check the meter in question by installing a check meter

or in M&P Lab of the department if applicant consents.

(xiii) In case the meter in question is declared defective/fast by the lab then the

account of the applicant will be overhauled accordingly.

(xiv) Along with the reply last three years consumption pattern has been attached.

In view of the above the respondent SDO has prayed that application of the

complainant may be dismissed with the directions to clear the pending bill as the meter

of the applicant is working within limits as verified from the present reading of the meter.

4. The first hearing in the case was held on 29.03.2017 wherein both the parties were

present. The representation of complainant submitted that the inflated consumption may

be on account of meter jumping and meter has gone defective. The RA of the sub

division gave rival submission that as per verification of present reading the consumption

during last one month was of the order of 1000 units only as such the working of the

meter is okay. He submitted SJO no. 323/7 dated 28.03.2017, vide which current

reading of the meter was got verified as 23026 with the remarks ‘Meter working o.k.. The

respondents further submitted that the disputed readings is of 6 months as last two bills

were issued on inconsistence consumption basis (‘I’ Code). He also offered to get the

meter working checked either by installing a check meter or in M&P lab as per desire of

the complainant. The complainant agreed for getting the meter checked in the lab for

accuracy as well as the counter (to establish jumping of meter reading). The

respondents were directed to produce original meter reading record on the next date of

hearing and the complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- out of the disputed

amount within next 2/3 days. The next date of hearing was fixed for 19.04.2017.

5. On 19.04.2017, the complainant didn’t attend the hearing. The respondent SDO stated

that meter could not be got tested as date of testing is yet to be intimated by the M&P

lab and requested for fresh date.

6. On next hearing on 11.05.2017 both the parties were present. The respondent SDO

informed that testing date in the lab has been fixed for 18.05.2017. He further submitted

that complainant has not deposited Rs.50,000/- even after almost one and half month of

the directions given by the Forum on 29.03.2017. The Forum took serious notice of non

compliances of directions by the complainant, of our directions ordered during the

proceeding dated 11.05.2017.

7. In the last hearing on 13.06.2017, both the parties were present wherein the respondent

SDO submitted meter lab report dated 18.05.2017 according to which meter has been

found to be working within permissible limits. It is observed from the report that meter is

performing within +0.05% to -0.72% range from no load to full load meaning thereby the

meter is perfectly alright with excellent accuracy results. Permissible variation allowed is

±3%. The energy recording counter of the meter was found in intact position as per the

report. The meter has been tested in the presence of consumer representative. The

reading recorded in the report is 23283.8 (before start of testing) and after testing 23289.

The SDO produced the original meter reading report which was taken on record. He also

confirmed that Rs. 50,000/- stands deposited by the applicant on 12.05.2017. The

complainant stated that the premises was used simply as a godown and was lying

vacant for last about 6/7 years. Only light load comprising of 5/6 lights were being used.

On the other hand his son also present in the hearing, while discussing other aspects of

the case made a conflicting statement that the premises was vacant for the last about

one year. Both however stated that the premises have been re-rented w.e.f. Jan/17.

8. Analysis & Decision of the case:-

It is observed from the consumption data that meter reader has recorded reading on

22.07.2016 as ‘89259’. Then in the next three billing cycles i.e. on 22.09.2016,

22.11.2016 and 22.01.2017 reading has been recorded as ‘4653’, ‘15805’ and ‘22141’.

The computer took the reading 4653 as ‘I’ code as the consumption was worked out

negative and reading was taken as inconsistent and prepared the bill on average of

1390 units for two billing cycles. However during the billing cycle 22.11.2016 to

22.01.2017 the bill was prepared on ‘Q’ Code (Round complete) i.e., 22141+(100000-

89259)= 32882 units which has been challenged by the applicant. The lab report has

confirmed that meter accuracy is okay and there is no possibility of reading counter

jumping. Subsequently also the reading recorded are as under:-

Date Reading Consumption Remarks

07.02.2017 22748 607 units for 16 days from

22.01.2017.

Reading at time of checking of meter.

29.03.2017 23026 885 units for 63 days

The contention of the complainant can not be accepted that meter might have jumped

and gone defective as lab report has clearly mentioned that accuracy o.k. and counter

found intact portion thus ruling out the jumping of the reading.

9. The SDO has shown his apprehension that meter reading might not have been taken

properly from 01/16 to 06/16 thus resulting into accumulation which has reflected in the

bill in 01/17. The complainant have been found to be giving conflicting statements

regarding premises lying vacant, firstly for 6/7 years and then stating for 1 year. Even if it

is presumed that the godown has been lying vacant and there was not much load as per

version of the complainant, the consumption has been found to be substantial of the

order of 2000 to 2900 units per bi-monthly cycle which doesn’t corroborate their version

that only light load was being used. As premises was vacant which has been rented

again in Jan 2017. The consumption after Jan 2017 (when a tenant has been occupying)

as 885 units for 63 days (from 22.01.17 to 29.03.17) is much less than the consumption

during 2016 when the premises was lying vacant as per statement of the complainant.

This also belies his statement. The only inference that can be drawn is that the meter

reader in the past has been recording fictitious readings, thereby consumption got

accumulated and in the most likely eventuality of change of meter reader, the correct

position visa-vis reading on the meter emerged which led to this uncalled for dispute.

The Forum is of firm opinion that working of the meter is perfectly alright before as well

as after 01/17. No relief can be granted and the complaint is dismissed. The complaint is

disposed with aforementioned observations analysis and conclusions.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. RAVINDER KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 1076, SECTOR 42-B,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Ravinder Kumar, R/o House no. 1076, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh, filed a complaint

vide email dated 15.04.2017 that he is receiving excessive bill as compared to bill of first

& second floors of the same house. He stated that his ground floor bill is for Rs. 4495/-

where as first floor bill is for Rs. 1259/- and top floor is for Rs. 858/- only.







(xv) That three number of electricity connections in the name of Sh. Bhagat Ram

bearing account no. 409/4241/107600Q, 409/4241/107602T &

409/4241/107603U are installed in the house with sanctioned load is of 9.12,

8.45 & 4.89 KW. All the connections are under domestic category.

(xvi) That reading of the connection in question was taken by meter reader on

10.03.2017 as 51032, 41261 & 30794 respectively. Further the connection have

been checked on 20.04.2017 and report is as under:

G. Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor

Meter No. CHEP-14875 CHSE-69943 CHSE-16385

Make Capital Bentex Avon

Cap. 3*10-60A 10-40A 10-40A

Reading 51833 42063 31569

Status of the meter

Meter working in order



(xvii) That as per the above report working of all the meters and bills are correct.

