CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAl FORUM, AMRAVATI ZONE, AMRAVATI. 11 Vidyut Bhavan" Shivaji Nagar, Amravati, PIN :- 444603 Tel No 0721.2551158 Dt. 15/12/2016 Complaint No.15/2016 In the matter of grievance pertaining to incorrect sanction, refund of amounts with interest cost etc. Quorum Shri T. M. Mantri, Chairman Shri S. R. Chitale Member/ Secretary Shri. D. M. Deshpande-Member (CPO) Complainant :- M/s. Satguru Agrotech, At Village Khanapur Taq. Morshi, Dis.t Amravati Consumer No. 356790004221...Vrs. Non Applicant :- The Executive Engineer, O&M Division, Morshi Appearances :- Complainant Non Applicant Shri Ashish Chandarana Shri H. Parekh, Adl. Executive Engineer 1. Being not satisfied with the order of LG.R.C.,Amravati dated 03/10/16 received on date 13/10/2016, the complainant has approached this Forum about grievance of incorrect sanction of head of estimation under DDF, refund of amount including that of electricity duty, supervision charges etc. According to the complainant the estimate has been wrongly sanctioned under
DDF for LT industrial consumer, ignoring the departmental circular in view of execution by tapping of existing LT Line. So also in spite exemption granted by the State Government of electricity duty, it has been levied and only after filing of proceedings before the I.G.R.C., the recovery has been stopped without making refund. Likewise excess amount has been recovered by way of transformer testing charges Rs.3000/-, supervision charges Rs. 7329/-, SCC Rs.8000/- {instead of Rs.l04/- thus Rs.7896/- excess charges}. 2. According to complainant even the inspection of material & quality of execution of work is not as per rules 1956 & concerned officials acted in such way thereby the concerned contractor has been benefitted, in spite complainant's repeated oral & written submission. The quality of supply is also not as per Section 42 of E. A. 2003. Reference has been made to M.E.R.C. order of Case No. 56/2007, so also Circular dated 20/05/2008. Likewise reference has been made to order of M.E.R.C. in 70/2005, Tariff order in case No. 19/2012. According to complainant no charges can be recovered than approved schedule of charges. The work was carried out under the supervision of the concerned officials of the licensee & in view of the quality of the material used it needs to be enquired into in view of danger of the same infrastructure. The complainant has also claimed losses of Rs. 20 lacs on account of frequent tripping, apart from other reliefs prayed for in the complaint plus Rs.l0,000/- as cost. Bunch of documents have been filed with the complaint. 3. Upon receipt of notice of this Forum the N.A. filed reply stating that the complainant itself has given consent for connection under DDF 1.3 % Scheme, accordingly the estimate was prepared & sanctioned. As far as electricity duty it is stated that the amount has been refunded in the bill of Sept. Rs.7329/- has been recovered towards supervision charges as per sanctioned estimate so also the service connection charges. The material has been inspected as per requirement & after sanction it has been charged. Reference has been made to damages caused on account of storm & heavy rains on 6 th, i h & io" June 2016 resulting in disruption of electric supply of number of consumers & the same has been restored within two days by carrying out work on war footing. No grievance has been made by the complainant about interruptions of electric supply in the complaint book. Except the above mentioned period the supply was in order. Along with reply certain documents came to be filed., 4. Heard Shri Ashish Chandarana & Mr. H. Parekh, Adl. E.E.,the learned representatives for both the parties. During the course of arguments it has been admitted that the complainant has been given connection by tapping from existing line. The documents pertaining to the same are on record. It has
been admitted in view thereof the estimate & sanction is not correct under DDF & it ought to have been under Non-DDF CCRFScheme. Here it needs to be mentioned that in spite knowledge of giving connection by tapping from existing line the complainant has been put to financial burden by applying the DDF & depriving it from entitlement of refund of the amounts spent on infrastructure. Likewis-e though the State Government has granted exemption of levying of electricity duty, it has been wrongly billed in the bills issued to the complainant & thereby illegal recovery has been made. It needs to be noted here that similarly transformer testing charges Rs. 3000/-, RS.7329/- supervision charges & Rs. 8000/- as service connection charges have been illegally recovered. Though the complainant was pursuing for such illegal recoveries no steps have been taken & only after approach made by the complainant to the LG.R.e., the N.A. has attempted to rectify the mistakes though not fully but in part. It can not be presumed that the concerned officials of the N.A. were not aware of the provisions about DFF/Non-DDF Schemes, exemption of electricity duty granted by the State Government in Vidharbha & Marathwada region, so also about charging of transformer testing, supervision charges etc. In spite thereof the N.A. has through its official acted contrary to the provisions of the statute, Circulars issued by the Department as well as provision of the MERC Regulation, thereby putting the complainant not only to the monitory losses but also to the harassment. There appears to be substance in the grievance of complaint pertaining to the quality of materials used by the approved contractor of the licensee & the work carried out under the supervision of the officials of the N.A. in view of the other relevant facts & circumstances. 