REGISTERED CONSUMERS GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM AT KASUMPTI SHIMLA-9 No. CGRF/Comp. No. 1453/1/17/005 Dated:- KBM Food Product, V/s. HPSEBL & Others. Complaint No 1453/1/17/005 1. KBM Food Product, 2. The Executive Director (Pers.), HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4 3. The Dy. Chief Engineer, (Op.) Circle, HPSEBL, Solan, 4. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Baddi, 5. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub-Division, HPSEBL, Baddi, The Certified copy of final order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Hon ble Forum in the aforesaid complaint is enclosed herewith for further necessary action at your end please. The compliance be reported/ intimated within one month after the receipt of order in the office. DA:-As above. Secretary, CGRF, HPSEBL Kasumpti Shimla-9.
CONSUMERS GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM AT KASUMPTI SHIMLA-9 No. FRGC/Complaint No. 1453/1/17/005 Dated:- KBM Food Product, V/s. HPSEBL & Others. Complaint No 1453/1/17/005 Dated:-08.09.2017 The order in the above-cited complaint is announced today on dated 08.09.2017. Copy of order be sent to all concerned through registered post. The complaint stands disposed off. (Rajiv Gupta) Member (S.L.Sharma) Chairman
CONSUMERS GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM AT KASUMPTI SHIMLA-9 Complaint No.: - 1453/1/17/005 Date of Admission: - 31.01.2017 Quorum: - Er. S.L. Sharma, Chairman. Er. Rajiv Gupta, Member In Re: - KBM Food Product, V/s 1 The Executive Director (Pers.), HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4 2. The Dy. Chief Engineer, (Op.) Circle, HPSEBL, Solan, 3. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Baddi, 4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub-Division, HPSEBL, Baddi, Complaint Regarding:- Defective meter-billing dispute. Final hearing held on dated: - 30.08.2017 Present For: - 1. Sh. Kiran Negi, Advocate. 1. Sh. Nageen Kumar Clerk of Sh. Surender Sharma, Advocate. 2. Sh. Lakshmi Chand, Sr. Assistant. Date of Decision: - 08.09.2017
COMPLAINANT S CONTENTION:- The complainant got power connection from the respondents for 98 kw of load with 60 kva of contract demand. The complainant has been paying the monthly electricity bills raised by the respondents as per periodicity and time limits specified in the Supply Code, 2013. The complainant was served as demand notice dated 03.01.2017 by respondent no.1 for Rs.1,60,638/- on account of defective metering, involving overhauling of the complainant s account w.e.f. 06.06.2013 upto Nov, 16 for a period of three and a half year. The respondent number 1 has stated that the potential was missing. He further alleged that the current was missing in B Phase on the basis of analysis of MRI data. The respondent raised the demand without even providing the consumer the MRI data on the basis of which the conclusion was arrived. In other words, the demand had been raised without conducting such test that could have satisfied the consumer, merely on the basis of theory and the data which is only available with respondents. The complainant is at a loss of understanding. Had a check meter be installed in parallel to the defective meter, the slowness would have been proved beyond doubt. The complainant wrote in reply to the respondent number 1 vide his letter dated 13.01.2017. that the slowness of the meter/metering equipment is dealt by the para 4.4 (i) of the Supply code, 2009, which provides for the overhauling of consumer accounts only for a period of six months from the date of test or removal of the defective meter. The respondents did not accede to the contention of the complainant and reverted vide his letter dated 18.01.2017 that the case of defective meter does not fall in the purview of para 4.4.8 (i) of the Supply Code, 2009 and hence maintained his stand for overhauling for a period of three and a half years. The respondents are required to check the meters periodically as a routine within every six months. The respondents contention that the meter was slow by 33% since three and a half years is itself a proof that the metering was never tested/ verified during such a long period. Para 4.4.8 (i) of the Supply Code and the corresponding instruction number 27.4 of the revised sales manual and instruction No.116 of the Old Sales Manual provide for overhauling in the case of inaccurate meters/metering equipment only for a period of six months. These provisions have been included in the interest of the consumer keeping in view various legalities and thus cannot be ignored while such overhauling is ordered.