(xviii) That if the complainant wants to challenge the accuracy of the meter he may be

asked to deposit requisite charges so that check meter may be installed.

(xix) The consumption data of all the connections were attached with the reply.

4. The hearing in the case was fixed for 23.05.2017. The complainant didn’t attend, despite

conveying on telephonic, information of hearing in addition to notice by post. The RA

present on behalf of sub division submitted that the complaint is baseless. The meter in

respect of all the connections was got checked and found in order. The consumption of

first floor and second floor is also comparable with the consumption of the ground floor.

The complainant subsequently sought adjournment on telephone after hearing was over.

Another opportunity was provided by re-notifying the complaint for hearing on

13.06.2017. But the complainant didn’t attend his hearing either.

5. The Forum observes that the consumption of the complainant is consistent. Further in

the past the consumption of the 1st & 2nd floors was more than the consumption recorded

by the complainant as depicted below in the table for the last one year.

Period Consumption

G.F

Consumption

F.F

Consumption

S.F

10/1/17-10/3/17 846 314 225

11/16-1/17 811 217 227

9/16-11/16 666 724 555

7/16-9/16 1169 1452 1053

5/16-7/16 1175 1401 1189

3/16-5/16 764 438 516

1/16-3/16 897 303 291

From above it is clear that the except for consumption during winter months the

consumption recorded by the 1st & 2nd floors is more than the ground floor but the pattern

of consumption of ground floor is same for last one year. Devoid of merits the case is

dismissed.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. DEEPAK TAKHAR, SCO NO. 11, SECTOR 19-D,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Deepak Takhar, vide his email dated 07.05.2017 submitted that he has an electricity

connection at SCO no. 11, Ground Floor, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. He submitted that

on 02.01.2016 he made an application to the concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division

no.3, apprehending that his meter was running fast and requested for getting the same

checked. On 09.09.2016 an application was submitted challenging the working of

electricity meter. The meter was got checked in the M&P Lab and as per the lab report

the meter was found defective (running fast). The sub division only allowed partial relief

of Rs. 13978/-. He requested for supply of basis of calculations and also that the relief

provided by the sub division was much less and prayed that the case may be reviewed.


Nodal officer XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.3 vide letter dated 09.05.2017, for Para wise

comments and supply of consumption data of last three years, with a copy to the SDO

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.3 as well as to the complainant. The complainant was also

requested to submit written complaint duly signed within 5 days.


submitted the reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer. In his reply, the SDO stated taht the

complainant submitted an application challenging the meter on 05.10.2016 and

deposited the requisite fee on 07.10.2016. The meter was removed, packed and got

tested in the M&P Lab on 21.02.2017 in the presence of the complainant. As per the

report the error was found to be more than the permissible limits and the meter was

declared defective. The error was on positive side implying that the meter was running

fast as contended by the complainant. Thereafter the account of the complainant for the

period 09/15 to 09/16 was overhauled on the basis of consumption recorded during the

corresponding period 09/14 to 09/15 and Rs.13978/- was refunded to the complainant as

a result of overhauling. He also supplied the consumption data of the complainant from

21.03.2014 onwards.

4. The complaint was listed for hearing on 13.06.2017 when the complainant as well as

concerned SDO along with his RA were present. The complainant contested the refund

and also for providing the detailed calculations of the amount refunded. He also stated

that the refund should be allowed from the date when the meter started recording high

consumption and he approached the sub division till the meter was replaced in the

month of 11/16. The complainant was informed that as per Supply Code Regulation 7.5

the bills of previous three months prior to the month in which dispute is raised needs to

be revised, in such cases of challenging of the meter. The complainant raised the issue

of meter running fast on 02.01.2016 and thus the bills issued after 09/15 needs to be

overhauled till the replacement of the meter.

5. The Forum observes from the details provided by the sub division that the account was

overhauled from 09/15 to 09/16, on the basis of consumption recorded during the period

09/14 to 09/15. On the basis of deliberations during the hearing, the Nodal Officer is

directed to recalculate amount of refund by overhauling the bills of the consumer from

27.09.2015 to date of MCO dated 8/11/16. The base for overhauling be taken as the

consumption recorded during the period 09/14 to 09/15. The detailed calculations be

provided to the complainant under intimation to the Forum. Compliance be submitted

within 21 days of the order failing which penalties may be imposed by the Hon’ble JERC

as per relevant sections of the EA 2003. The complaint stands disposed with

aforementioned directions.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. R.K. MOHINDRA HOUSE NO. 556, SECTOR 11-B,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. R.K. Mohindra, R/o house no. 556, Sepctor 11-B, Chandigarh, through his complaint

dated 12.05.2017, submitted that his electricity connection of house no. 556, sector 11-

B, Chandigarh was disconnected on payment default. He stated that he is a retired

employee and requested the concerned SDO to accept the current cycle bill without

arrears of his bills amounting to Rs. 47642/- which he would pay on receipt of his retiral

benefits. He prayed for reconnection of his electricity connection, while assuring that he

will deposit the electricity bill amount in instalments.



comments and supply of consumption data of last three years with a copy to the SDO

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2 as well as to the complainant. The Nodal Officer was

directed to restore the connection of the complainant after deposit of Rs. 20000/- as part

payment.

3. The concerned Nodal Officer Electy. ‘OP’ Division no. 1, vide his letter dated 29.05.2017

forwarded the reply submitted by the concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2,

duly countersigned. The SDO submitted that the complainant made last payment

amounting to Rs.800/- on 20.04.2016. Thereafter the arrears have been accumulated.

The complainant also refused replacement of the defective meter, which was defective

w.e.f. 12/14. The MCOs were issued from time to time for replacement of defective

meter, but the complainant didn’t allowed the staff to replace the meter. He also attached

the photocopy of MCOs. The meter was ultimately replaced on 09.11.2016 and

thereafter the account has been overhauled w.e.f. 12/14 to 11/16 on the basis of

previous one year consumption from 12/13 to 12/14. The consumption data and with

revised bill issued to the complainant along with photocopy of ledger were also enclosed

along with the reply.

4. The complaint was listed for hearing on 13.06.2017, but the complainant didn’t attend.

The concerned SDO along with his RA present during the hearing sated that the amount

of the bill which lead to disconnection was on account of non-payment of the electricity

bills for about one year by the complainant.