5. Here it needs to be mentioned that in spite order 3rd Oct. 2016 passed by the LG.R.e., Amravati, the concerned officer of the N.A. has made correspondence with the Superintending Engineer about compliance of the order though most of the aspects were within its power & control. The S.E., O&M Circle, Amravati by letter dated s" Nov. 2016 has intimated the E.E.,O&M Division, Morshi to go through the Circulars & other provisions & finalize the matter for resolving the complaint at the earliest. It clearly shows that in spite knowledge of the provisions, powers etc. the order of LG.R.e. has not been complied with & only after approach made by the complainant to e.g.r.f. the N.A. has taken a stand as per reply. Had the concerned official taken appropriate & suitable steps at the relevant time, there could not have been any reason for making of grievance by the complainant & it could have been resolved at that stage only. That having not been done the liability of payment of interest on account of delay naturally arises. The LG.R.e. has directed for refund of various amounts with 18% interest apart from other relevant directions. This Forum is of considered view that granting of 18% interest is somewhat excessive & instead thereof if the interest @ nationalized Bank rate
of interest i.e. 6%, if awarded, it will be in consonance with the provisions of the Regulation as well as Statute. 6. As far as the grievance of the complainant pertaining to the claim for refund of the amount treating it under Non-DDF CCRFScheme this Forum in of the view above observations, considering the facts & circumstances, thinks it proper to direct the N.A. to refund the amounts spent by the complainant on infrastructure needs to be refunded /adjusted in one stroke from the future electric bills payable by the complainant, apart from the refund under other Heads mentioned. 7. As per Section 42 of the Electricity Act it is for the N.A. to provide efficient & co-ordinated electric supply & such expectation of the complainant from the N.A. can not be said to be unreasonable. Though the complainant has also claimed in the complaint about payment of loss on account of frequent tripping amounting to Rs. 20 lacs, however neither there is sufficient pleading nor cogent evidence in support thereof. There is nothing on record to point out about complaints made by the complainant in that regard. On the contrary the N.A. has placed on record material to show that for some days in June 2016 there were heavy rains, storms etc. resulting in disruption of electric supply of number of consumers including the complainant & the work of restoration of supply was carried out in reasonable time. During the course of argument the learned representative of the complainant has admitted about disruption on that count as well as restoration of supply as submitted by the N.A. For want of material this Forum is not inclined to accept the claim of the complainant on that count i.e. loss on account of frequent tripping. In any case the said claim appears to be beyond the scope of the complaint, hence also the same can not be granted. 8. The complainant's grievance is also about the standard & Specifications of material used for the infrastructure by the approved contractor under supervision of the concerned officers of the licensee. It has been submitted that the material is not of approved standards resulting in danger to the structure. Considering the rivals submission this Forum thinks it proper that the licensee to make enquiry from the competent authority about the quality/standard of the materials used as per specification required & thereafter to take appropriate suitable steps so as to avoid danger to infrastructure, losses to the licensee as it will be asset of the licensee. 9. The complainant has also claimed cost of Rs.10,000/- for causing Harassment & hardship. As already observed above that the complainant is required to face harassment for the reasons given above & its claim for
awarding of reasonable cost will be appropriate. This Forum is of the view that awarding of cost of Rs.5000/- as costs will meet the ends of justice. With such observation this Forum proceeds to pass following unanimous order. ORDER 1. That the complaint No. 15/2016 is hereby partly allowed. 2. The N.A. is directed to modify the sanction head of estimate from DDF to Non-DDF & to refund amount spent by the complainant on infrastructure in one stroke along with interest @ 6% per annum after making adjustment of forthcoming bill payable by the complainant. 3. The N.A. is also directed to refund transformer testing charges Rs.3000/-, supervision charges Rs.7329/- & service connection charges Rs. 7896/- along with interest @ 6% per annum by way of adjustment in the forthcoming bills payable by the complainant. 4. The Iicensee/ concerned authority to take appropriate steps for making enquiry by the competent officer/authority in respect of quality/standard & specifications of materials used for the infrastructure by the approved contractor under supervision of the concerned officer of the N.A. & to take suitable appropriate steps after outcome of the enquiry, if required. 5. The claim of the complainant for losses worth Rs. 20 lacs on account of alleged frequent tripping is hereby rejected. 6. The N.A. is liable to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. 7. That the compliance report to be submitted within period of one month from this order. Sd/- Member/Secretary Sd/- Member (CPO) Sd/- Chairman Contact details of Electricity Ombudsman appointed by MERC (CGRF&EO) Regulations 2006 under Regulation 10: THE ELECTRICITYOMBUDSMAN, Office of Electricity Ombudsman (Nagpur) Plot No.12, Shrikrupa, Vijaynagar, Chhaoni, Nagpur-440 013. Phone :- 0712-2596670
No.CGRF / AMTZ/ Amravati/ rtj 3 6 9 3 I Dt. 15 UtC 2016 To, The Nodal Officer, Tbe Executive Engineer MSEDCL, O&M Division, Morshi - The order passed on 15/12/2016 in the Complaint No. 15/2016, is enclosed herewith for further compliance and necessary action. ~~- Secretary, Consumer Grievance Forum, MSEDCL, Amravati Amravati Redressal Zone, Copy fwcs to: ~ Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL,O&M Circle, Amravati 2. M/s.Satguru Agrotech, at Village Khanapur, Taq. Morshi, Dist Amravati Consumer No. 356790004221.