CASE No. 44 of In the matter of

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: www. merc.gov.in CASE No. 44 of 2017 In the matter of Petition of Shri. Mangesh Madhukar Pandit regarding non-compliance of the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai s Order dated by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Coram Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member Shri.MangeshMadhukar Pandit Petitioner V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Respondent Appearance: For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: For Authorized Consumer Representative: In person Shri.E.V. Mamilwad Dr. Ashok Pendse, TBIA ORDER Dated: 16 February, Shri. Mangesh Madhukar Pandit, Panditwadi, At & Post. Solgaon, Taluka Rajapur, Dist. Ratnagiri, has filed a Petition on 3 March, 2017 regarding non-compliance of the Electricity Ombudsman (EO), Mumbai s Order dated 18 May, 2016 by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL). 2. The Petition has the following prayers: Order in Case No. 44 of 2017 Page 1 of 5

2 1) ié úò +É{ÉhÉÉºÉ Ê ÉxÉÆÊiÉ Eò úhªééié ªÉäiÉä EòÒ, ɱÉÉ Ê ÉVÉäSÉÒ VÉÉäb héò i ÉÊ úié näùhªééséä +Énäù É näùhªééié ªÉÉ ÉäiÉ É Ê ÉtÖiÉ +ÊvÉÊxÉªÉ É 2003 SªÉÉ Eò±É É 43 (3) +x ɪÉä ÉÊiÉnùÒxÉ BEò ½þVÉÉ ú û{éªéä næùb ÉSÉÒ úceò É +ÉEòÉ úhªééié ªÉÉ ÉÒ iéºéäsé ɱÉÉ xéöeòºééxé É ú{éé<ç Ê É³ý ÉÚxÉ näùhªééié ªÉÉ ÉÒ. 3. The Petition states that : (1) The Petitioner had submitted an application for a Residential connection on 14 August, The estimate was sanctioned by MSEDCL on 25 September, 2014 and charges were intimated on 2 January, He paid the charges on 11 February, (2) As the Petitioner had not received the Residential connection upto November, 2015, he filed his grievance before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Ratnagiri. The CGRF, in its Order dated 6 November, 2015, directed that the connection should be released before 31 March, 2016 and that compliance should be reported by 15 April, Inspite of that Order, till date the Petitioner has not received the Residential connection. (3) Hence, the Petitioner made a Representation to the EO, Mumbai on 25 April, During the proceedings, MSEDCL had given assurance in its written submission that the Residential connection would be released before 31 May, (4) However, the LT Line work is still incomplete. Only the pole pit work is taken in hand which is also not in an ideal state. Hence, MSEDCL is deliberately avoiding complying with the EO Order. (5) The Petitioner should be given Residential connection at the earliest and MSEDCL should pay him Rs.1000/- per day and also compensate the losses as per Section 43 (3) of the Electricity Act (EA), Moreover, since RSJ poles are prone to rusting because of environmental conditions in the Konkan region, the LT line work should be carried out with cement poles. 4. In its Reply dated 5 May, 2017, MSEDCL has stated that: (1) The application from Shri. Pandit for Residential connection was received on 14 August, Estimate was sanctioned on 25 September, 2014 under the District Planning Committee (DPC) Scheme, in which the fund provision is passed by the Collector. The same was passed on 15 October, 2015 and MSEDCL got approval for floating a tender on 30 November, (2) The Petitioner filed his grievance before the CGRF, Ratnagiri on 06 November, The CGRF in its Order 17 December, 2015 directed MSEDCL to release the electricity supply connection before 31 March, Charges for the connection were informed vide Firm Quotation issued on 02 January, Order in Case No. 44 of 2017 Page 2 of 5

3 (3) Since the CGRF Order was not complied with, the Petitioner filed a Representation before the EO, Mumbai on 25 April, The EO, in his Order dated 18 May, 2016, directed MSEDCL to release the connection before 31 May, Hence, MSEDCL asked M/s. Maya Electrical to complete the work in May, (4) In order to complete the work as per the EO Order, permission was sought from the MSEDCL Corporate Office on 23 July, 2016 to execute the works on quotation basis instead of through e-tendering. However, it was not approved. Hence, the e-tendering process was initiated and M/s. Maya Electrical was awarded to carry out works sanctioned under the DPC Scheme for FY and FY After completing all tender formalities, viz. material, inspection, Bank Guarantee, etc., the agency was asked to complete the work of the Petitioner on priority. (5) M/s. Maya Electrical started the work in May, 2016 by pole pit digging, but it was interrupted due to heavy rain from July, However, the Petitioner stopped the work, although the poles were being transported to his site and pole pits being dug, stating that the work should be carried out with PSC (cement) poles instead of the sanctioned RSJ (steel) poles. Vide his letter dated 14 July, 2016, the Petitioner asked for the work to be stopped. However, the work is now completed and the connection released on 27 April, (6) Hence, the delay was because of unavoidable circumstances. 5. At the hearing held on 1 June, 2017, (1) The Petitioner stated that he had applied for a new single phase Residential connection on 14 August, As the connection was not released, he filed a grievance before the CGRF, Ratnagiri. In spite of the CGRF s Order dated 6 November, 2015 that the connection be released before 31 March, 2016, it was not released. Being aggrieved, he filed his Representation before the EO, Mumbai. The EO, in his Order dated 18 May, 2016, ruled that, if the connection is not released before 31 May, 2016, a fine of Rs.500/- per day from 1 June, 2016 till the connection is released should be paid to the Petitioner. MSEDCL released the connection on 27 April, To a query of the Commission regarding the compensation to be paid by MSEDCL as per the EO s Order, the Petitioner stated that he must be compensated as per the provisions of law. (2) MSEDCL stated that the Petitioner applied for the connection on 14 August, 2012, which required extension work of 4 poles. As this connection was sanctioned in the DPC Scheme, it required funds sanction from the Collector, which was sanctioned on 15 October, 2015, followed by intimation of Order in Case No. 44 of 2017 Page 3 of 5