5. The Forum observes that the complainant in his complaint has also not disputed the

amount of bills but only prayed for allowing him to clear the outstanding amount in

instalments. The Nodal Officer is directed to accept the part payment from the

complainant as per his request and may exercise his power to receive the outstanding

payment in parts on such separate requests made to him from time to time by the

complainant. The complaint stands disposed with above directions.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. MOHD RAHIS, SCF NO.61-62-63, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH.


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Mohd Rahis, tenant of SCF no. 61-63, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh vide letter dated

12.05.2017, has filed a complaint regarding non release of electric connection by CED

for his hair saloon at the above address. He has stated that he is bonafied

tenant/occupier of a portion of the above said property, which is under heavy litigation for

recovery of dues by the financial institution and Income Tax Authorities from the owners.

He has stated that on the orders of Income Tax Department, he has been paying rent to

the Income Tax Department against their recovery. The complainant has submitted

sufficient proof of its occupancy in the part of the premises.


Nodal officer XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.1, vide letter dated 16.05.2017 for Para wise


complainant.

3. The concerned XEN Electy. ‘OP’ Division no.1, vide memo no. 6952 dated 25.05.2017

has filed his reply that connection cannot be released as no document proof has been

submitted in terms of Regulation 3.5(3) of Electricity Supply Code 2010. Dispute is

pending between the landlord and the complainant in the Civil Court. Valid proof of

ownership/occupancy are mandatory as per the above regulations. One connection in

the name of Sh. Anuj Kalra (another tenant) was released as per Forum order dated

15.03.2017. The present complainant is also located on the same first floor as that of Sh.

Anuj Kalra. As per the rules and safety measures only one connection can be released

on one floor.

4. Basically it is case of disputed property which was rented to numbers of tenants long

back. With the passage of time the owner became defaulter of Income Tax Department

and Financial Institutions i.e. SBI and undergone heavy litigation. Number of tenants

were being serviced through one electric connection whose bills were shared by them.

Due to ever increasing disputes between the tenants huge defaulting amount became

outstanding and connection was disconnected in March 2017. Sh. Anuj Kalra

approached the Forum (case no. CP-15/2017) for release of electricity connection as his

business was suffering badly. Being a bonafied tenant he was allowed electricity

connection in his name after clearance of defaulting amount against electricity

connection bearing account no. 102/0943/706100T amounting to approximately 1.3

Lakhs. (Connection from which Sh. Anuj Kalra was drawing power).

5. Another neighbouring tenant on the same floor and the name and style of Tranz Canz

Overseas Services moved Permanent Lok Adalat Chandigarh for providing electricity.

The Permanent Lok Adalat struck on 12.06.2017 a mutual settlement between Sh. Anuj

Kalra and M/s Tranz Canz, whereby Anuj Kalra will give supply to M/s Tranz Canz

subjected to certain conditions. The copy of the order is attached as Annexure A.

6. Since the present complainant Sh. Mohd Rahis is placed in a similar situations as that of

M/s Tranz Canz, all the parties were called before the Forum on 16.06.2017. and were

given the opportunity to resolve their dispute mutually. All the three tenants i.e. Sh. Anuj

Kalra, M/s Traz Kanz, and Mohd Rahis and the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No. 02 agreed

mutually that Sh. Mohd. Rahis will abide by the conditions of Permanent Lok Adalat

order dated 12.06.2017 to have electricity In view of provisions in the “Procedure for

Redressal of Grievances of Electricity consumers in the state of Goa & UT’s” circulated

by JERC, as the complainant has been settled in terms reached between the parties, of

agreement the complaint is considered as disposed. . The complaint is disposed of as

per above observations.




indexed.

DA- Annexure A






IN THE MATTER OF SH. SACHIN JOSHI, SCO NO.61-62-63, SECTOR 9-D,

CHANDIGARH.


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Sachin Joshi, proprietor M/s Generation Marketing Services, SCO no. 61-63, Sector

9-D, Chandigarh vide letter dated 18.05.2017, has filed a complaint stating as under:

(i) That due to non payment of electricity dues by some other occupants of above

SCO, the Electricity Department has disconnected the electricity of the said SCO.

(ii) That now we have cleared the electricity dues till date.

(iii) That due to confrontation with other occupants the electricity bills were not being

paid previously.

(iv) That I approached the SDO Electricity for grant of a separate connection at top

floor but the SDO has refused to provide separate connection due to which we

are suffering badly in the summer season and losing of business.

(v) The complainant has requested that the Electricity Department may be directed

to provide a separate connection at the top floor in my name/my firm.


Nodal officer XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.1, vide letter dated 18.05.2017 for Para wise


complainant.

3. The Nodal Officer, XEN Electy. ‘OP’ Division no.1, vide memo no. 6976 dated

29.05.2017 has forwarded the reply of concerned SDO as under:

(i) That the application for grant of new separate electricity connection in the SCO

cannot be considered due to non submission of documents required as per

Regulation 3.5(3) of Electricity Supply Code 2010 Regulations.

(ii) That it is not understood whether the complainant has filed the complaint before

the Hon’ble Forum on behalf of owner or tenant.

(iii) That the premises in question where the applicant has desired to install separate

electricity connection is in dispute between landlord, SBI and Income Tax

Department. These facts are already under notice of the CGRF in earlier case of

Sh. Anuj Kalra and the connection to Sh. Anuj Kalra has been released as per

orders dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Forum.

(iv) The respondent SDO has prayed that in view of the above facts the complaint

may be dismissed.

4. On the first hearing on 13.06.2017, the complainant was directed to submit proof in

respect of his tenancy. The respondent SDO submitted that one more case of an

occupant who was drawing the electricity from common connection, which was

disconnected on default in payment, has been decided by Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA).

He was directed to provide a copy of the said order as and when received.

5. The complainant has submitted following documents in support of his tenancy rights in

the said SCO:-

(i) “Connect” Broadband bill from dated 01.04.2017 to 01.06.2017.

(ii) LIC letter dated 24.01.2017 to the address of the complainant.

(iii) Kotak Mahindra Bank statement dated 31.01.2017 & 28.02.2017.

(iv) Lease deed dated 01.09.2007 between the complainant and the owners of the

SCO.

(v) Electricity bills in the name of the owners as received by the complainant as

tenant.

