room no. 531, 5th floor, ut sectt. building ut, … · the complaint registered as complaint no....
TRANSCRIPT
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, NOMINATED
MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-123/2016 Date of Institution - 12.07.2016
Date of Order - 05.08.2016
In the matter to Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Maloya, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Maloya, Chandigarh through his
e-mail dated July 12, 2016 submitted that the electricity bill dated
28.6.2016 received by him appears to be on higher side. He requested to
provide the details of the charges levied for different items leading to a
total bill of Rs.30415/-.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-123/2016 was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4
vide letter dated 13.7.2016 for comments/action taken along with
consumption data. A copy was also sent to the complainant, with the
request to submit written complaint within five days as per the procedure
circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.
3. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 20.7.2016
submitted that the bill raised to the consumer was as per reading
recorded by the meter. As per request made by the complainant, he
provided the details of various elements of the bill to the complainant.
He also supplied past consumption data of the consumer.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 5.8.2016 with a copy to the
consumer alongwith the reply submitted by the Respondent AEE for his
information. The Branch Manager deputed his representative for the
hearing. The SDO along with his RA present during the hearing provided
the breakup of the electricity bill and explained the abbreviations for
various items of the bill. He specifically pointed out that the electricity bill
includes difference of Advance Consumption Deposit (ACD) amounting to
Rs.8001/- which is charged/refunded once a year on the basis of previous
one year billing amount and the amount of ACD already available. Apart
from ACD, fixed charges, FFPCA were recurring charges in addition to
basic tariff as notified with the approval of Hon’ble JERC. The
representative showed his satisfaction to the explanation provided by the
Respondent AEE.
5. The Forum observing that the breakup of the bill along with explanation
of various items was provided to the complainant to his satisfaction, the
complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, NOMINATED
MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-121/2016 Date of Institution - 05.07.2016
Date of Order - 09.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Anil Kumar, House No.1601, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Order
1. Shri Anil Kumar, resident of House No.1601, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated July 5, 2016 apprehended that the meter
installed at his residence is defective, as the reading shown in the bill was
same. He requested to get it examined and to take further action in the
matter.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-121/2016 was
forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 1 vide letter dated 6.7.2016 for comments along with
consumption data with a copy to the complainant. In response, Shri
Anil Kumar submitted the written complaint on dated 13.7.2016,
received in the office of CGRF by post on 22.7.2016.
3. The Nodal Officer, i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1
vide his letter dated 25.7.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by AEE
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 duly countersigned. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.2 submitted that the defective meter of the complainant
was replaced on 18.7.2016. The copy of MCO was also attached with
the reply. He further submitted that the account of the complainant
will be overhauled for the period his meter remained defective on the
basis of previous consumption available with the office after issuing
proper notice to the consumer.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 9.8.2016. In the meanwhile,
the complainant through his e-mail dated 1st August 2016 conveyed his
thanks for promptly replacing his defective meter. He did not appear on
the date of hearing. The AEE present during the hearing submitted that
the grievances has already been redressed by replacing the defective
meter.
5. The Forum observing that the grievance has already been redressed,
the complaint is considered as disposed as being fully satisfied.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy
be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Complaint No. - 761 Date of Institution - 14.5.2015
Date of Order - 09.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Labh Singh, S/o Lt. Sh. Ishar Singh, House No.1215, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per the Chairman CGRF, Er R. K. Arora.
Order
7. Shri Labh Singh S/o Late Sh. Ishar Singh, resident of House No. 1215,
Sector 8-C, Chandigarh submitted a complaint dated 14.5.2015 through
Shri V.B. Khanna, his authorised representative. The applicant
submitted that he is legal heir of Late Sh. Ishar Singh, and a resident of
House No.1215, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. He took the possession of
ground and top floor of the said house on December 9th, 2013 through
Court orders under Police protection. Thereafter he applied for a new
connection for ground and top floor vide application dated 23.4.2014.
The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 directed him to first clear the
outstanding amount of Rs.39,200/- in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh.
The detail of this amount was provided to the applicant on his demand
by the Sub Division. It was noted that Shri Bimaljeet Singh (occupant of
Ground Floor and Top Floor) stopped making payment for the bills
issued for the period 27.5.2009 onwards, but the connection was
allowed to continue till July/August 2010. The PDCO was ultimately
affected with total outstanding amount of Rs.33,092/-. The applicant
stated that the Licensee neither bothered to recover the outstanding
amount from the consumer in whose name the connection stood or from
the person(s) who gave surety at the time of release of connection in
the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh. He also stated that as per Section 56
of the Electricity Act, the amount could not be recovered from him at the
time of request for new connection in the year 2014. As this amount was
not deposited by the applicant, the release of electricity connection was
refused and the file was returned back. To get the information relating
to Shri Bimaljeet Singh, from the Licensee, the applicant filed an
application under RTI Act.
The applicant further submitted that subsequently in violation of
Electricity Act as well as JERC Guidelines, a new connection was released
in the name of Shri Manmohan Singh illegally without getting deposit the
dues of the bill amount and arrears pending against A/c No.
102/0844/121500X (in the name of Shri Ishar Singh) amounting to
Rs.54,625/- from 27.9.2011 to 27.11.2014. This fact came to his notice
when fresh bill for the period 27.11.2014 to 27.1.2015 was received by
him. The bill for this period was amounting to Rs.65,402/- including
arrears of Rs.54,632/-. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 when
contacted, asked for making the payment of current bill amount.
Payment of Rs.12000/- was made on 1.4.2015. The SDO did not
overhaul the account but issued a fresh bill for Rs.68,943/- including
arrears of the last bill.
With above background, the applicant approached the CGRF with
the following specific grounds.
a) The Licensee did not issue PDCO for 10 months with malafide
intension resulting into accumulation of defaulting amount to
the tune of Rs.39,200/- during the period of five years.
b) That the SDO did not bother to recover the amount of
Rs.54,632/- against the electricity connection in the name of
Shri Ishar Singh for a long time.
c) That the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 released a new connection in
the name of Shri Manmohan Singh, occupant of first floor
without obtaining the consent of the legal heir/landlord in
violation of guidelines issued by JERC as well as without
insisting for depositing the arrears amount of Rs.54,632/-.
Alleging that the actions of the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.NO.2 and his
officials were with malafide intention putting state ex-chequer to a
financial loss, he prayed for initiating departmental action against them
While concluding his application, he also prayed for recovery of
Rs.68,943/- from Mr. Manmohan Singh who was actual user of the
electricity at that time. He further prayed for allowing to deposit the
current bill charges till finalisation of the case and disconnection of
electricity connection released in the name of Mr. Manmohan Singh.
He attached supporting documents such as Court orders, application
for new connection, copies of electricity bill etc. etc. and authority letter
in favour of Shri V.B. Khanna to represent his case before the Forum.
8. The complaint registered as Complaint No. T-24 / Comp. No.761 of 2015
was forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 1 for submitting parawise comments/action taken report by
25.5.2015 vide letter dated 18.5.2015. Directions were also issued for
acceptance of current payment charges against electricity connection in
the name of Shri Ishar Singh till disposal of the case.
9. Though the reply from the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 was
not received even after 2 months, the complaint was notified for hearing
on 12.8.2015. The complainant along with his authorised representative,
Nodal Officer and concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2 were present. The
authorised representative of the complainant, Shri V.B. Khanna raised
that the Nodal Officer did not submit the reply within 10 days as per
procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC. He requested for award of
compensation and action against the Licensee on this account.
The SDO submitted that he had already submitted his comments to be
division office on 4.6.2015. The Nodal Officer on the other hand stated
that some shortcomings were noted and modifications were proposed in
the draft reply by the SDO. On the assurance that the reply would be
furnished soon, it was decided to conduct further hearing on 27.8.2015.
