Sri. Alex Soharab. V.F, M/s. Southern Engineering Corporation, V/830-A, Development Area, Edayar, Muppathadom , Aluva.

Transcription

1 1 CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM CENTRAL REGION (Formed under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act 2003) 220 kv Substation Compound, HMTColony P.O. Kalamasery, Pin Phone No Website : cgrf.kseb.in, cgrf.ekm@gmail.com, CUG No Present (1) Shri. Narayanan M.K Chairperson (2) Smt. B. Soudamini Member (3) Shri. Jefrin Manuel Member Petitioner Sri. Alex Soharab. V.F, M/s. Southern Engineering Corporation, V/830-A, Development Area, Edayar, Muppathadom , Aluva. Respondent 1) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Aluva Town 2) The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Edayar ======================================================== No.CGRF-CR/Comp. 59/ Date: 12/1/2017 Background of the case: O R D E R The Petitioner Sri. Alex Soharab. V.F, M/s. Southern Engineering Corporation, is a 3 phase industrial consumer under Ele. Section. Edayar having Cons. No The connected load of the consumer was 20 kw. On 25/8/2014, they had applied for an additional load of 65 kw. As the existing 100 kva transformer was overloaded, an estimate for 3,95,000/- was prepared for installing a 100 kva transformer in his compound and the consumer agreed to meet the expenditure, as the transformer is proposed as exclusive for him. Also he agreed to bear the cost of RMU, if required in future.

2 2 On 23/2/2015, the consumer intimated his inconvenience to install the above transformer and hence the licensee suggested for installing the transformer at road side, which was objected by the neighbor. Hence another estimate for Rs. 1,89,030/- was prepared for enhancing the existing 100 kva transformer to 250 kva, after deducting the depreciation value of taken backing the existing 100 kva transformer. This was sanctioned and the petitioner remitted the amount on 25/3/2015. For giving an additional load of 65 kw, the meter was changed on 24/8/15 with TOD facility, the IR being zero. Then bill was issued regularly. Due to door locked condition, the readings were not taken during 10/15 & 11/15 and after taking reading in 1/12/15 a bill for Rs. 2,77,944/- was issued which included the consumption during 10/15 & 11/15. Then the average consumption was also revised and as it became high, the licensee demanded an ACD of Rs. 57,930/-. Aggrieved by this, the consumer approached CGRF, to get refund of Rs. 2,12,904/- which was remitted by him for the installation and development charges of transformer and to cancel the impugned bill for Rs. 2,77,944/- and ACD for Rs. 57,930/-. Subsequently, statement of facts was called for from the respondent and it was received on 24/9/2016. The Forum afforded an opportunity to hear the petitioner and respondent on 1/10/2016, 21/12/2016 & 4/1/2017. Both the parties were present for the hearing on 1/10/2016, 21/12/2016. Argument of the Petitioner: The Petitioner Sri. Alex Soharab. V.F, M/s. Southern Engineering Corporation, is having a 3 phase electric connection under LT IVA tariff with Cons. No under Ele. Section, Edayar. The connection was availed with a connected load of 20 kw till 3/8/2015. The petitioner enhanced the connected load to 85kW and the meter also changed on 24/8/2015. For this the existing 100 kva transformer has to be enhanced to 250 kva, by the licensee at an