(vi) Attachment notice issued by Income Tax Department vide no. 2522 dated

14.12.2010 to the address of the complainant.

(vii) Payment receipts of the amount paid by the complainant in lieu of rent to the

Income Tax Department towards their recoveries from the owners.

(viii) Fire Department letter no. 1029 dated 04.10.2011 to the address of the

complainant.

All the above documents substantially prove the tenancy rights and

bonafied occupation of the complainant of a part of the SCO where he is running his

business.

6. The above case was deliberated on 16.06.2017 jointly with the other similar cases of Mr.

Mohd Rahis (case no. CP-74) and Sh. Anuj Kalra (case no. CP-15). The respondent

SDO submitted that connection of Sh. Anuj Kalra has been released as per orders of the

Forum 15.03.2017 as he has cleared the entire defaulting amount of Rs. 1.3 Lakh. He

further informed that another tenant in the name and style of M/s Tranz Canz moved

Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) who have ordered that Sh. Anuj Kalra will give supply to

M/s Traz Canz on payment of his share of Rs. 43,333/- to Mr. Anuj Kalra who has borne

the entire defaulting amount of Rs. 1.3 Lakh with certain other riders. The respondent

SDO contended that separate new connection to the complainant namely Sh. Sachin

Joshi cannot be released as an amount of Rs. 93000/- approximately is still outstanding

against another connection in the same building which at present is disconnected due to

default in payments.

7. The Forum has offered on 16.06.2017 to all the parties to resolve their dispute mutually.

In compliance Sh. Mohd. Rahis (Case no. CP-74) and Sh. Anuj Kalra struck a mutual

agreement that Mr. Anuj Kalra will give supply to Mohd. Rahis also being on same floor,

on the same terms and conditions as ordered by Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) on

12.06.2017. The SDO did not raise any objection as long as the parties abide by the

provisions, terms and conditions of the PLA order dated 12.06.2017.

8. The Forum observes that there is no doubt about complainants tenancy rights and

bonafied occupation of the part of the premises where electricity connection has been

asked for and separate connection to Sh. Sachin Joshi can be released only after

clearing of defaulting amount of Rs. 93000/- approximately as conveyed by the

respondent SDO subject to completion of other formalities of the CED.

9. The Forum disposed of the complaint as per the above observations.





indexed.








IN THE MATTER OF HEAD CONSTABLE, SH. JAI BHAGWAN(MHC), POLICE POST SUKHNA

LAKE, SECTOR 1, CHANDIGARH.


Versus




ORDER

1. Head Constable, Sh. Jai Bhagwan (MHC), Police Post Sukhna Lake, Sector 1, Chandigarh,

through his complaint dated 25.04.2017submotted that the bill dated 08.10.2016 was for higher

inflated consumption not co-relating with previous bills of the Police Chonki. The sub division

when contacted informed that the meter became defective which was ultimately replaced on

26.11.2016. A bill of Rs. 11928/- was paid by the Police Department after correction. However the

Electricity Department sent a bill of Rs. 56247/- on 10.02.2017 with an arrear of Rs. 40519/-. The

bill was subsequently corrected by the sub division when approached and an amount of Rs.

38000/- was paid on 01.03.2017. But again on 09.04.2017 they received an electricity bill

amounting to Rs. 40366/- with arrears of Rs. 54964/-. He requested for setting right the

discrepancy.


XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide letter dated 26.04.2017, for Para wise comments and supply of

consumption data of last three years with a copy to the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.2 as

well as to the complainant, with the directions to accept current bills and not to disconnect

electricity supply till disposal of case.

3. The Nodal Officer Eecty. ‘OP’ division no.1, vide his letter dated 31.05.2017 forwarded the reply

of the concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ sub division no.2 duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply

submitted that the complainant didn’t pay the bill for the period 07/16 to 09/16 amounting to Rs.

37696/-. Regarding higher consumption recorded during the period July to Sep 2016, the SDO

submitted that consumption for the period 05/16 to 07/16 was shown on lower side. However the

total consumption from 05/16 to 09/16 is lower than the consumption recorded during the

corresponding period in the year 2015. It was further submitted that the bill for the period 11/16 to

01/17 was rectified due to wrong communicates by the representative of applicant. A refund of

Rs.16918/- has been allowed in the latest bill before replacement of the defective meter. Stating

that the billing done is correct, he submitted that the arrears in the bills pertain to the period 07/16

to 09/16 which has not been paid till date. He enclosed the consumption data of last 2 years.

4. The complaint was notifed for hearing on 25.05.2017 and again on 07.06.2017, but the

complainant didn’t attend. Another opportunity was afforded and the complaint was listed for

hearing on 21.06.2017. The complainant as well as the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ sub division no.2 along

with RA were present. The complainant submitted that the bill for the period 07/16 to 09/16 as

5796 units was very much on higher side as compared to consumption recorded in the past. The

SDO submitted that for some unexplained reasons the bill for the immediately prior cycle 05/16 to

07/16 was only for 302 units, resulting into preparation of higher consumption bill for the disputed

period 07/16 to 09/16. The total consumption for May to Sep 2016 as 6098 units is less than the

consumption recorded during corresponding months in the year 2015 (7493 units) and in 2014

(7170 units). Forum observes that as the Electricity Department is comparing consumption of 4

months (from May to Sep) the benefit of lower tariff slab needs to be allowed to the complainant

as consumption billed during 05/16 to 07/16 was only 302 units.

5. The Forum after analysing the consumption pattern directs the Nodal Officer to get the account

overhauled for the period 05/16 to 09/16 and prepare a fresh bill. Further the account may also be

overhauled till MCO when the bill was issued on ‘N’ Code. In the fresh bill to be issued to the

complainant for various periods no arrear amount may be showed as the complainant promised

to make the payment toward individual bills by the due date. Case stands disposed with

aforementioned directions.











BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON ER. ADRASH JAIN, MEMBER,


Complaint No. - CP-73/2017 Date of Institution - 12.05.2017 Date of Order - 22.06.2017 In the matter to Sh. Sumer Chand, Flat No. 5495/1, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.


Versus



ORDER

1. Sh. Sumer Chand, resident of Flat no. 5495/1, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh, has vide email

dated 12.05.2017 filed a complaint that charging of Rs. 23.52/- as ‘convenience fee’ against

payment of Rs. 2021/- through Debit card is on higher side, as it discourages the customers for

making online payments and affects the digital India campaign.

2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. CP-73/2017 was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e.

XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for Para wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated

12.05.2017, with the request to the complainant to submit the written complaint within 5 days.

3. The responded SDO vide his letter dated 28.05.2017, has filed reply stating that the Rs. 23.52

has not been deducted by his office.

4. The Forum observed that the charging of convenience fee in case of payment by debit card or

any other mode of online payment, is a policy matter of the CED, keeping in view the amount

charged by the “Payment Gateways”. It is left to the CED to review the rates of convenience

fees and act accordingly.

5. Compliant is disposed off with the above observations.




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. File be consigned to the record room

after having it properly numbered and indexed.








IN THE MATTER OF SH. KULDEEP SINGH, VILLAGE SARANGPUR, NEAR BARRIER, BACK

SIDE OF A.B.S. MARBLE, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Kuldeep Singh of Village Sarangpur, near barrier, back side of A.B.S. Marble, Chandigarh,

vide his letter dated 30.05.2017, submitted that he was receiving the bills on average basis. The

average being charged i.e. 4241 units for one month on very much on higher side as compared to

his consumption in the past.




well as to the complainant.

3. The Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ division no.1, vide his letter dated 15.06.2017 forwarded

the reply submitted by the AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub division no.4. The SDO in his reply submitted

that the meter of the consumer got burnt and was replaced through MCO affected on 19.12.2016.

The SDO in his reply further submitted that due to meter being burnt/faulty and for reasons

reading not taken other than premises locked since 25.07.2016 on average basis by taking the

average as 4214 units per billing cycle of one month. He submitted that the account will be

overhauled after watching the further consumption. He also enclosed the consumption data of

last 3 years and copy of the MCO.

4. On 21.06.2017, the date of hearing, both the complainant as well as the RA of the sub division

no.4 were present. The complainant prayed for overhauling of his account on the basis of the

past/future consumption. The Forum observed that sufficient reliable consumption data is

available for the period Jan/15 to Sep/16. The Forum therefore directs the Nodal Officer to

overhaul the account from 25.09.2016 to 19.02.2017, the date of MCO on the basis of

consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the year 2015-16 i.e. from 25.09.2015

to 25.02..2016.














IN THE MATTER OF SH. R.K. VERMA, SHED NO. 001, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. R.K. Verma, vide his letter dated 03.06.2017, submitted that he is receiving two no. bills one

for shed no. 001, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh and another booth no. 40, sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

The fixed charges in the first bill is Rs. 200/- only whereas in the later bill the fixed charges are

Rs. 1400/- per billing cycle. He requested to provide the details of tariff being levied in the above

two cases.



relevant instructions/circular of with a copy to the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.1 as well as

to the complainant.

3. The case was listed for hearing on 21.06.2017 but the complainant didn’t attend. The SDO

supplied the advance copy of his reply submitted to Nodal Officer. He stated that fixed charges

are levied as per tariff approved by Hon’ble JERC. The fixed charges for commercial connection

are charged @ Rs. 100 per KW for connections where connected load is more than 5KW and @

Rs. 20 per KW where the connected load is below 5KW. He also attached the photocopy of

relevant page of the tariff schedule.

4. The Forum observes that the connected load of connection of Shed was 4.6KW i.e. less than

5KW whereas the connected load of 2nd

connection that of booth was 6.54KW i.e. more than

5KW. The Forum also noted that the amount of fixed charges appearing in the bills were inline

with the tariff approved by the Hon’ble JERC. The complaint stands disposed with above

clarifications.













Complaint No. - CP-88/2017 Date of Institution - 06.06.2017 Date of Order - 22.06.2017 In the matter to Sh. Anmol Singh, House No. 2615, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.


Versus



ORDER

1. Sh. Anmol Singh, resident of House no. 2615, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh, has vide email dated

06.06.2017 filed a complaint that there are regular power outages and voltage fluctuation in their

street having around 20 houses.


XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for Para wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated

06.06.2017, with the request to the complainant to submit the written complaint within 5 days.

3. The respondent SDO vide his letter dated 14.06.2017, has filed reply stating that the voltage

problem of house no. 2615 sector 40-C Chandigarh and adjoining consumers has been

resolved and they are satisfied.

4. On the date of hearing on 22.06.2017, complainant was not present and the SDO submitted that

the problem has been resolved.

5. Keeping in view the above, the Forum disposed off the compliant without any order













IN THE MATTER OF SH. RAJNISH, HOUSE NO. 522/1, SECTOR 45-A, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Rajnish, R/o house no. 522/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, through his email dated

05.06.2017 submitted that his wires have not been properly laid resulting into outage of

his electricity. He stated his complaint was not attended by the department. He also

raised the issue that though his meter was working okay, but it was changed.



comments, with a copy to the SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.10. as well as to

complainant, with request to the complainant to submit the written complaint duly signed

within 5 days.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9, vide his letter dated 20.06.2017,

submitted that the electricity meter of the consumer was replaced vide MCO affected on

27.02.2017 being mechanical meter. He enclosed photocopy of MCO along with the

reply. Regarding laying of wires/cables, he submitted that the same was got checked on

20.06.2017 and it was found okay upto the metering point. He apprehend that the fault

may be in the internal wire of the premises which may be got checked/rectified by the

complainant at his own level.


The RA present on behalf of sub division submitted that the wire/cable has been

checked and found to be in order. Regarding meter change he stated that as per policy

of the CED all the mechanical meters are being replaced with electronics meters.

5. The Forum dismissed the complaint being devoid of merits.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. ABHISHEK, HOUSE NO. 799, SECTOR 56, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Abhishek, R/o house no. 799, Sector 56, Chandigarh, through his email dated

0706.2017 stated that the bill issued to him is for average consumption of 192. He

requested to recheck and inspect the bill amount/payment from 2015 onwards and verify

the reading with the bill issued to him for time to time. He prayed that the excess amount

charged, if any, be refunded to him.




SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.10. The complainant was requested to submit written

complaint within 5 days duly signed.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.9, vide his letter dated 20.06.2017,

submitted the reply that the house of the complainant remains closed. The meter is

inside the house therefore the bills are raised to the consumer on average basis due to

PL. The consumer was contacted through his mobile and the meter working was

checked and found in order. The bill raised on average basis from 09.08.2015 to

31.08.2016 have been adjusted and a refund of Rs. 2501/- has been allowed through

sundry dated 19.06.2017. The bill for the period 19.10.2016 to 19.04.2017 would be

adjusted automatically with the new reading taken by the meter reader. He also stated

that consumer was advised to get the meter shifted outside so as to avoid generation of

bills on average due to premises found locked. He also enclosed the copy of corrected

bill for the period Feb to April 2017 and also the consumption data for last three years,

copy of checking report of the meter along with MCO dated 31.08.2016.