10. on 27.8.2015, the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.2 requested for adjournment
stating that Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 was busy in connection with some
other unavoidable last minute meetings. The complainant’s
representative Shri V.B. Khanna again raised that the reply has not yet
been submitted and as such the case may be decided on the basis of
facts submitted by the complainant. It was, however, agreed to give
one more chance to the Nodal Officer and the next date of hearing was
notified as 6.10.2015. On this date the complainant along with his
representative and RA of the Sub Division were resent. The concerned
SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 was on training to Hyderabad and SDO ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.4 present on his behalf requested for adjournment on the plea
that concerned SDO was out of town. The representative of the
complainant Shri V.B. Khanna again pointed out that the reply has still
not been received and requested for submission of the reply by the
Nodal Officer. It was mutually agreed for holding the hearing of the
complaint on 28.10.2015 and issuance of directions to the Nodal Officer
for filing the reply within next 10 days positively failing which the case
would be decided on the basis of submissions made by the complainant.
Notice vide letter dated 7.10.2015 in this respect was served to the
Nodal Officer.
11. The Nodal Officer ultimately vide his letter dated 28.10.2015 (the
notified date of hearing) forwarded the reply submitted by AEE ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.2 duly countersigned by him. In the reply brief history was
given that in the said premises there were two electricity connections,
one in the name of Shri Ishar Singh with A/c No. 0844/121500X (herein
after referred as Connection No.1) and 2nd in the name of Sh Bimaljit
Singh with A/c No.0844/121501Y (herein after referred as Connection
No.2). The Electricity connection 2 was disconnected due to non
payment vide PDCO dated 2.6.2010 and the amount accumulated to
Rs.39,200/-. After PDCO of Connection No.2, all the three floors of the
house started using the electricity from the meter of electricity
connection No.1. Shri Labh Singh S/o Late Sh Ishar Singh approached
the Sub Division in the month of May 2014 for separate electricity
connection for ground floor. He was requested to first clear the
outstanding amount of Rs.39,200/- before considering his application for
new connection but he did not deposit the requisite amount. In the
mean time Shri Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh approached the
office in the month of Nov. 2014 for a separate connection as an
occupier of first floor of the said house and agreed to clear outstanding
amount of Rs.39,200/-. The connection of first floor was released on
26.11.2014. The SDO in his reply pointed out that on 26.11.2014, the
date of release of connection to Shri Manmohan Singh, the outstanding
amount against the electricity connection No.1 was Rs.3961/- only.
After release of connection to Shri Monmhan Singh, the complainant
started using independently meter owned by Shri Ishar Singh against
Electricity Connection No.1 for his portion i.e. Ground and top floor.
This position was verified when the official of his office visited the house
on 11.3.2015 to check the accuracy of the meter and portion of the
house being fed through his connection on the request of the
complainant. The working of the meter was found O.K. and the same
was conveyed vide letter date 18.3.2015. The SDO further stated that
no payment was made against electricity connection (Connection No.1)
in the name of Shri Ishar Singh after 6.10.2014. However, on
pursuance, a part payment of Rs.12,000/- was made on 1.4.2015 out of
total outstanding amount of Rs.71699/- against this connection.
Thereafter the complainant was making payment of current bill amount
as per CGRF orders dated 18.5.2015. The SDO specifically pointed out
that the disputed amount is only accumulation of the amount built in the
past and no sundry charges have been levied to the complainant. He
conveyed the pending amount as on date as Rs.66,988/- including
arrears of Rs.63,344/- as on 6.11.2015. Along with reply, he enclosed
PDCO in respect of Electricity Connection No. 2, letter written to Shri
Labh Singh asking to deposit the outstanding amount before considering
his application and the details of the bills issued and payment made
during the year 2014-15 and consumption data for last three years in
respect of Electricity Connection No.1.
12. On the notified date of hearing ie on 28.10.2015, the complainant, his
authorised representative and SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.2 were present.
Shri Manmohan Singh along with his advocate also came to attend the
hearing. The advocate stated that they appeared after receipt of
communication from the SDO. The Advocate was informed that he can
not make submissions as per “Procedure” circulated by Hon’ble JERC.
Thereafter Sh. Manmohan Singh left the hearing along with his
advocate. The complainant raised the issue of calling Shri Manmohan
Singh to the hearing. The SDO stated that as the complainant had filed
complainant for recovery the arrear amount of his bill (Rs.68,493/-)
from Shri Manmohan Singh, it was thought appropriate to have his
views in the matter as the proceedings were likely to affect him.
A copy of reply submitted by the Nodal Officer was handed over
to the complainant who after pointing out that the documents attached
with the reply were not in order desired to file a rejoinder after
collecting information under RTI. As he did not commit any time limit
to file rejoinder, it was decided to notify the next date after receipt of
rejoinder.
After waiting for sufficiently long time, a reminder was issued on
11.02.2016 to the complainant for filing the rejoinder as promised by
him during the hearing on 28.10.2015.
13. On 06.01.2016, Shri V.B.Khanna, the authorised representative of the
complainant filed a fresh application for initiating action against the SDO
‘OP’ Sub Division No. 2 for disconnecting the electricity connection of the
complainant despite interim orders of CGRF staying the disconnection in
case the current consumption charges are paid. Stating that CCTV
Cameras are installed in the premises for the safety and disconnection of
supply may lead to some mis-happening for which the responsibility
would lie on the Electricity Deptt. He pleaded for considering the action
by the respondent SDO as contempt of orders of CGRF.
14. In response to CGRF letter dated 08.01.2016, inviting comments on the
application dated 06.01.2016 by the complainant, the AEE ‘OP’ Sub
Division No. 2 vide his reply dated 22.01.2016 submitted that the
connection of the complainant was wrongly disconnected due to
communication gap between the officials of his office. The meter of Sh.
Manmohan Singh was to be removed for default in payment but the staff
inadvertently disconnected the supply of the complainant. As soon as
the office realized the mistake, the electricity meter of the complainant
was re-installed without any delay. He regretted the mistake committed
by the officials of his Sub Division and prayed that the contempt
application of the complainant be dismissed.
Subsequently, the Nodal officer vide his letter dated 01.02.2016
also regretted the mistake stating that disconnection of electricity
connection of the complainant was due to communication gap and he
regretted the same on behalf of officials of his office.
15. The case was taken up for further hearing on 02.02.16 but the
complainant sought adjournment stating that he thought that only his
contempt application would be discussed. The copy of reply submitted
by the SDO was handed over to the complainant while fixing the next
hearing on 09.02.2016.
In the meantime, the complainant vide his letter dated 03.02.2016
requested the Forum to supply following documents required for
arguments.
1) Certified copy of the reply given by the Nodal office cum Xen ‘OP’
Division No. 1 Chandigarh against letter No.
CGRF/Complaint/761/2016/69 dated 08.01.2016. 2) Certified copy of the memo no. 3815 dated 12.11.2015 of AEE ‘OP’
Sub Division No. 2 Chandigarh addressed to the CGRF along with the annexure containing four pages.
3) Certified copy of orders of the competent authority showing meter No, A/c and address of the consumer whose connection was to be
disconnected in House No. 1215 Sector 8-C as stated in the reply sent by AEE ‘OP’ Memo No. 334 dated 22.01.2016 addressed to
CGRF. 4) Certified copy of the orders of the competent authority against
which the electricity meter installed in the name of late Sh. Ishar Singh meter Mc No. 0844/121500R. was disconnected on
06.01.2016 after any stay order by the CGRF. 5) Certified copy of the documentary proof in the favour of Late Sh.
Ishar Singh A/c NO. 0844/12101Q that the connection is not in the
name of Sh. Ishar Singh. 6) Copy of the letter dated 11.12.2015 issued by the CGRF vide
which the submission of rejoinder by 20.01.2016 was issued to Sh. Labh Singh.
The letter was forwarded to the Nodal officer on 04.02.2016 with the
directions to supply the desired documents to the complainant through
special messenger.
16. On the notified date of hearing on 09.02.2016, the complainant stated
that he was yet to receive the documents requested by him. He also
pointed out some typographical errors in the reply of SDO letter dated
12.11.2015. Giving directions for expediting the supply of document, the
next date of hearing was fixed as 09.03.2016.
17. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 vide his letter dated 25.2.2016 supplied
the desired documents to the complainant with a copy to the Forum.