3 3 estimated amount of Rs. 1,89,030/-, after deducting the depreciation value of taken backing the existing 100 kva transformer. The petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 1, 89,030/- towards HT side work, because the load enhancement was a requirement for them. The petitioner has also constructed a transformer plinth and provided a crane Rs. 3,000/-, which was not included in the estimate. The cost included for constructing the transformer plinth in the sanctioned estimate was Rs. 20,874/-. The licensee had issued Rs. 2880/- on Rs. 2255/- on 1/10/2015 Rs. 7741/- on 2/11/2015 and the petitioner remitted the bills. The petitioner had enhanced their connected load to 85kW and started trial run from 4/12/2015 to 9/12/2015 without loading and the average consumption was between units. On account of the load enhancement, the meter also changed on 24/8/2015, but the licensee had not recorded the consumer s signature. Afterwards the licensee issued a bill for Rs. 2, 77,949/- on 1/12/2015. The petitioner filed an objection and remitted only Rs. 7471/- being the previous month s bill amount and subsequently the petitioner was paying monthly bills regularly. Also the petitioner requested to check the MRI, but KSEB had not done the testing. The Petitioner states that, their load is 85 kw, MD is at an average of 34 kva, the monthly bill is around Rs. 20,000/- and CD available in Rs. 40,000/-. The KSEBL demanded an amount of Rs. 57,930/- towards ACD along with the monthly bills dtd. 1/7/2016, but the petitioner paid an amount less by the ACD, arguing that, there is sufficient CD amount is available with the licensee i.e. around Rs. 40,000/- is available with KSEB as CD which is sufficient for 2 months current bill; whereas the monthly current bill is around 20,000/- only. Also the petitioner filed an objection letter dtd. 12/8/2016, at the section office.

4 4 In view of the above, the petitioner requests the Forum to direct KSEB to: 1) Refund transformer installation charges of Rs. 2, 12,904/- with interest. 2) Cancel the impugned bill for Rs. 2, 77,944/- dtd. 1/12/ ) Cancel the clam towards ACD. Version of the Respondent: As per sec. 46 of Electricity Act -2003, the State Commission may, by regulations, authorize a distribution licensee to charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance of Section 43 any expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. As the transformer enhanced is exclusively for him for giving additional load of 65 KW, the request of consumer for refunding the amount of Rs.2, 12,904/- is not genuine as per reg.37 of supply code Also he is liable to remit the current charge Rs.2, 12,904/- as the bill amount is based on the actual consumption and as per prevailing rules. Besides this the consumer is also liable to remit the ACD amount Rs.57, 930/-. Against this bill the consumer submitted an objection at section office. Then the Asst. Engineer directed the consumer to remit the testing fee for testing the meter, and allowed to remit the previous bill amount and the consumer remitted Rs. 7471/-. But the consumer had not remitted the testing fee. Again 2 times he informed the consumer to remit the meter testing fee, but the consumer not remitted the same. In the bill, the IR is zero is properly furnished and the parameters are match with actual consumption and hence bill amount Rs. 2, 77,944/- was issued to the consumer during 12/2015. The ACD of Rs. 57,930/- is calculated after considering this high consumption. The average monthly amount being Rs. 48,790/- and consequent deposit required is Rs. 97,940/- whereas the available deposit is Rs /- and hence balance amount required as ACD is Rs. 57,930/-.

5 5 As per Section 46 of Electricity Act 2003, The State Commission may, by regulations, authorize a distribution licensee to charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43 any expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. Further there is no doubt about the initial reading (IR) and the consumer has not willing to remit the meter testing fee and the petitioner has no complaint about the accuracy of meter, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount. Analysis and findings Having examined the petition in detail, and the statement of facts of the respondent, considering all the facts and circumstances in detail, and perusing all the documents of both sides, the Forum comes to the following observations, conclusions and decisions thereof. This petitioner has already heard on 1/10/2016, but more documents with respect to the downloaded data had to be collected from the licensee. It seems that by somehow the meter data was downloaded at TMR Angamaly and the details were received on 26/11/2016 and hence another hearing was held on 21/12/2016. On the hearing, clarification regarding the MF in the bill was also sought from the licensee and the same was received on 23/12/2016. Hence a third hearing with the respondent alone was also held on The Petitioner Sri. Alex Soharab. V.F, M/s. Southern Engineering Corporation, is having a 3 phase electric connection under LT IVA tariff with Cons. No under Ele. Section, Edayar. The connection was availed with a connected load of 20 kw till 3/8/2015. The petitioner enhanced the connected load to 85kW and the meter also changed on 24/8/2015. For this the existing 100 kva transformer has to be enhanced to 250 kva, by the licensee at an estimated amount of Rs. 1,89,030/-, after deducting the depreciation value of taken backing the existing 100 kva transformer. The petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 1, 89,030/- towards HT side work, because the load enhancement