The SDO submitted that his grievance stands redressed as already submitted in the

written reply.

5. The Forum observing the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed






indexed.








IN THE MATTER OF SH. MEHMOOD AHMAD SAJIDA, HOUSE NO. 1611, T19, H.B. DHANAS,

CHANDIGARH.

........COMPLAINANT

Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Mehmood Ahmad Sajida, R/o house no. 1611, T19, H.B. Dhanas, Chandigarh, through his

letter dated 06.06.2017, submitted that the electricity bill dated 24.01.2017 was issued on

average basis taking the consumption on higher side which is not co-relating with his usage. He

made a part payment of Rs. 5000/- as allowed by the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ sub division no.4. He

requested for resolving the issue.




well as to the complainant.

3. The complaint was listed for hearing on 21.06.2017, but the complainant didn’t attend. The RA

present on behalf of sub division submitted that an inflated bill was prepared on wrong reading.

The bill of the complainant was corrected and the account overhauled on the basis of verified

reading. He further submitted that the necessary refund is being allowed to complainant.

Regarding submission of written reply, he stated that reply stands submitted to the Nodal Officer

and will be forwarded to the Forum in some time.

4. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed















IN THE MATTER OF SMT. PUNEET KAUR, HOUSE NO. 235, SECTOR 9-C, CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Smt. Puneet Kaur, R/o house no. 235, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, vide her letter dated 08.06.2017

requested that she may be allowed to make the payment of current bills. The arrears of the

electricity bills may be allowed to be cleared in instalments as her family was facing genuine

financial problems due to business and medical health of elders.




well as to the complainant, with the directions to accept current bills and not to disconnect her

electricity supply till disposal of case.

3. The case was listed for hearing on 21.06.2017. Both the complainant as well as respondent SDO

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no. 2, along with his RA were present. The complainant requested for

allowing her to clear the outstanding amount of her electricity bills in instalments. After

deliberations she was allowed to clear the outstanding amount in instalments of Rs. 15,000/- per

month in addition to current cycle charges.

4. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to accept Rs. 15,000/- per month from the

complainant in addition to the current cycle billing charges till the outstanding amount being

reflected in the electricity bills is cleared. The complaint stands disposed with above directions.













IN THE MATTER OF SH. O.P. SHARMA, HOUSE NO. 22, SECTOR 19-A, CHANDIGARH

........COMPLAINANT

Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. O.P. Sharma, R/o House no. 22, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, has filed appeal on dated

06.06.2017 before CGRF as under:-

(i) That the electricity bill for the period 23.07.2016 to 23.09.2016 was issued on 25.10.2016 showing consumption of 8401 units. Never in the past during 50 years stay in this house their consumption has crossed 2200 odd units per billing cycle.

(ii) Energy bill of Rs. 40335/- for 8401 units has been raised by the department. (iii) That he consecutively represented against the bill to the department but his

complaint has been rejected without any reason and logic. (iv) The complainant has requested that justice may be given to them with interim

directions not to disconnect the supply till decision of the case.



comments and supply of consumption data of last 3 years, with a copy to the SDO

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.1 as well as to the complainant..

3. The concerned SDO vide his memo no. 1981, dated 21.06.2017 has submitted his reply

stating as under:-

(i) That the bill for the period 05/16 to 07/16 has been issued without reading on ‘N’ code and in the next cycle the bill was prepared on actual reading with consumption 8401 units for 4 months which is justified. The computer has already adjusted Rs. 13372/- for ‘N’ code bill issued for the previous cycle.

(ii) The consumption pattern shows consistent consumption in the corresponding period of last year.

(iii) The bill of the consumer is correct and as such the present complaint may be dismissed and consumer be directed to clear the bill.

(iv) The SDO has attached consumption data for 09/13 to 05/17.

4. The case was discussed in the hearing on 23.06.2017 when both the parties were

present.

5. Analysis of the case:-

The present complaint is against high consumption of 8401 units during the period

23.07.2016 to 23.09.2016. The complainant has contended that past consumption

during last 50 years stay in the house has never crossed 2200 units per billing cycle.

This contention is not acceptable as consumption of the order of 6304, 3911, 3828 and

3143 units during 07/14, 09/14, 09/15 and 05/16 respectively have been recorded. The

Forum observed that during 07/16 reading was not taken and bill was issued on ‘N’

code. The 8401 units in 09/16 is consumption of 4 months out of which 2255 units

charged provisionally in 07/16 have already been deducted. It means for the billing

cycles 05/16 to 07/16 and 07/16 to 09/16 the bi-monthly consumption is only 4200 units

which is fairly comparable with readings of 3911 and 3828 units during 07/14 and 09/15

respectively and even subsequently consumption of 3235 units in 03/17 to 05/17 (not

peak summer). The rival contention of the respondent SDO that consumption in the past

has been found to be consistent carries weight. The complainant has not cleared the bill

of 09/16, 11/16 and 01/17 which is against the rules of the department. He is agitated on

receiving bill for Rs. 34489/- towards 8401 units after deduction of ‘N’ code bill. The

complainant had no business to stop the payment but he kept on insisting that due to

financial constraints he was unable to clear accumulated bill of 09/16.

6. Keeping in view the above discussions, material on record and arguments held, Forum

feels that the huge accumulated bill of 8401 units for 4 months might have put the

consumer in financial hardship to clear the same in one go. Forum therefore decides as

under:-

(i) The bill dated 25.10.2016 for Rs. 34489/- may be recovered in two monthly instalments without any surcharge. The instalments will be as under:- (a) 50% by 10.07.2017. (b) Balance 50% by 10.08.2017. (c) In case of default the consumer will be charged full surcharge as applicable.

(ii) The subsequent bills stopped by the consumer will be cleared with full surcharge as per the prevalent rules/tariff.

The complaint is disposed off as per the above directions.





indexed.







IN THE MATTER OF SH. SURINDER LAL SONI, HOUSE NO. 142, ADVOCATE

SOCIETY, SECTOR 49-A, CHANDIGARH

........COMPLAINANT

Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Surinder Lal Soni, R/o House no. 142, Advt. Society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh, vide

his letter dated 09.04.2017 filed a complaint stating as under:-

(v) That he took the above said house on rent from the registered owner of the house named Sh. Harpal Singh, Advocate on rent in the month of June/16 and his family shifted on 10.06.2016.