The documents included –
(i) certified copy of reply of SDO in response to CGRF letter
dated 8.1.2016,
(ii) Certified copy of letter dated 12.11.2015 along with
enclosures. He also pointed out that A/c No.844/121501Y
was existing in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh and A/c
No. 844/121502A is existing in the name of Shri
Manmohan Singh,
(iii) Photo copy of disconnection order dated 4.1.2016 and
(iv) Account Statement of all existing Electricity connections in
House No. 1215. Sector 8, Chandigarh.
18. On the next date of hearing (9.3.2016), the authorised representative of
the complainant submitted rejoinder-cum-arguments in main complaint
and also arguments/facts regarding contempt case as per his
applications both dated 9.3.2016 along with supporting documents.
During hearing he shared the facts of the case and specifically pointed
out the following:
(i) They were asked to deposit Rs.39200/- at the time of their
application for new connection where as Rs.33,000/-(around)
was got deposited from Shri Manmohan Singh. The electricity
connections were not disconnected by the SDO as per
regulations when defaulting amount occurred. He demanded
compensation of Rs.1 lac.
(ii) On the application dated 6/1/2016 filed for initiating contempt
proceeding against SDO, the complainant demanded
compensation of Rs. 1 lac. plus any other relief, the Forum may
consider appropriate for wrongly disconnecting the supply
despite stay orders. He also pointed out that the comments of
the Nodal Officer were not as per orders of the Forum and
proper information was not supplied to him. He also raised that
PDCO issued in favour of Shri Manmohan Singh was not
affected. He levelled charges against the officers of the
Licensee that they were harassing the complainant where as no
action was taken against Shri Manmohan Singh on his default.
The SDO stated that the department had clarified all the issues in
their written submissions. With regard to difference in outstanding
amount against Shri Bimaljeet Singh in the year 2010 he clarified that
the amount conveyed to the complainant was principle amount (around
Rs.33,000/-) whereas the total amount of Rs.39,200/- included the levy
of annual surcharge @ 10% on the principle outstanding amount. He
also confirmed that the amount recovered from Shri Manmohan Singh
was Rs.39200/- same as demanded from the complainant. The SDO
specifically pointed out that the defaulting amount of the complainant
against the connection in the name of Shri Ishwar Singh was Rs.3961/-
only at the time of application for a new connection whereas amount
was much more than the amount as stated by the complainant in Para 7
of their rejoinder.
With regard to disconnection of electricity connection of the
complainant on 6.1.2016, he submitted that connection was restored on
same day after mistake was detected.
19. The arguments of the complaint were finally concluded on 09.08.2016.
The authorised representative of the complainant made oral submissions
on the point of dispute and that the detailed written submissions already
submitted may be treated as final. While making oral submissions on the
Contempt application he raised a new issue that his client was a heart
patient and disconnection of electric supply might have affected his
health. The statement was at variance with the original application dated
6.01.2016 wherein he referred disruption of the CCTV cameras and
showing fears of any major occurrence of loss. However no documentary
evidence in support of any of these was provided to the Forum. The SDO
and RA of the S/Div no.2 submitted that the they have nothing more to
add to the oral / written statements already filed.
20. On the basis of written as well as oral submissions by the complainant
and the Licensee, the facts of the case along with brief history are
summarised as under:-
Sh. Ishar Singh, owner of House No.1215, Sector 8-C,
Chandigarh had an electric connection in his name (A/c No.
0844/121500X – Referred as Connection No.1). Another electric
connection was existing in the name of a tenant Shri Bimaljit Singh
bearing A/c No. 0844/121501Y (Connection No.2). This connection was
feeding occupants of Ground floor and top floor whereas connection 1 in
the name of Shri Ishar Singh was feeding First floor.
The physical possession of Ground Floor and top floor was
obtained by Shri Labh Singh S/o Shri Ishar Singh through Court of Law
on 9.12.2013 after the original petitioner Shri Ishar Singh expired
during pendency of the case. Shri Ishar Singh had two sons namely
Shri Labh Singh and Shri Gurdeep Singh. Besides the Sons, Smt.
Hukum Kaur W/o Shri Ishar Singh claimed LR of Shri Ishar Singh for
House No.1215, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
On the other hand Shri Bimaljeet Singh, tenant of Ground
Floor/top floor stopped making payment towards his electric Connection
No.2 after 3.7.2009. The defaulting amount continued to grow with
issuance of bills after July 2009. The PDCO was affected on 3.6.2010
with outstand amount of Rs.33,092/-.
From the statement of the complainant, it appeared Shri
Bimaljeet Singh absconded thereafter and they had to obtain the
possession of the Ground Floor and top floor through Court under Police
protection.
After getting the physical connection, all the floors of House
No.1215, Sector 8-C started drawing electricity connection from the
only existing electricity connection in the name of Shri Ishar Singh
initially feeding First Floor. From the application of the complainant, it
has also been noted that First Floor was occupied by Shri Manmohan
Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh the complainant.
Subsequently the complainant applied for a new electric
connection on 23.4.2014 for Ground and top floor, the electric
connection for which was disconnected on 3.6.2010 and for which
physical possession was taken under police protection. But the
connection was refused as the respondent SDO insisted for clearance of
defaulting amount against the floors for which new connection was
sought.
On 26.11.2014, a new electric connection was released for First
Floor (Initially the connection in the name of Shri Ishar Singh was for
First Floor) in the name of Shri Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh
and grandson of Shri Ishar Singh and Smt Hukam Kaur after he cleared
the defaulting amount outstand in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh for
same house No. i.e. 1215, Sector 8-C along with 10% annual surcharge
amounting to Rs.39,200/-.
From above, it is seen that the different floors of the House
No.1215, Sector 8-C, were being fed through electric connections as
detailed below:-
1) Connection in the name of Shri Ishar Singh:-
a) Till 9.12.2013 -Only feeding First Floor. b) From 9.12.13 to -Feeding all floors (Electricity being drawn
26.11.2014 by Shri Labh Singh and Sh.Manmohan Singh). c) From 26.11.14 -Feeding Ground Floor and top floor (Electricity
onwards being drawn by Shri Labh Singh).
2) Connection in the name of Shri Bimaljeet Singh:-
Till 3.6.2010 - Ground Floor and Top Floor –Electricity drawn by Shri Bimaljeet Singh
3.6.2010 - PDCO on default.
3) Connection in the Name of Shri Manmohan Singh:
From 26.11.2014 - Feeding First Floor –Electricity being drawn
onwards by Shri Manmohan Singh.
21. Issues raised by the Complainant in the Rejoinder-cum-Arguments:-
(A) All the issues raised in his letter dated 9.3.2016 are discussed
parawise hereunder:.
Sr.
No.
Issues raised by the complainant Factual Position
1. That the respondent officer has
failed to supply the point wise reply against the appeal dated
14.05.2015 till date.
The respondent office supplied
the reply of the issues raised by the complainant though
there was delay in each and
every submission.
2. That the respondent officer did not
bother to disconnect the supply when the defaulting amount was not
paid by the user of the connection prior to handed over the possession
Ground Floor and Top Floor of the said house to Sh. Labh Singh S/o
Sh. Late Ishar Singh through Court
of Law by the behalf (Court Man) on 09.12.2013
It is a fact that the respondent
did not disconnected the supply as soon as the
consumer became defaulter. Even the connection of the
complainant was not disconnected when default in
payment occurred. (Between
14.5.2014 to 1.4.2015. Only one payment of Rs.13,000/-
(PP) was made on 6.10.2014).
3. That the respondent officer failed to
recover the pending amount from the previous tenant/ owner of the
connection i.e. Sh. Bimaljit Singh. Who was the tenant of the Ground
Floor and Top Floor of the house no.
It is also fact that the
defaulting amount was not recovered from the defaulter
tenant / surety who signed the application form. From the
documents placed before the
1215, Sector-8, Chandigarh or from
the witness who signed the form on the basis of the electricity
connection was issued in the name of Sh. Bimaljit Singh. It is also
mentioned here that when the connection in the name of Sh.