The defective meter is still in place and has not been replaced by a proper accurate meter. The continuance of the defective meter in use, shall result further loss to the respondents as the date of removal of the defective meter is crucial to determine the period of overhauling. The relevant legal provision are reproduced below:- Para 4.4.8 of the Supply code state overhauling of consumer accounts (a) If a meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as specified in the regulations frame by the Authority under Section 55 of the Act, the electricity charges for all categories of consumers will be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period of six months immediately preceding- (b) The date the defective meter is removed for testing in the laboratory of the licensee where such testing is undertaken at the instance of the licensee: or (c) The date of receipt of request from the consumer for testing a meter in the laboratory of the licensee. Instruction 27.4 of Sales Manual 27.4 Overhauling of consumer accounts--- (d) If a meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as specified in the regulations framed by the authority under section 55 of the Act, the electricity charges for all categories of consumers will be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period of six months immediately preceding- (e) 27.4.1 the date of test in case the meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer: or (f) 27.4.2 the date on which the defective meter is removed for testing in the laboratory of the licensee, where such testing is undertaken at the instance of licensee: or (g) 27.4.3 the date of receipt of request from the consumer for testing of a meter in the laboratory of the licensee. (h) Instruction No.116 of the old sales manual: INSTRUCTUION NO.116 Difference or dispute over the Accuracy: Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party, by the Electrical inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to
time, and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electricity Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to the carried out in the consumer s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. Provided that before the Board or a consumer applied to Chief Electrical Inspector, he shall give to the other party not less than 7 days notice of his intention to do so. Nature of relief sought from the Forum:- (a) To quash and set aside the arrears demanded vide letter dated 03.01.2017, issued by respondent/non-applicant No.2 vide which the complainant/ applicant company has been asked to deposit Rs.1,60,638/- as arrears towards slowness of meter. (b) To direct the respondent to change the meter at the earliest so as not to extend the dispute over the meter for the further period. (c) Cost of the complaint amounting to Rs.50,000/-. (d) Call for the record of the case. (e) Any other or further orders which this Hon ble forum may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the complainant company and against the respondents/ distribution licensees. RESPONDENTS CONTENTION: - The complainant was served a demand notice for recovery of less billed amount to the tune of Rs. 1,60,638/- (Rs. One lac sixty thousand six hundred thirty eight) only as current in B phase is missing w.e.f. 06.06.2013. The consumer is free to ask for MRI data which can be provided depositing applicable fees as per tariff orders. The slowness of 33% is exact as current in one phase is missing. FORUM S OBSERVATIONS AND ORDER :- We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through their claims and counter claims vis-à-vis copies of various details and documents filed with the complaint, reply thereafter. Thus the Forum observes as under:- We have gone through all the documents and listened to the arguments of both parties very carefully. We observe that the respondents served demand notice dated 03.01.2017 to the complainants demanding Rs. 1,60,638/- on account of defective metering after overhauling the accounts since 06.06.2013 to 11/2016. The respondents issued demand notice stating that the current in B-Phase was missing since 06.06.2013 and the energy has been recorded 33% less (Page 8).
The respondents have also supplied copy of tamper report (Page 23) which also indicates that the current in B-Phase is missing. The respondents also verified the percentage of less energy being recorded by installing a check meter in parallel. The check meter also indicated that 31.95% less energy is being recorded by the old meter ( 30.07.2017 to 18.04.2017). The complainant pleaded during arguments that overhauling of accounts should not be for the period 06.06.2013 to 11/2016 but only for a period of six months. The respondents argued for overhauling for the complete period as 33% more energy has been used by the complainants. We also checked the overhauling details of the demand of Rs. 1,60,638/-, the temper report and the comparison of consumption by the check meter and old meter. We find that the current in B-Phase was actually missing since 06.06.2013. We are also satisfied with the plea of the respondents that the complainants have used 33% more energy than actually billed. We are also satisfied with the overhauling details of the demand raised. We are, thus, of the opinion that the complainants must pay for the energy consumed by them. We also do not agree with the plea of the complainant to overhaul the accounts for six months instead of whole period because the actual date of 33% less energy being recorded is available in records i.e. 06.06.2013. We, therefore, feel that the plea of the complainant to restrict the overhauling of accounts to six months is not maintainable and should be rejected. We, thus, direct as under:- i ii The demand of Rs. 1,60,638/- raised by the respondents is held right. The respondents are directed to adjust all the money already received against their complaint in the above said demand of Rs. 1,60,638/-. Iii The respondents are directed to recover the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments alongwith the monthly bills of next six months. The case is decided in favour of the respondents. The file be consigned to the record room alongwith original copy of the order. The certified copy of order be kept in safe custody in the folder of orders. Certified copies of this order be supplied to both the parties. Place: - Shimla Dated: -08.09.2017 (Rajiv Gupta) Member (S.L.Sharma) Chairman