(vi) That he paid the first bill dated 26.09.2016 for the period 26.06.2016 to 26.08.2016 amounting to Rs. 18835/- on 13.10.2016.

(vii) That the amount of the above bill included the pending arrears of Rs. 4961/- for the period 26.04.2016 to 26.06.2016 including ACD amount of Rs. 2613/- which was not paid by the owner before the due date.

(viii) The consumption of electricity shown as 2471 units in this bill was very high but to avoid late fee the payment was made but the bill was challenged.

(ix) It was very shocking to receive another bill for the period 26.08.2016 to 26.10.2016 to the tune of Rs. 42960/- showing very high consumption of 8259 units in two months.

(x) That he immediately met the concerned SDO and made written complaint on 05.12.2016 challenging the meter by depositing Rs.500/- as meter challenge fee on 08.12.2016.

(xi) That a parallel meter was installed on 18.01.2017 and the old meter was found defective by the department.

(xii) That the old meter was replaced with the new meter on 18.01.2017 and he requested the SDO to check the meter in laboratory for his satisfaction.

(xiii) That part payment of Rs.3000/- was made on 09.02.2017. (xiv) That now the final bill received for the period 18.01.2017 to 26.02.2017 is not

correct. No compensation due to old defective meter been given. Only Rs. 7857/- has been deducted from the bill. Amount of Rs. 52854/- as old arrears have been included along with surcharge as late fee.

(xv) The complainant has submitted details of units consumed from 26.04.2016 to 26.02.2017 as under:-

Sr.

No.

Period New

reading

Old reading Units

1. 26.04.2016 to 26.06.2016 70388 69833 555

2. 26.06.2016 to 26.08.2016 72859 70388 2471

3. 26.08.2016 to 26.10.2016 81118 72859 8259

4. 26.10.2016 to 26.12.2016 82957 81118 1839

(xvi) The complainant has prayed that directions may be given to SDO to charge for the period 10.06.2016 to 26.12.2016 according to the current new meter reading on average basis which is approximately less than 9 units per day. All surcharge levied may be waved off as it is proved that the defective meter was running fast and the department is to be held responsible for charging.



comments and supply of consumption data of last 3 years, with a copy to the SDO

Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.1 as well as to the complainant. The SDO was directed to

accept Rs. 10000/- as part payment and not to disconnect the connection till disposal of

the case.

3. The concerned SDO vide his memo no. 1161, dated 11.04.2017 has submitted his reply

stating as under:-

(v) That the consumer has challenged the meter on 08.12.2016. (vi) That the check meter was installed on 08.12.2016 and removed on 04.01.2017.

Meter was found running fast by 6.9% and it was replaced with new meter on 18.01.2017.

(vii) Accordingly bill for the period 28.08.2016 to 18.01.2017 has been overhauled and Rs. 7857/- has been refunded.

(viii) The respondent SDO has submitted three year consumption data from 10/13 to 04/17 along with check meter report and meter change order.

4. On the first date of hearing on 09.05.2017 the complainant insisted for checking of the

meter in laboratory and therefore the SDO was directed to get the meter checked in the

laboratory.

5. The SDO vide his memo no. 1854, dated 02.06.2017 submitted the laboratory report of

checking of meter according to which the meter has been found to be running alright

with percentage limit of -0.17% to -0.40% on different leads within the permissible limit of

±3%.

6. On the next date of hearing on 23.06.2017 the case was deliberated and the

complainant insisted for issuance of bills on average basis for disputed period.

7. Analysis of the case:-

The present complaint is against bill dated 25.11.2016 for the period 26.08..2016 to

20.10.2016 during which 8259 units have been shown as consumption and bill

amounting to Rs. 42960/- has been raised. The complainant contention is that he has

taken the house on rent w.e.f. 10.06.2016. Even the previous bill for the period

26.06.2016 to 26.08.2016 amounting to Rs. 18835/- carried a arrear of Rs. 4961/- for the

period 26.04.2016 to 26.06.2016 and this bill was also paid by Sh. Soni, the complainant

on 13.10.2016 as the same was not paid by the owner of the house since the

complainant shifted on 10.06.2016 as per his complaint. The complainant has stated that

even the consumption of 2471 units for the period 06/16 to 08/16 is also very much on

higher side. On receiving the bill dated 25.11.2016, he challenged the meter which was

found 6.9% fast and refund of Rs. 7857/- accorded Subsequently, the laboratory report

has found the working of the meter perfectly okay.

8. From the past consumption record Forum observes that consumption has been recorded

quite substantially low in the initial months of year 2016 as compared to 2015 as

depicted in the table below.

Month & Year

2014

Consumption/un

its

Month and

Year 2015

Consumption Month and

Year 2016

Consumption

04/14 to 08/14 6217 02/15 to 04/15 1510 02/16 to

04/16

189

08/14 to 10/14 2012 04/15 to 06/15 3442 04/16 to

06/16

555

10/14 to 12/14 1109 06/15 to 08/15 3438

12/14 to 02/15 1701 08/15 to 10/15 2617

9. The above table clearly indicate that the previous user was getting low readings

recorded in connivance with lower staff of the department as he was to vacate the

house. The fact that he stopped making payment since 26.04.2016 and the bill was

cleared by the tenant who took over on 10.06.2016 also corroborate the above fact. The

laboratory report has also confirmed that working of the meter is okay. The contention of

the complainant that reading of 8259 units in 10/16 is due to any defect in the meter

cannot be accepted. The Forum finds that it is accumulation of reading from the previous

months.

10. Keeping in view the above discussions, material on record and argument held, the

complaint is dismissed.





indexed.







Complaint No. - CP-78/2017 Date of Institution - 22.05.2017 Date of Order - 27.06.2017 In the matter to Sh. Kulanand, House No. 2912/2, Sector 49-D, CHD, Housing Board, Chandigarh.


Versus



ORDER

1. Sh. Kulanand, resident of House no. 2912/2, Sector 49-D, CHD, Housing Board, Chandigarh has

vide email dated 19.05.2017 filed a complaint that his meter is not working for the last one year

and the same has not been replaced despite repeated complaints to department.


XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3, for Para wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated

22.05.2017, with the request to the complainant to submit the written complaint duly signed

within 5 days.