Bimaljit Singh was disconnected and PDCO was issued in the year 2010
against the account No. 0844/121501Y and meter no. 33390
why the huge pending amount was
not recovered by the officer of the electricity department for a long
time for which he is liable to be punished under the provision of the
electricity act cause by him giving loss to State exchequer.
Forum, it has, however, been
noticed that respondent SDO submitted an affidavit that the
record of Shri Bimaljeet was not traceable despite every
efforts made by them to trace the same.
There is no loss to state exchequer as full defaulting
amount alongwith annual surcharge stands recovered.
4. That as per Electricity Act-2003
Sec.56(2) no sum due from the
consumer can be recovered after a period of two years but the
respondent officer has failed to comply with this provision of the
Electricity Act 2003, for that he is liable to be punished under the
provision of Electricity Act.
Sub Section 56(2) restrains
the Licensee for disconnection
of electric supply whereas the main Section 56 clearly
provides that the supply of the defaulter is to be disconnected
and reconnected only after the outstanding dues are paid..
The Section 56 is reproduced below:-
Section 56 (Disconnection
of Supply in Default of Payment) - (1) Where any
person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any
sum other than a charge for
electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating
company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or
wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating
company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’
notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice
to his rights to recover the charge or other sum by suit,
cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or
disconnect any electric supply
line or other works being the property of such licensee or
the generating company through which electricity may
have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or
wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or
other sum, together with any
expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting
the supply, are paid, but no longer:
Provided that supply of
electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under
protest:-
(a) an amount equal to the
sum claimed from him, or (b) the electricity charges
due from him for each month calculated on the
basis of average charge for electricity paid by him
during the preceding six months,
whichever is less, pending
disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for
the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer,
under the section be recoverable after the period of
two years from the date when such sum became first due
unless such sum has been shown continuously as
recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied
and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the
electricity.
5. That in the instant case prior to filling the present complaint the
respondent has post the petitioner to sum of Rs. 39,200/- outstanding
in the name of Sh. Bimaljit Singh whereas he is accepted the amount
of Rs.33,092/- from one of the tenant of the said house i.e. Mr.
Manmohan Singh in the name of fresh connection was issued by the
respondent against account no.
0844/121502A meter no. CHSC-18527 without obtaining the consent
of the Owner/ legal heir of Sh. Labh Singh in violation of the condition
issued by the JERC.
The respondent has clarified that as on date of PDCO, the
defaulting amount was Rs.33,092/- which grew to
Rs.39200/- in 2014 with levy of 10% annual surcharge in
2014. The respondent further confirmed that amount
recovered from Shri Manmohan Singh was also
Rs.39,200/- as demanded
form the complainant.
The respondent stated that the Electricity connection to
Shri Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh was provided on
the basis of documents submitted by Shri Manmohan
Singh which included a
Registered WILL dated 21st August 2006 by Smt. Hukum
Kaur W/o Late Shri Ishar Singh. As per this WILL, Shri
Manmohan Singh was made sole and absolute owner of
share of Smt. Hukum Kaur in the immovable and moveable
property including her share in House No.1215, Sector 8-C,
Chandigarh.
With regard to complainant’s
argument that permission of landlord was not taken, we
have gone through the Supply Code Regulations 3.5 Sub
Regulations (3) which provides as under:-
” The consumer shall furnish,
along with the application form, attested true copies of
following documents. The licensee may ask for the
following original documents,
from the consumer, if required, for verification.
(a) Proof of ownership of the premises, such as
registered sale deed or partition deed or
succession or heir certificate or will of the
owner. OR
(b) Proof of occupancy such as Power of Attorney or
latest rent receipt or lease deed or rent agreement or
copy of allotment order
issued by the owner of the property. In case of supply
to agriculture/irrigation pump set, the copy of
Land Revenue receipt giving the Revenue Plot
No. of the field for which the supply is required. In
case of tenancy permission of landlord
along with proof of ownership of the premises.
” Shri Manmohan Singh
provided WILL towards proof
of ownership.
6. That the petitioner has received two
conflicting statement supplied by the respondent against a/c No.
0844/121501Y in the name of Sh. Bimaljit Singh in one under RTI
amounting to Rs. 39,200/- and secondly vide letter memo no. 613
dated 25.02.2016 amounting to Rs. 33,092/- it is a matter of great
surprise how and under what circumstances the two different
statements was issued by the
respondents. It shows his malafide attention for which he is again liable
to be punished under the provision of Electricity Act.
As already clarified
Rs.33,092/- is the principle amount at the time of
effecting PDCO on 3.6.2010 where as Rs.39,200/- is the
outstanding amount in 2014 after applying 10% annual
surcharge.
7. That the respondent in his reply dated 28.10.2015 stated that Rs.
3961/- dues as current bill as on 26.11.2014 whereas he is failed to
supply the complete and correct
account statement in respect of account no. 0844/121500X of Sh.
Ishar Singh House No. 1215, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh, whereas
the detail shown as unpaid amount is amounting to Rs. 97766/- as on
27.01.2014, Rs. 113682/- as on 27.07.2014 and Rs. 298843/- out of
which Rs. 12000/- has been deposited by the plaintiff vide
receipt no. 61236533 dated 01.04.2015 it is also mentioned
here the respondent did not approach to the Hon’ble CGRF with
clean hand. He is misleading the
plaintiff as well as this Hon’ble Forum by mentioning Rs. 3691/-
due on current bill as on 26.11.2014 whereas in the reply dated
28.10.2015 submitted under his signature the concealing the facts of
amounted to Rs. 12434/- during the period from 27.07.2014 to
27.09.2014, Rs. 44596/- for the period from 27.09.2014 to
27.11.2014 and Rs. 54632/- for the period from 27.11.2014 to
27.01.2015 copy of the statement supplied by the respondent vide is
letter dated 25.02.2016 in response
to the contempt petition filed against him.
The Forum could not reconcile the figures as stated by the
respondent or the complainant. However, it is
pertinent to mention here that
it does not matter what was the amount on a particular
date and will not affect the merits of the case whether the
amount was Rs.3961/- or something else. From the
details of payments made by the complainant and the
electricity bills raised against connection in the name of Shri
Ishar Singh, it has been noted that Rs.3961/- was
outstanding on 14.5.2014 i.e. around the time the complaint
approached the SDO for
release of a new connection for Ground and top floor and
not in Nov 2014 when a new connection was released to Sh
Manmohan Singh...
8. That it is very strange when the
Electricity user of house no. 1215, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh, Prior to
handed over the possession of 1st Floor and Top Floor of the said
There is a laxity on the part of
the respondent in issuing/ affecting the PDCO when Shri
Bimaljeet Singh defaulted in payment of the electricity bills.
house through court 09.12.2013 did
not pay the electricity bill regularly why the disconnection of the said
house was not done by the respondent officer which clearly
shows the malafide intention and put the loss to state exchequer only
with a view to give the benefit to the user of electricity connection i.e.
Manmohan Singh against account no. 0844/121502A or resigns best
known to the respondents for which
he is reliable to punish under the provision of electricity act.
It is, however, as per record
that the defaulting amount along with 10% annual
surcharge was ultimately recovered from Shri
Manmohan Singh when he demanded a new connection
at the same premises. The action of the respondent SDO
for demanding outstanding dues of Rs.39,200/- was right
as the new connection was
applied for the premises where defaulting amount was
outstanding. The same principle was followed in
respect of the complainant as well as Shri Manmohan Singh.
The complainant has himself
admitted that on denial of new connection by the Sub Division
they used the supply from the other account in the name of
Late Sh. Ishar Singh which is otherwise not permitted as per
regulations and the action was
“Unauthorised Use of Electricity” under section 126
of the Electricity Act, 2003 as the electricity connection was
extended to the premises or areas other than those for
which the supply of electricity was authorized. .
9. That further it is added to avoid the
further litigation amongst the user of Electricity connection which
stands in the name of Late Sh. Ishar Singh and on the basis of lawful
occupier of the premises being a son of the landlord an electric
connection was applied in the office of the AEE Op.2 On 23.04.2014 for
the portion in occupation of the petitioner. The connection was
refused by the said office & returned the papers on 28.05.2014 with the
objection to pay a outstanding dues of Rs. 39200/- due to the PDCO of
the connection in the name of Sh.