6 6 was a requirement for them. The petitioner has also constructed a transformer plinth and provided a crane Rs. 3,000/-, which was not included in the estimate. The cost included for constructing the transformer plinth in the sanctioned estimate was Rs. 20,874/-. The licensee had issued Rs. 2880/- on Rs. 2255/- on 1/10/2015 Rs. 7741/- on 2/11/2015 and the petitioner remitted the bills. The petitioner had enhanced their connected load to 85kW and started trial run from 4/12/2015 to 9/12/2015 without loading and the average consumption was between units. On account of the load enhancement, the meter also changed on 24/8/2015, but the licensee had not recorded the consumer s signature. Afterwards the licensee issued a bill for Rs. 2, 77,949/- on 1/12/2015. The petitioner filed an objection and remitted only Rs. 7471/- being the previous month s bill amount and subsequently the petitioner was paying monthly bills regularly. Also the petitioner requested to check the MRI, but KSEB had not done the testing. The Petitioner states that, their load is 85 kw, MD is at an average of 34 kva, the monthly bill is around Rs. 20,000/- and CD available in Rs. 40,000/-. The KSEBL demanded an amount of Rs. 57,930/- towards ACD along with the monthly bills dtd. 1/7/2016, but the petitioner paid an amount less by the ACD, arguing that, there is sufficient CD amount is available with the licensee i.e. around Rs. 40,000/- is available with KSEB as CD which is sufficient for 2 months current bill; whereas the monthly current bill is around 20,000/- only. On detailed examination of the petition, it needs to analyze the following points: 1) Eligibility of collecting transformer installation expenses 2) Accuracy of bill dtd. 1/12/2015 for an amount of Rs. 2, 77,944/-. 3) Eligibility of collecting the ACD amount of Rs. 57,930/-.

7 7 For meeting the expenditure towards enhancement of connected load the Regulation 36 of Supply Code 2014 is applicable which is reproduced below: 36. Expenditure for extension or up gradation or both of the distribution system to be borne by the consumer:- The expenditure for extension or upgradation or both of the distribution system undertaken exclusively for giving new service connection to any person or a collective body of persons or a developer or a builder, or for enhancing the load demand of a consumer or a collective body of consumers or a developer or a builder, shall be borne by the respective applicant or consumer or collective body of consumers or developer or builder, as the case may be, in the following cases:- (i) for meeting the demand of an applicant with a contract demand above one megawatt (MW); (ii) for meeting the additional demand of existing consumers, if the aggregate demand including the additional demand applied for, is above one megawatt (MW); (iii) for meeting the demand of the domestic or commercial or industrial complex or colony constructed by a developer or a builder with a demand above one megawatt (MW); (iv) for meeting the demand of a high rise building irrespective of its demand; (v) for meeting the demand of power intensive unit irrespective of its demand; and (vi) for meeting the demand of a consumer requesting for dedicated feeder or protected load status irrespective of its demand: Provided that, if due to technical reasons, the extension or upgradation or both to be undertaken by the licensee as per this regulation is more than the requirement of such consumer, the expenditure for such extension or upgradation or both to be realized from the consumer shall be limited to the proportionate expenditure. In this case the load enhancement required is only to an extent of 65 kw, even though, this enhancement is exclusively for meeting the additional load requirement of the consumer. Hence as per Regulation 36, the cost of enhancement shall be met by the licensee.