3. The respondent SDO vide his letter memo no. 1862, dated 05.06.2017, filed his reply stated that

the meter has been replaced vide MCO No. 42/282, dated 25.09.2017. The complaint has been

resolved.

4. On the dated of hearing 23.06.2017 the complainant was not present. The SDO submitted that

defective meter has already been replaced.

5. The Forum observed that the complaint has been resolved as such complaint is disposed off,

without any further directions.














IN THE MATTER OF SH. ATUL VIJ, HOUSE NO. 1121, PUSHPAC SOCIETY, SECTOR 49-B,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Atul Vij, R/o house no. 1121, Pushpac Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh, through his email

dated 02.06.2017 has stated that he had completed all the documentation and formalities for the

change of name on his electricity bill, but still his name was not reflected on bill. He requested for

getting the same done.


XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.3 vide letter dated 06.06.2017 for para wise comments, with a copy to the

complainant as well as to SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.6. The complainant was requested to

submit written complaint within 5 days duly signed.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.6, vide his letter dated 09.06.2017, submitted

that the case for change of name in electricity bill was completed by the complainant on

04.05.2017 and the necessary master file has been sent to the agency preparing the bills on

31.05.2017 and his name will appear in next coming bill of cycle 3 group 04.

4. On the date of hearing on 23.06.2017, the complainant didn’t attend. The SDO reiterated the

written submissions.

5. The Forum observing that the grievance has already been redressed considers the complaint as

disposed.














IN THE MATTER OF SH. RAVINDER KUMAR VERMA, SCF NO. 2, SECTOR 18-C,

CHANDIGARH


Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Verma, owner of SCF No. 2, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh, through his

application submitted in the office of CGRF on 05.06.2017 pointed out that his electricity bill for

SCF no.2, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh dated 09.02.2017 amounting to Rs. 10439/- included late

payment surcharge of Rs. 394/- which could not be paid. The subsequent bill dated 08.04.2017

for Rs. 11787/- included the amount of last bill as arrears with late payment surcharge of Rs.

453/-. He has submitted that since Rs. 394/- as late payment surcharge of bill dated 09.02.2017

has already been levied the same cannot be levied second time in the next cycle bills being unfair

practice for charging. The surcharge cannot be levied two times on same amount.


XEN, ‘OP’ Division No.3 vide letter dated 06.06.2017 for para wise comments, with a copy to the

complainant as well as to SDO Electy., ‘OP’ Sub division no.6.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.3, vide his letter dated 02.06.2017, submitted

that as the consumer didn’t pay his bill for the period 10.11.2016 to 10.01.2017, a late payment

surcharge of Rs. 394/- has been levied. He didn’t deposit the next bill pertaining to period

10.01.2017 to 10.03.2017 within due date and thus as per prevailing rules and regulations the

surcharge is applicable on total defaulting amount.

4. On the date of hearing on 23.06.2017, the complainant again stressed that the late payment

surcharge should be leviable only once in case of payment default and should not be charged

again in the next cycle bills in case the payment of the further bills are also defaulted. The

complainant was explained that the Tariff Orders issued by Hon’ble JERC are clear on this aspect

and provides that late payment surcharge @ 2% per month is leviable on the outstanding

payment. The relevant clause as appearing at the top of the page no. 218 (sr. no. 10) of Multi

Year Tariff Orders for the year FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as per the tariff issued by Hon’ble

JERC is reproduce below:-

10) “Delayed payment surcharge shall be applicable to all categories of consumers.

Delayed payment surcharge of 2% per month or part therefore shall be levied on all arrears

of bills.”

5. On the basis of above the Forum concludes that the late payment surcharge has been correctly

levied as per the laid rules and regulations and dismiss the complaint.













Complaint No. - CP-90/2017 Date of Institution - 06.06.2017 Date of Order - 27.06.2017 In the matter to Dr. Anuj Kumar, House No. 3607, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.


Versus



ORDER

1. Dr. Anuj Kumar, resident of House no. 3607, Sector 46, Chandigarh has vide email dated

06.06.2017 filed a complaint that they are receiving very poor voltage due to which A.C is not

working and lights are very dim.


XEN, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3, for Para wise comments/action taken report vide letter dated

07.06.2017, with the request to the complainant to submit the written complaint duly signed

within 5 days.

3. The respondent SDO vide his letter memo no. 2074, dated 20.06.2017, submitted that the site

was inspected and voltage supply of the whole area is correct. He has submitted

acknowledgement of the complainant dated 19.06.2017, that problem was due to internal defect

and full voltage is being supplied by the department.

4. On the dated of hearing 23.06.2017 the complainant was not present and SDO stated that

complaint has already being resolved.

5. The Forum disposed off, the compliant without any directions.














IN THE MATTER OF SH. PARMOD KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 4270-A, SECTOR 46, CHANDIGARH

........COMPLAINANT.

Versus




ORDER

1. Sh. Parmod Kumar, R/o house no. 4270-A, Sector 46, Chandigarh, through his email dated

27.05.2017 has filed a complaint regarding excessive bill dated 28.04.2017 for Rs.15183/-. He

has stated that his bill is too much excessive as compared to his utilisation. He has further

submitted that he got electrical rewiring of his house done in Nov/Dec 2016 and due to some

technical fault meter got earthed leading to excessive consumption. He has requested for review

of the bill as compare with past consumption.




no.6. The complainant was requested to submit written complaint within 5 days duly signed.

3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division no.6, vide his memo no. 2036 dated 15.06.2017,

submitted the reply stating that meter has been got checked on 12.06.2017 and found working in

order. Reading on 12.06.2017 was 10725. He has also submitted consumption data record from

07/16 to 21.03.2017.

4. On the first date of hearing on 23.06.2017 the complainant was not present and to afford him

another opportunity next date of hearing was fixed for 29.06.2017. The complainant was also

informed regarding hearing on 29.06.2017 on phone, in advance on 28.06.2017, so that he can

attend the same. He however did not attend the hearing on this date either.

5. The Forum observed that the complainant has himself admitted in the complaint that at time of re-

wiring of the electrical system, It got earthed resulting into recording of high consumption. Thus

the complainant request for review of the bill cannot be accepted. The complaint is dismissed and

disposed.









Documents

OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL ...chdengineering.gov.in/pages/cgrf_order_end_jun17.pdfVivek Kumar, R/o House no. 1107-B, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh, vide his email dated