Bimaljit Singh which was not paid by the petitioner. Hence the papers of
the applied connection were returned. As the connection was
denied by the sub division the petitioner has no option except to
use the supply from the other a/c in the name of late Sh. Ishar Singh
The electricity department is
to recover the charges for the bills issued against the
particular connection. In case, more than one occupant uses
the same connection, it is the responsibility of the person in
whose name the connection exits to ensure that the
payments of the electricity bills are made on regular
basis. In the event of non agreement among the
occupants of the same connection and non receipt of
payments by the department,
the connection is to be disconnected. Thus inter
dispute are to be resolved by the co-occupants and owner of
the same electricity connection clearly bearing in
mind that in case of default in payment due to one reason or
which was being used by the other
occupant also i.e. Sh. Manmohan Singh. No payment was deposited
by him (Sh. Manmohan Singh). The petitioner has been making a part
payment in respect of supply used by him for the portion under his
occupation.
the other, the electricity
connection is likely to be disconnected.
10. That it is already mentioned as above the petitioner took the
possession of the portion of the house on the decision of the Court
through the belay of the court on 09.12.2013 & paying the charges of
the supply used for my portion regularly.
Keeping in view of the above facts & circumstances it is humbly request
that the award regarding non deposit of outstanding amount of
Rs. 71699/- along with other
surcharges imposed from time to time on the current bill for which
current amount of each bill has already deposited by the petitioner.
It is further requested that after perusal the After going through the
case & persuals of the documents supplied by the respondent officer
from time to time it has come to the conclusion that the respondent
office has given undue preference to the other occupant & the consumer
of 1st Floor due to the reason best known to the opposite party
(respondent) which proves the
malafide intension of the petitioner amounting to Rs. One lac may be
awarded in the interest if justice and fare practice of law. Any other
relief/ award in which is deemed by the Hon’ble Forum and against the
respondent to the causing as loss to the state exchequer by favouring
the one of the user/occupant of the Electricity connection i.e. Manmohan
Singh.
In the present case it is apparent that Shri Labh Singh
and Shri Manmohan Singh were drawing the electricity
from the Electricity Connection No.1 in the name of Shri Ishar
Singh till Shri Manmohan Singh got independent
connection in his name in the month of Nov.2014.
Thus the outstanding
amount against connection in
the name of Sh Ishar Singh has to be cleared by the
occupant(s) in order to avoid disconnection.. It has also
been noted that the outstanding amount is on
account of consumption recorded by the meter and
there is no dispute on that.
On the basis of documents placed before the Forum , it
does not appear to be a case of Malafide intension of the
respondent SDO as alleged by
the complaint
With regard to compensation of Rs.1 lac., it is stated that
Electricity Act 2003 and the Supply Code Regulations 2010
do not confer any Power on the CGRF Chandigarh to
provide these kind of compensation to the
victim/consumer.
(B) Application Dated 6.1.2016 of the Complainant regarding the Contempt of the CGRF Orders.
The complainant in his arguments submitted vide his letter 9.3.2016
has showed his dis-satisfaction to the reply submitted by the
respondent. Further he pointed out that the reply was submitted by
AEE instead of Nodal Officer i.e. Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 from whom
the point-wise reply was sought. He also raised that on 6.1.2016, the
connection of the complainant was disconnected with malafide
intention to harass them and this was an act of contempt on the part
of respondent since they were paying the current consumption charges
regularly as per orders of the CGRF
The respondent SDO through written submissions clarified that
the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 6.1.2016 by
the official of his Sub division by mistake due to communication gap.
In fact the disconnection order was issued in respect of Shri
Manmohan Singh who defaulted in payment but the connection of Shri
Ishar Singh was disconnected. He further stated during the hearing
that as soon as the mistake was detected, the connection of Shri Ishar
Singh was restored on 6.1.2016 itself and the connection of Shri
Manmohan Singh was disconnected. It was also gathered during the
hearing that Shri Manmohan Singh subsequently cleared the defaulting
amount and his connection was restored. The respondent Xen as well
as SDO denied the allegations of the complainant that action was with
malafide intention. They regretted the same on behalf of the officials
of their office.
As per document provided by the SDO subsequently, the
connection of Shri Manmohan Singh was disconnected on 6.1.2016
and was restored on the same day after he made the payment of Rs
14,190/- through cheque.
With regard to demand of compensation of Rs.1 lac, it is pointed
out that as already mentioned above Electricity Act/ Supply Code do
not confer any such Power on the CGRF. The complainant may
approach the appropriate Courts/Tribunal within whose jurisdiction as
competency the matter relating to the compensation falls.
22. Conclusion & Decision:
Main Application:
On the basis of the facts of the case, it is seen that the defaulting
amount pertaining to Account No.0844/121501Y in the name of Shri
Ishar Singh are the consumption charges for the electricity used
against this connection. The responsibility of payment of these charges
lies with the person in whose name the electricity connection exist. It
does not matter to the respondent electricity department who is
making the payment of electricity bills being raised for the
consumption of electricity. In the present case, the defaulting amount
outstanding against connection in the name of Sh. Ishar Singh is to be
cleared, failing which the electricity connection is likely to be
disconnected. For period prior to release of independent connection to
Shri Manmohan Singh in Nov. 2014, it is among Shri Labh Singh and
Shri Manmohan Singh to divide the amount as per their use. Where
after whole of the electricity was being consumed by Shri Labh Singh,
the complainant. Thus in order to avoid disconnection of electricity, the
outstanding amount may be cleared in their own interest.
With regard to grant of Connection of Shri Manmohan Singh as
illegal (by the complainant), Forum is of the view that connection was
released after Shri Manmohan Singh cleared the defaulting amount
pertaining to premises (of Sh Bimaljeet Singh) as on date and
submitted the documents in line with the Supply Code for release of
new connection. The Forum does not find that any favour was done by
the electricity department in grant of electricity connection to Shri
Manmohan Singh vis-a vis to Shri Labh Singh. The allegations of
malafide intensions of the respondents as alleged by the complaint
could not be proved on the basis of documents placed before the
Forum.
Application of Contempt:
On the basis of submissions made by the respondent it
does not appear that the connection of Shri Ishar Singh was
disconnected with malafide intention. However, had the staff showed
disconnection order and informed the residents that their connection is
being disconnected due to defaulting payment; the mistake could have
been detected before the execution of disconnection.
The Forum has observed that the connection of Shri
Bimaljeet Singh was not disconnected immediately when he defaulted
the first payment. There is certainly laxity on the part of Sub Division
and the amount was allowed to grow. It is not an isolated case where
immediate action was not taken by the sub division. It has been seen
in many cases that the disconnection was not done promptly by the
Sub Divisions and the amount continued to grow further as the
consumer was consuming the electricity even after default. The CED is
directed to issue / reiterate instructions in line with Supply Code for
meticulous compliance.
With regard to demand of compensation, the malafide intensions
could not be proved. The complainant had not placed any evidence of
any mishap / loss due to disconnection for his connection on
6.01.2016. Generally when there is wilful disobedience to follow the
Orders, same is treated as Contempt. In present case there was no
such act on the part of respondent. They admitted that the
disconnection was by mistake and they tendered apology on behalf of
the staff. Moreover, as already stated above, CGRF has no
right/jurisdiction to award such compensation.
We have also observed that in the present case there were
some typographical errors as pointed out by the complainant. In the
present case as well as in other cases it has been seen that invariably
replies are not submitted by the Nodal Officers within 10 days as
prescribed in the Procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC. Even
sometimes the replies are filed by the SDO instead of the the
Executive Engineer who has been designated as Nodal Officer.
Accordingly, S.E. Electricity may impart suitable instructions to all
Nodal Officers to follow the Procedure Circulated by Hon’ble JERC in
letter and spirits.
