BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN (Appointed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003)

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN (Appointed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003) ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 606, KESHAVA, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai Tel. / Telefax: REPRESENTATION NO. 42 OF 2007 In the matter of multiplying factor and supplementary bill. Shri. Gajanan R. Naik.. Appellant V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Respondent. Present:- 1. Shri W.G.Gorde, Electricity Ombudsman 2. Shri S.N. Yadwad, Secretary On behalf of the Appellant: 1. Shri. Shakeel Ansari. On behalf of the Respondent: 1. Shri R. P. Chaudhari, Executive Engineeer 2. Shri V. M. Gattewar, Exeuctive Engineer ORDER Date: 1 st August, Shri Gajanan R. Naik, an Appellant in the present case, has filed this representation (registered at Sr. No. ) against the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bhandup (In short, the Forum). The dispute arose due to raising of supplementary bill on account of correction in multiplying factor of the Appellant s meter. By its order dated 27 th April 2007, the Forum directed the Appellant that he is liable to pay the Utility, the charges for energy consumed by him as per the multiplying factor of 2 intested of 1 for the period from 29 th November 2003 to 8 th September The Forum further directed the Utility to take appropriate action against the concerned persons for delay in issuance of the bill as per correct multiplying factor. Facts of the case as projected by the Appellant are briefly as under: 2. The Appellant is a consumer of electricity supplied by the utility, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Bhiwandi (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), under the Consumer no /5. He alleged that the Respondent Page 1 of 5

2 issued a bill for wrong recovery by applying a multiplying factor of 2. The Appellant directly approached the Forum at Bhandup for redressal, since there is no Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, functioning at Bhiwandi. Appellant s factory unit has metering arrangement connected with the C.T. of ratio 50/5 Amps and a meter with a ratio of 50/5 Amp. The multiplying factor for the meter is therefore 1. The Respondent issued a bill on the basis of the multiplying factor as 2 on the ground that it has installed a C.T. with a ratio of 100/5 Amp. The Appellant did not receive the meter replacement report of 28 th November Therefore, he is not aware as to how the bill was issued on the basis of C.T. having a ratio of 100/5 Amp and a multiplying factor of The Respondent has issued a supplementary bill of Rs on 25 th November 2005 for 22 months from November 2003 to September The Appellant feels that the Respondent should not have raised the bill for the above period. Under section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003, the Respondent is not entitled to recover the dues for more then 2 years back from 25 th November 2006, the date on which the supplementary bill was raised. Thus, he is liable to pay the supplementary bill only from 25 th November 2004 to 25 th November The Respondent submitted its written reply on 27 th July 2007, on the points raised in the representation. It states that the whole current meter no was replaced on 29 th November 2003 by a C.T. Operated meter no having current ratio of 50/5 Amp. The meter replacement report showing only meter ratio of 50/5A was sent for billing. The billing department, by default, billed the consumer taking the multiplying factor as 1 (unity), from 29 th November 2003 to September This meter was replaced on 8 th September 2005, and it was found that C.T. ratio was 100/5 A. Therefore the consumer should have been billed considering multiplying factor as 2 instead of 1 from 29 th November 2003 to 8 th September The assessment bill, upon correction of the multiplying factor for the above period, was accordingly raised, on 25 th November The matter was heard on 31 st July Shri. Shakeel Ansari represented the Appellant. Sarvashri. R. P. Chaudhari executive engineer, V. M. Gattewar executive engineer, C. B. Patil assistant accountant were present on behalf the Respondent. The Appellant, at the outset, argued that the Respondent has not furnished him copy of the meter change report which was done in Therefore there appears no basis for calculating the bill on the C.T. ratio of 100/5 Amp. Even, if it is agreed that the higher ratio C.T. was installed, the Respondent can claim the past bill towards the difference only for 2 years prior to the date of issuance of the supplementary bill. Since, the Respondent raised the bill on 25 th November 2006, he will be liable to pay the difference from 25 th November 2004 and not from. 25 th November The Respondent argued that the Appellant s metering equipment consisted of C.T. with ratio of 100/5 Amps and a meter with a ratio of 50/5 AMP since 29 th November Subsequently, in the month of September 2005, the meter was replaced by a new meter with the ratio of 100/5 Amps, but the C.T. remained the same. Therefore, the multiplying factor of the metering equipment become 1, with effect from September In spite of the fact that the Multiplying Factor was 2 between November 2003 and September 2005, by mistake, the Appellant was billed on the basis of Multiplying Factor Page 2 of 5