8 8 connection. It may be noted that, the regulation 37 is applicable for availing new The respondent says that the petitioner was not willing to remit the testing fee for testing the meter for the period of readings under dispute i.e. the readings taken in the bill dtd. 1/12/2015. The petitioner argues that the IR of the meter was not zero. This is also not available in the downloaded data submitted by the licensee. Further there is no evidence that the consumer was ready to remit the testing fee for testing the meter. For the bill dtd. 1/12/2015, amounting to Rs. 2, 77,944/-, it seems that IR is clearly shown in the bill. The respondent agreed that, while changing the meter, they had not recorded the petitioner s signature. The multiplication factor (MF) taken for the bills under dispute is 30. The AEE reports that an objection was filed by the consumer against this bill, the section staff inspected the premises and the MF was confirmed as 20. The AEE clarifies that, this bill can be revised with MF 20 and they have issued all the subsequent bills after this disputed bill with MF as 20. On analyzing the above facts, the respondent is not able to prove beyond doubt that, the IR of the replaced meter was zero. Also now it is not available from the downloaded data. There was no lockout or shutdown of the company during the disputed bill period as confirmed by the petitioner. Hence it can be assumed that the petitioner might have used the energy as per normal in the subsequent months after enhancement. As reliable data in respect of the reading is not available, Forum is of the opinion that, the subsequent 3 months average shall be taken as the consumption for each month in the disputed period, and bills may be issued accordingly. Also ACD may be recalculated and collected if required as per the above calculation.

9 9 Dissenting Note by Smt. B. Soudamini, (2 nd Member) I agree with the Decisions (2) and (3) below. But regarding the refund of transformer installation charges of Rs. 2,12,904/-, my view point is contrary to that of the others. In my opinion, Reg. 37 is applicable in this case, which is reproduced as below. 37. Expenditure for service line, plant etc., for providing supply.- (1) The consumer shall bear the expenditure for the service line or of the plant or of both, provided exclusively for him by the licensee. (2) The expenditure for line and plant mentioned in subregulation (1) above shall be determined as per the cost data approved by the Commission. In the present case, the petitioner was already availing supply from the respondents for 20 kw. Later, petitioner wanted enhancement of power by 65 kw. As the transformer of the respondents feeding supply to petitioner did not have enough capacity to cater this additional load, another transformer of 100 kva capacity had to be installed for the exclusive purpose of the petitioner. Hence this issue comes in the purview of Reg. 37 of Supply Code. Even though petitioner agreed to install the new transformer in his premises vide Lr. No. SEC/KSEB/Power/ /058/ , he later expressed difficulty in installing the transformer in his premises vide Lr. No. SEC/KSEB/Power/ /63/ The respondent is then seen to have approached another firm viz M.s, Aswathy Engineering Works for the space for installation of the new transformer, which was subsequently denied by the said firm on 28/2/2015. As a last option, the existing transformer catering power to the petitioner was enhanced by the respondents to 250 kva, in lieu of the exclusive transformer proposed for the petitioner and that too at the request of the petitioner. Hence the issue of the transformer enhancement has to be given the privilege of the circumstance, i.e. the request of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is responsible for the transformer enhancement and is therefore bound to bear it s expenses as per Reg. 37. Sd/- B. Soudamini 2 nd Member

10 10 DECISION: 1) The amount remitted by the petitioner towards the enhancement of existing 100 kva transformer to 250 kva transformer is to be refunded. If the petitioner agrees the amount may be adjusted in future bills. 2) The bill dtd. 1/12/2015 for an amount of 2, 77,944/- is cancelled. This bill is to be revised after considering the average of succeeding 3 months consumption, as the consumption of each month in the above disputed bill period, and also taking correct M.F. 3) The monthly average consumption and amount is to be re-calculated after considering decision (2) above, and the revised CD amount required is to be worked out. If this is less than the available CD with the licensee, the licensee shall issue separate bill for collecting the balance CD required. Dated this 12 th day of January ) Sri. Narayanan M.K. Sd/- (CHAIRPERSON 2) Sri. Jefrin Manuel Sd/- 3 rd member Endt. On CGRF-CR/Comp. 59/16-17 Sri. Alex Soharab. V.F, M/s. Southern Engineering Corporation, V/830-A, Development Area, Edayar, Muppathadom , Aluva. Copy Submitted to: The Chief Engineer, Distribution Central, KSEB, Gandhi Square, DH Road, Kochi -16. Copy to: - (1) The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, KSEBL, Perumbavoor (2) The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Aluva (3) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, ESD, K.S.E.B, Aluva Town (4) The Asst. Engineer, Ele. Section, Edayar