23. With above observations and conclusions, the complainant is dismissed
The compliant may clear the outstanding amount against the connection
in the name of Sh. Ishar Singh within 21 days of issue of the orders
failing which the connection be disconnected by the nodal officer.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
24. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-67/2016
Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to the Shri D.S. Khangwal, Manager, DPSP, NABARD, Sector-34, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instruction were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 15.06.2016. The final orders could not be issued due
to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The parties were telephonically
informed in advance. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and the
respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8.
The Forum in its sitting on 10.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 15.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 15.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-67/2016
Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 15.06.2016
In the matter to Shri D.S.Khanagwal, Manager, DPSP, NABARD,
Sector-34, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri D.S. Khanagwal, Manager, DPSP, NABARD, Sector-34, Chandigarh through
his e-mail dated 4th May, 2016 stated that NABARD owns 70 flats in MNC,
Manimajra, Chandigarh. It was observed that bills are being dropped in the
respective boxes a day before/same day of the due date by cash. He stated
that this is almost regular feature and many times they faced difficulty in timely
depositing of the payment of the electricity bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-67/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2
vide letter dated 04.05.2016 for comments/action taken report.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 12.5.2016
submitted that the work of distribution of bills is being undertaken by M/s ATM
Services, Sector 40-D, U.T., Chandigarh. On taking up the matter with them
vide letter dated 10.5.2016, the firm informed on 11.5.2016 that electricity bills
to the houses of NABARD in Modern Housing Complex were delivered to the
consumers after appending the signatures on account of receipt of electricity
bills by the respective consumers. He attached copy of letter written to the firm
along with reply received from them and the photo copy of details of bills
delivered along with signatures of the consumers.
The SDO further stated that the bills are being issued to the consumers
as per provision in the Supply Code Regulations 2010 and further that
electricity bill are also available on the website which can be down loaded in
case of delayed delivery.
4. The reply received from the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 was forwarded to the
complainant for his information and feedback, if any.
5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.6.2016. The consumer did not
attend. The SDO submitted that the bills were being delivered to the consumers
of Manimajra through Private Firm after obtaining signatures of the consumers
and prayed for disposal of the complaint.
6. Observing that the bills were being delivered after obtaining signatures of the
consumers and not merely dropped in the boxes as stated by the complainant,
the Forum found no merit in the complaint and thus dismiss the same. The
Nodal Officer is, however, directed to ensure that the bills are delivered at least
a week prior to due date of payment enabling the consumer to make the
payment timely.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE : ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-78/2016 Date of Institution - 18.05.2016
Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Gaurav Garg, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1,
UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per Chairman, Shri R.K. Arora
ORDER
1. Shri Gaurav Garg, resident of Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra,
Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 18 May, 2016 raised his concern
about poor consulting facilities available with the Electricity Department.
He submitted that for about one hour he was trying to contact getting
busy tone when trying to contact the Customer Care No.2734014. He
requested for provision for more telephone lines for lodging the
complaints.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-78/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division
No. 2 vide letter dated 18.5.2016 for comments. A copy was also sent to
the complainant, with the request to submit written complaint within five
days as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.
3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 through his letter dated
2.6.2016 submitted that there are two Customer Care Nos. 0172-2734014
and 9876018708 which are in working position at Complaint Centre of his
office and are manned 24x7 hours. With regard to allegations that the
telephone was busy for one hour, he submitted that there was remote
possibility of remaining the telephone busy for one hour. He further
added that he had already directed the concerned staff not to keep
Customer Care Telephone number busy for long time to avoid the public
harassment. However, due to large number of complaints during
rainy/storming season the Customer Care Number remains busy for most
of the time.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The complainant did not
attend. RA present on behalf of the Sub Division submitted that there are
2 telephone number for lodging the complaints. In addition, to facilitate
the general public for lodging their grievances regarding power supply
and street light, a Centralised Cell has been created at Sector-9, Head
office which is working round the clock with multiple lines with telephone
No. (0172-4639999) OPs are also directed to widely publish and display
this number for public convenience.
5. In view of the details provided by the Sub Division, the Forum considered
the complaint as disposed off in aforementioned terms, vide this
majority order.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-90/2016
Date of Institution - 26.05.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to the Corporate Incentive Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 823, First Floor, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instruction were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 27.07.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to
lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The parties were telephonically
informed in advance. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and the
respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8.
The Forum in its sitting on 10.8.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 27.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 27.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-90/2016 Date of Institution - 26.05.2016
Date of Order - 27.07.2016 In the matter to the M/s Corporate Incentive Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 823,
1st floor, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. M/s Corporate Incentive Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SXO 823, 1st Floor, NAC, Manimajra,
Chandigarh through their application dated 26.5.2016 pointed out that they received a
bill amounting to Rs.5,35,832/- which is very much on higher side as compared to past
billing. The matter was taken up with the Sub Division and after verified of the reading,
amended the bill to Rs.51,604/-. The applicant submitted that even this amount is on
higher side as the period pertains to winter season when only light load was used. He
requested for resolving the issue of excess bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-90/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated
31.5.2016 for comments/action taken report along with consumption data with a copy
to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 10.6.2016,
submitted that the meter of the consumer got burnt and was replaced on 5.6.2015. In
the advice sent to Computer Centre regarding MCO, the initial reading of new replaced
meter was inadvertently shown as 00122 instead of 97213. In fact ‘00122’ was meter
number. Thereafter the energy bills for the period up to 23.10.2015 were issued on
average basis with I Code i.e. ‘n Consisting Reading.’ The next bill for the period
23.10.2015 to 23.12.2015 was issued for 107340 units due to the wrong feeding of
initial reading. When the consumer challenged the bill, the mistake was detected and the
office after verification of the reading on 29.4.2016, revised the bills and refund of
Rs.5,05,656/- was allowed vide sundry on 3.5.2016m to be reflected in the next billing
cycle. The overhauled bill amounting to Rs.51,604/- is for the period of 6 months which
is correct and liable to be paid by the consumer. Copy of MCO and consumption pattern
of the consumer was also enclosed with the reply.
4. The reply of the Sub Division was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 15.6.2016
for his information and feedback, if any.
5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the applicant did not attend. The
SDO along with his RA were present during the hearing stated that the revised bill
amounting to Rs.51,604/- is correct and required to be paid by the complainant.
6. From the consumption data, the Forum observed that the average consumption of the
complainant during summer months was in the range of 1800 units where as during the
period from April to October 2015 the bills were issued on average for 532, 962 and 609
units respectively for the period of two months. The actual consumption was however
much more as depicted in the table below:-
Period Reading Bill issued for Actual
consumption on
the basis of
recorded reading
Less units
charged.
Initial Final Units Reason/Code Units (Col.E-Col.C)
A B C D E F
April to June
2015
122
(MCO)
150 532 I (Av.) From 5.6.15
(MCO) to 23.8.16
IR-97213, New
Reading -103390
= 6177 Units.
6177 – (532+
962)=4683
Units June to
Aug.2015
150 103390 962 I (Av)
Aug to
Oct.2015
150 106252 609 I( Av) 106252-103390
=2862 Units
2862 - 609=
2253 Units
Oct. to
Dec.2015
150 107490 107340 Z (On the
basis of
reading)
107490- 106252
=1238 Units
Excess Units
(107340)
charged which
have been
adjusted after
overhauling.
7. From the above table, it is seen that from the date of MCO to 23.10.2015, the consumer
was billed for only 532+962+609=2103 Units against actual consumption of 9039
(6177+2862) units on the basis of readings taken by the Meter Reader but not used for
billing. Thus less charging of around 7000 units was found which reflected in the revised
bill for the period 23.10.2015 to 23.12.2015 amounting to Rs.51,604/-. The Forum,
therefore, concludes that the bill revised by the Sub Division is in order and dismiss the
complaint as no merit was found int he submissions made in the application.
8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put
up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-06/2016
Date of Institution - 12.01.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Chanchal Sehdev, Shop No. 0534, Mohalla Darshani Bagh, Manimajra, Chandigarh..
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instruction were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 27.07.2016. The final orders could not be issued due
to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.08.2016. The parties were telephonically
informed in advance. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and the
respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8.