4 connection charges to the Petitioner on 2 January, Since MSEDCL did not give the connection within the stipulated time, the Petitioner filed his grievance before the CGRF on 06 November, 2015, which directed MSEDCL to release the connection before 31 March, As the Konkan region is a hard rock area, the excavation of the pole pits involves use of breakers, thereby increasing the cost of excavation. Hence, no contractors were willing to execute the works at the low Schedule of Rates, which resulted in almost stoppage of all works during 2011 to These rates were subsequently increased and the work of the Petitioner was started. However, the Petitioner objected to erecting RSJ poles because of rusting issues over time and requested that PSC poles be used. There was a shortage of PSC poles. However, after the EO s Order and after the availability of PSC poles, the work was completed and the connection was belatedly released on 27 April, (3) The Commission expressed its displeasure regarding MSEDCL s attitude towards Orders of the EO and CGRF and the Standards of Perfomance (SoP) Regulations. The Commission asked MSEDCL why the compensation as per the EO s Order is still not paid to the Petitioner. MSEDCL replied that its higher authorities had been informed that the compensation should be paid, but approval is awaited. Commission s Analysis and Ruling 6. Vide his Order dated 18 May, 2016, the EO, Mumbai had given the following directions: "9. प रस त त प रकरण त घरग त व पर स ठ प रवठ करण य स झ ल ल ववल ब प हत प रततव द मह ववतरणन ददन क ३१ म, २०१६ पय त अवपल र थ स व ज प रवठ न क ल य स, ददन क १ ज न, २०१६ प स न व ज प रवठ स र कर पय त द ड म हण न प रततव द न प रततददन र. ५००/- अवपल र थ अजजद र स द य व अस तनद श त करण य त य त आह. 10. अन प लन अहव ल ददन क ३० ज न, २०१६ पय त प रततव द न स दर कर व. " 7. The Petitioner applied for a Residential connection on 14 August, 2012, and MSEDCL intimated the charges more than 3 years later, on 2 January, 2016, and only after the Petitioner approached the CGRF. The CGRF directed MSEDCL to provide the Petitioner s connection by 31 March, 2016, but MSEDCL did not do so. Vide his Order dated 18 May, 2016, the EO then directed MSEDCL to provide the connection by 31 May, 2016, failing which it should pay the Petitioner Rs. 500/- per day from 1 June, 2016 till it is provided. 8. MSEDCL started the work for providing a connection to the Petitioner only after the EO s Order, and released it on 27 April, 2017, nearly a year thereafter. Order in Case No. 44 of 2017 Page 4 of 5

5 MSEDCL has cited various reasons for the delay, set out earlier in this Order. The Commission notes that these reasons are on account of operational issues which are up to MSEDCL to sort out. 9. The connection has now been provided, though belatedly. However, MSEDCL did not pay the amount of penalty to the Petitioner as directed by the EO. The Commission directs MSEDCL (1) to pay to the Petitioner the amount of Rs. 500 per day accruing from 1 April, 2016 to 27 April, 2017 (the date of the connection); (2) to pay to the Petitioner the interest applicable for the delay in paying that amount from 27 April, 2017 till the date of its payment; (3) to pay these amounts directly to the Petitioner within one month, or through adjustment in his electricity bill for the ensuing billing cycle, if not already paid by the time of this Order; and (4) to recover the interest paid from the official(s) responsible for the delay in payment (it appears that the field officers had sought sanction from the MSEDCL HO, but there was no timely response), and report such recovery to the Commission within 3 months. The Petition of Shri. Mangesh Madhukar Pandit in Case No. 44 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Lad) Member Sd/- (Azeez M. Khan) Member Order in Case No. 44 of 2017 Page 5 of 5