3 as 1. The Respondent conceded that the copy of the meter replacement report was not given to the Appellant. They are available on record and were shown to the Forum. The Respondent made the copies available for perusal during the hearing. The Respondent further submitted that the supplementary bill, upon correction of the Multiplying Factor, was issued for the period from November 2003 to September 2005, in which the Multiplying Factor was wrongly applied as 1 instead of 2. The Respondent reiterated that it relied on section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for issuing the supplementary bill for two years prior to September As it appears from the documents on record and the submissions during the hearing, the matter relates to recovery of arrears arising due to application of incorrect C.T. ratio of the current transformer and the multiplying factor used for calculating the bill. The Appellant argued that he did not receive the meter replacement report in November 2003 and therefore there is no basis for calculating the bills on the basis of the C.T. with a ratio of 100/5 Amp. This was looked in to by the Forum on the basis of documents shown by the Respondent. The Forum concluded that the multiplying factor was indeed 2 from 29 th November 2003 due to replacement of the whole current meter by a C.T. operated meter of current ratio 50/5 Amps and C.T. ratio of 100/5 Amps. The Forum also observed that the ABB meter no when in service, had multiplying factor of 2, but wrongly charged as 1 by the Respondent due to its negligence. The Appellant could not produce any evidence to counter the Respondent s argument nor could he produce any evidence in this behalf. On the other hand, the Respondent produced the documents for perusal, showing the C.T. ratio as 100/5 Amp. It is therefore clear that the C.T. had a ratio of 100/5 Amp which is still existing at site and the meter was of 50/5 Amp. The Multiplying Factor for measuring the energy units was therefore 2 and not 1 till September The Multiplying factor became 1, upon replacement of the meter by a new meter having a ratio of 100/5 Amp, in September Having held that the multiplying factor of the meter was 2, during 29 th November 2003 to 8 th September 2005, the issue that arises for decision is whether the Respondent is correct in raising the arrears for the period of two years prior to 8 th September 2005, the date on which mistake in application or multiplying factor had come to the Respondent s notice. 9. The Appellant has cited and relied upon the provision of 56(2) of the Electricity Act, He argued that the arrears would be recoverable only for 2 years prior to the issuance of the bill and not from the date on which the Respondent detected the correct CT ratio on 8 th Sept Appellant s argument when read with the provision under section 56(2) appears logical. It may be worthwhile to put on record that this Electricity Ombudsman, has decided, on 18 th July, 2006, a similar issue in the Representation no. 27 of 2006, between M/s Nand A-15 V/s Tata Power Co. ltd. The issue of recovery of old arrears was exhaustively dealt with in the said order. In Paragraph no. 25 and 26 of the said order, it was observed that:- 25. The issue of the bills belatedly by the Distribution Licensee and that too because of their own mistake cannot be approved to provide additional leverage to the distribution licensee against the consumer protection in the light of the provisions under Electricity Act, It should also be understood that Section 56(2) balances the interest of both the Distribution Licensee and the consumer. On one hand, it empowers Page 3 of 5

4 the Distribution Licensee to disconnect supply of electricity in case of neglect to pay. On the other hand, the responsibility is cast upon the Distribution Licensee to claim and recover the arrears within two years from the date when such sum becomes first due. Two years is quite an adequate period available to the Distribution Licensee to raise the bill towards the arrears if remained unclaimed for any reason, which in this case, was due to manual error. In such a situation, it would be unreasonable to interpret the provision of Section 56 (2) in a manner to give a blanket authorization to the Respondent without any time limit to claim the old arrears, if any. Moreover, upon issue of the bills in keeping with the provisions of the Section 56(2), the Distribution Licensee is free to recover the same by any remedy permissible under law including by way of suit as provided under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, This gives sufficient latitude to safeguard the interest of the Distribution Licensee. It is also an admitted position that the claim of the Distribution Licensee does not extinguish even beyond the period of limitation but only the remedy gets barred. 26. It will be observed that the cases cited by the Respondent would help in claiming and recovering the past arrears but only to the extent permissible and in confirmity with the provision of the Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, In view of this, I have no hesitation to conclude that the Respondent is free to recover the arrears upon correction of the bills as per the proper MF but limited to only two years past as provided in the Section 56 (2) Act. In the present case, the Respondent has raised the bills on 23 rd January, It would, therefore, perfectly be in order to claim the arrears which became first due from 23 rd January, 2004 onwards and not before. To conclude, the arrears, if any, which became first due prior to 23 rd January, 2004, more specifically for the month of October, November and December, 2003 would be non recoverable under Section 56 (2) of the Act since such sums become first due at that time and were not raised or shown as arrears as required under Section 56 (2) of the Act. In other words supplementary bills towards the arrears for 23 months (from Jan. 04 to Nov. 05) are recoverable as being in consonance of the provision of the Act... Incidentally the above order happened to be considered by the Honorable High Court at Mumbai in Writ Petition no of 2006 decided on 5 th October, The Honorable court, while considering the said petition, has noted: We then come to the next issue as to whether the demand made by respondent no. 1 is contrary to the provision of section 56 of the Electricity Act. We have already narrated the facts. The Electricity Ombudsman by his order of 18 th July 2006, held that the respondent no. 1 is entitled to recover past dues by correcting multiplying factor. The question posed by the Electricity Ombudsman to itself was whether the recovery could be made for entire period of 26 months i.e. for a period from October, 2003 to November, 2005 and that too belatedly in January, 2006 After considering the various provisions including the regulations, the Ombudsman held, only those charges for a period of two years previous to the demand could be recovered and that the arrears for the consumption in January, 2004 became first due in February, 2004 as supplementary bill was raised in 2006 and these dues been within two years are recoverable under the provisions of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. Page 4 of 5

5 Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the provision Section 56 do not empower respondent no. 1 to recover any amount if the period of two years has elapsed nor can electricity supply be cut off for non payment of those dues. In other words what is sought to be contended is that if the demand or part of the demand is time barred the provisions of the section 56 would not be attracted. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to that proposition. Section 56(1) is a special provision, enabling the generating company or the licensee to cut off supply of electricity until such charges or sum as demanded under Section 56(1) is paid. Replying on sub-section (2), it was strenuously urged that Section 56 (1) cannot be resorted to after the period of two years from the date when such demand became first due. In our opinion, sub-section (2) only provides a limitation, that the recourse to recovery by cutting of electricity supply is limited for a period of two years from the date when such sum become due. As long a sum is due, which is within two years of the demand and can be recovered, the licensee of the generating company can exercise its power of coercive process of recovery by cutting of electricity supply. This is a special mechanism provided to enable the licensee or the generating company to recover its due expeditiously. The Electricity Act has provided that mechanism for improvement of supply of electricity and enable the licensee or generating company to recover its dues. Apart from the above mechanism, independently it can make recovery by way of a suit. In our opinion, therefore the impugned order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and consequently there is no merit in this petition. 10. Facts of this case and the issue involved herein, are more or less similar to those dealt in the above case. The same ratio would govern the decision in this matter. The Respondent, would be entitled to recover the arrears on account of the difference in multiplying factor only for 2 years prior to 25 th November 2006 on which date the supplementary bill was raised for those months where the difference of charges due to correcting of multiplying factor were yet not recovered. In the present case, the meter was replaced on 8 th September 2005 with current ratio of 100/5 and was billed with correct multiplying factor thereafter. In the result, the Respondent is entitled to recover the arrears on account of the difference in multiplying factor for period from 25 th November 2004 to 8 th September 2005 only. The Forum s order would stand modified to that extent. However, the Appellant s argument that he was not aware of the replacement of C.T. unit and therefore the Respondent should not charge him the differential bill, does not have any merit and deserves to be rejected. 11. In the result, the Representation is partly allowed in terms of this order. The Appellant has paid Rs /- as deposit along with the representation; the same should be refunded forthwith. The Respondent is directed to correct the bills accordingly and report compliance within 30 days of this order. 12. No order as to cost. Sd/- W. G. Gorde Electricity Ombudsman S. N Yadwad Secretary Page 5 of 5