The Forum in its sitting on 10.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 27.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 27.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-06/2016
Date of Institution - 12.01.2016
Date of Order - 27.07.2016
In the matter to Shri Chanchal Sehdev, Shop No.0534, Mohalla Darhani Bagh, Manimajra,
Chandigarh.
…………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. A Group of Persons working as the Goldsmith workers in Shop No.534, Aman Market, Main
Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh submitted representation dated 11.1.2016, received in the
office of CGRF on 12.1.2016. It has been submitted that the supply of the building was
disconnected due to non payment of inflated bill amounting to Rs.1,18,000/- which was very
much on higher side as compared to bills being received in the past. It was prayed that the
electricity supply be restored and the bill be corrected in order to avoid loss to be suffered by
the Goldsmith workers.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-06/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal Officer
i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated 14.01.2016
for comments/action taken report with a copy to the complainant.
3. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 submitted the reply duly countersigned by the
Nodal Officer. He submitted that the electricity bills of the complainant for the period
22.9.2013 to 22.11.2014 were issued on average basis as the meter became defective. The
meter was replaced vide MCO dated 30.12.2014 affected on 05.01.2015. Thereafter the
consumer applied for extension of load from 1.920 KW to 9.920 KW on 9.3.2015 and three
phase meter was installed vide SCO dated 7.4.2015 affected on 12.5.2015. He also
submitted that the electricity connection is in the name of Shri Chanchal Sehdev and he
also gave an undertaking regarding depositing the dues of the previous owner at the time,
he applied for change of name. The consumer account was overhauled for the period
22.9.2013 to 12.5.2015 on the basis of previous one year consumption from 22.9.2012 to
22.9.2013 @ 1430 units per month. As a result Rs.73178/- was charged through sundry on
24.3.2015 after adjusting the amount already paid. He enclosed copy of MCO, Copy of
SCO, Undertaking by Shri Chanchal Sehdev, consumption data of both the Accounts along
with the reply. He also pointed out that the consumer was not paying the electricity bills
regularly and only Rs.40,000/- was paid on 13.01.2016.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 16.2.2016. The complainants along with RA of
the Sub Division attended the hearing. The complainants submitted that they are tenants in
the shop and have separate sub meter out of the main electricity connection. They were
making payments to the owner regularly on the basis of consumption of their sub meter. It
was also submitted that probably payments made by them during the period meter remained
defective was not accounted for. The Nodal Officer, Addl. S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2
was directed to provide details of the bills raised along with the payments made by the
consumer before the next date of hearing fixed for tentatively on 18.3.2016 which was
subsequently revised to 28.3.2016 vide letter dated 3.3.2016.
5. In response, AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 vide his letter dated 10.3.2016 confirmed
that the amount paid by the consumer was adjusted at the time of overhauling of the
account. He also supplied a copy of Sundry Allowance Register through which the amount
of less assessment was charged.
6. On 28.3.2016, the owner of the shop namely Shri Chanchal Sehdev in whose name the
electricity connection exists appeared along with some of the tenants who submitted the
complaint. After deliberations, on the issue of reconciliation of payments made by the
complainants and the bills issued by the Electricity Department, no consensus could be
reached. In order to reconcile the bills issued by the department and the payments made by
the owner/complainants, the SDO was directed to provide the details of the payment
received. The complainants were also directed to provide the details of the bills received
from July 2013 onwards. The owner/complainants also agreed to pay the current bill
charges along with Rs.50,000/-out of disputed amount.
7. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his subsequent letter dated 2.6.2016 supplied the
account statement in respect of payments made w.e.f. Nov. 2004 to March, 2016. He also
stated that the account statement was handed over to the consumer’s representative on
29.3.2016 as per directions given during the hearing on 28.3.2016. The payments
made/bills issued were reconciled and thereafter the consumer deposited a sum of
Rs.70,000/- on 20.4.2016.
8. On the next date of hearing on 27.7.2016. some of the complainants attended the hearing
and requested for wavier off surcharge. They stated that they are tenants and were paying
their share as per the sub meter reading to the owner during the period electricity meter of
the department was defective. The average being charged in the bills was quite on lower
side as compared to actual consumption in the past. The owner was supposed to make the
payment of the amount being charged through sundry after overhauling of the account
during the period meter remained defective but he did not pay and they were forced to pay.
Since they would have suffered in the event of connection getting disconnected due to non
payment of the electricity dues. Though they had already paid the amount of short
assessment to the owner yet they again paid same amount to the electricity department.
The owner did not attend the hearing as such it was not possible to have his comments on
the submissions made by the complainants. The SDO and RA present on behalf of
respondent licensee submitted that there was some amount still to be cleared against the
electricity connection. The complainants promised to clear the pending amount of the
electricity department. The SDO/RA in response to query by the complainants confirmed
that the part payment was being deposited by the complainants and not by the owner.
9. The Forum on the basis of data provided by the Sub Division observed that the Sub Division
overhauled the account up to 12.5.2015, the date on which the Single Phase connection
was converted to 3 phase connection and not up to date of MCO i.e. 5.1.2015. After
affecting the MCO, the bills were being issued on the basis of readings and as such unless
the replaced meter is declared defective. The overhauling of account from 15.1.2015 to
12.5.2015 is not in order. On perusal of the SCO, it has been seen that there are no
remarks about replaced single phase meter being defective. The base adopted for
charging i.e. consumption recorded during the past one year from 22.9.2012 to 22.9.2015
for overhauling the period however is in line with the Supply Code Regulations.
10. In view of above observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled
again for the period from 22.9.2013 to date of MCO i.e. 5.1.2015. For the period 5.1.2015 to
12.5.2015, the billing already done on the basis of meter reading be considered as final. The
Forum also noted that the complainants had to make double payment as the owner though
agreed before the Forum in one of the hearing, did not make the payment and forced the
complainants to make the payment in order to avoid disconnection. The Forum considered
the request made by the complainants for waiver off the surcharge amount and allow the
same on sympathetic ground. The Nodal Officer is directed not to levy any surcharge on the
amount charged. However, the refund/reversal of surcharge is to be considered only after
defaulting amount against this connection is cleared.
11. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put up
to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
12. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-97/2016
Date of Institution - 07.06.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Vinod Kumar, Khokha No.16A, Main Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instruction were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 27.07.2016. The final orders could not be issued due
to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The parties were telephonically
informed in advance. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and the
respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8.
The Forum in its sitting on 10.8.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 27.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 27.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-97/2016 Date of Institution - 07.06.2016
Date of Order - 27.07.2016 In the matter to Shri Vinod Kumar, Khoka No.16A, Main Bazar, Manimajra,
Chandigarh.
…………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Vinod Kumar, Khokha No.16A, Main Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his
representation dated 7.6.2016 submitted that his bills for tailoring shop in the past were
quite on higher side. He deposited fee of Rs.10/- on 10.4.2015, again RS.10/- on
8.10.2015 and Rs.250/- on 27.1.2016 for challenging the bill/meter. Despite his
depositing the fee, the bills being issued to him are on higher side and have not been
corrected by the Sub Division.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-97/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated
8.6.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016 provided
the details of the bills issued for the period 25.4.2015 to 25.12.2015 as under:-
Period Meter Reading Unit SOP ED Status
of
meter
Remarks
From To Old New
25.4.15 25.6.15 5629 6532 903 4024 99 Z
25.6.15 25.8.15 6532 7208 1455 6784 160 Z
25.8.15 25.10.15 7208 - 703 3104 77 D
25.10.15 25.12.15 6 35 29 125 3 Y New Meter No.
CHIE224728
He further submitted that the meter was replaced on 18.11.2015 with the final
reading of the removed meter as 6063. Based on the actual reading of the removed
meter as per MCO, the consumer account was overhauled from 25.4.2015 to 18.11.2015
and refund of Rs.13182/- is to be allowed to the complainant, to be reflected in the next
billing. Copy of MCO as well as consumption details were also enclosed with the reply.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the applicant as well as SDO along
with his RA were present. The SDO explained that the account of the complainant was
overhauled as per the final reading of the removed meter. He also submitted that the
complainant did not make any payment after June 2015. The complainant appeared to
be satisfied but requested for the refund of fees deposited by him towards challenge of
bill/meter amounting to Rs.270/-. He also requested for non levy of surcharge during
disputed period as wrong bills were being issued to him on fictitious readings for which
he deposited requisite challenge fees. During deliberations, it was also noted that in the
new bill to be delivered to the complainant, the additional amount of ACD has also been
included. The SDO was directed to ensure that the revised ACD is calculated on the basis
of actual consumption and not on the basis of wrong bills issued to the complainant.
5. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to ensure:-
i) That the fee deposited by the complainant is refunded.
ii) Correct amount of ACD on the basis of overhauled account is charge.
iii) No levy of surcharge during disputed period.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which
the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity
Act 2003.
6. With above directions, the complaint is considered as disposed.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put
up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-81/2016
Date of Institution - 18.05.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Branch, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instruction were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 27.7.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to
lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.08.2016. The parties were telephonically
informed in advance. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and the
respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8.
The Forum in its sitting on 10.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 27.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 27.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009 BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-81/2016 Date of Institution - 18.05.2016
Date of Order - 27.07.2016
In the matter to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Branch, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Brach, Manimajra, Chandigarh through his e-
mail dated May 18, 2016 pointed out that there was serious phase problem and
short circuits in the electrical system. A complaint was lodged on 17.5.2016 and
thereafter they continued to call since 11.00 AM but nobody came to attend the
problem. On 18th May 2016, they again lodged a complaint but in vain. On
night of 17.5.2016 there occurred a short circuit due to phase problem. It was
requested to direct the electricity department to attend the problem on priority.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-81/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2
vide letter dated 18.5.2016 for comments/feedback, with a copy to the
Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Branch, Manimajra, with the request to submit
a written complaint within five days as per the procedure circulated by the
Hon’ble JERC.
3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 08.6.2016,
submitted that the complaint by the applicant was received on 17.5.2016 at
14.10 hrs. as per Complaint Register. Due to heavy storm and rain which had
occurred during last night, there were number of breakdowns for which
complaints were lodged at the Complaint Centre. On 17.5.2016 itself, 55 Nos.
complaints were lodged. The complaint staff on reaching premises of the
complainant at 15.30 hrs noted that one No. phase was missing from the pole.
For attending the fault the street light boom ladder was required. The same was
not available at that time as it was attending another breakdown. On early
morning of 18.5.2016, maintenance staff set right the problem with the help of
boom ladder and the proper supply was restored. The SDO further submitted
that he had already directed the complaint centre staff not to keep any
complaint pending to avoid public harassment. In the present case the delay in
attending the complaint probably occurred due to large number of complaints
occurring simultaneously due to rain/storms.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the applicant did not
attend. The applicant had not submitted written complaint as already requested.
The SDO re-iterated his written submissions. On going through e-mails of the
complainant, it has been observed that time taken to attend the faults was on higher side. On
the basis of these observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to look into the
existing system and take effective steps including deployment of additional staff
on temporary basis particularly during summer period to ensure that the
complaints regarding power supply failure are attended promptly.
5. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-55/2016
Date of Institution - 20.04.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to Sh. Anil Kumar Chopra, House No. 3113, Sector 32-
D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
6. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 05.05.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to
lack of quorum.
7. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 9.08.2016 On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.8.
The Forum in its sitting on 10.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
8. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 05.05.2016.
9. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 05.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
From
The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum,
Room No. 531, 5th Floor,
U.T., Secretariat, Deluxe Building,
Sector 9-D, Chandigarh
To
The Addl Superintending Engineer,
Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. CGRF/GR-55/2016
Dated Chandigarh, the
Subject:- Complaint regarding Exorbitant Electricity Bill dated
6.4.2016 of House No. 5607, MHC, PH-III A/C No.
208/MA71/560700E of Sub Division No.8.Proceedings of
hearing conducted on 5.5.2016 – Interim Order.
The subject cited case was deliberated on 5.5.2016 in the
presence of SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 and the complainant Shri Anil Kumar
Chopra.
The SDO submitted written reply to the complaint dated
20.4.2016. The SDO submitted that for period of one year during 2013-14,
the meter remained defective, average was charged on the basis of
sanctioned load i.e. 23.720 KW @ 50 units per month/Per KW =1200 Units
Per Month by the Internal Auditor of the Sub Division (for 12 months of
meter remaining defective). A notice was also served to the consumer on
29.2.2016 for depositing the assessed amount of Rs.58,431/- charged by
the Internal Auditor.
The complainant objected to the charging done on the basis of
connected load and submitted that the same should be charged on the basis
of past consumption.
The Forum observed that the Supply Code Regulation does not
provide overhauling of the account on the basis of sanctioned load during
the period meter remained defective. SDO’s attention was invited towards
the relevant regulation 8.1(16). Respondent SDO was directed to overhaul
the account on the basis of corresponding/past consumption. The SDO,
however, submitted that the past consumption is not consistent/reliable and
as such requested for overhauling the account on the basis of future
consumption. The complainant stated that during the period meter was
defective, the premises was occupied by a different tenant and as such
overhauling should be done on the basis of his consumption prior to meter
becoming defective and not on the basis of future consumption which
pertains to a different tenant. With a view to settle the case, the
complainant, however, ultimately agreed for overhauling the account on the
basis of future consumption as suggested by the SDO.
In view of above, the amount already charged to the consumer
is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to recalculate the amount to be
charged for 12 months the meter remained defective on the basis of future
consumption during the corresponding period. The Forum also noted that as
per directions of the CGRF issued vide letter dated 20.4.2016, the
complainant made payment of Rs.30,000/- out of the disputed amount of
Rs.58,431/-. Compliance be reported within 21 days.
DA/ - CHAIRMAN (CGRF)
Endst.No : CGRF/Comp-GR-55/2016/ Dated :
1. Copy is forwarded to the SDO, Elecy.’OP’ Sub Division No.8, Chandigarh for
information and necessary action please.
2. Copy is forwarded to Shri Harish Tandon, Duplex No.5607, Modern Housing
Complex, Phase-III, Manimajra, Chandigarh for information please.
3. Copy is forwarded to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, House No.3113, Sector 32-D,
Chandigarh for information please.
DA/ - CHAIRMAN (CGRF)
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-47/2016
Date of Institution - 04.04.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Ram Kumar, House No.31/19, Manimajra Town, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.8, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instruction were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 18.5.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to
lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 10.8.2016. The parties were telephonically
informed in advance. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and the
respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8.
The Forum in its sitting on 10.8.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 18.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 18.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-47/2016
Date of Institution - 04.04.2016 Date of Order - 18.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Ram Kumar, House No.31/19, Manimajra Town,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Ram Kumar, resident of House No. 31/19, Bank Colony, Manimajra
Town, Chandigarh through his complaint dated 4.4.2016 submitted that
he has been receiving bills on average basis since December 2015.
Despite his visit to the Sub Division, his bills were not corrected as per
reading and amount already deposited was not adjusted.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-47/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 2 vide letter dated 18.4.2016 for supplying para-wise
comments with a copy to the complainant.
3. In response, Asstt. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8
vide his letter dated 18.4.2016 submitted that the bill for the period
18.10.2015 to 18.12.2015 was issued on average due to in consistent
reading. The next bill was issued on actual reading which was challenged
by the consumer. The reading was got verified and found to be 11044 on
19.3.2016. Though in the bill the current reading was indicated as
16919. Based on the verified reading the electricity bill of the consumer
was rectified and refund of Rs.28306/- was allowed through sundry dated
18.4.2016.
4. The reply of the Sub Division was forwarded to the complainant for his
information and feedback.
5. The complainant vide his letter dated 3.5.2016 showed his satisfaction to
the action taken by the Sub Division, with regard to redressal of his
complaint.
6. The complaint was notified for hearing n 18.5.2016, the complainant did
not attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the
grievance of the complainant has already been redressed.
7. The Forum observed that the complaint of the complainant had already
been redressed by the concerned Sub Division to his satisfaction
promptly.
8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-101/2016
Date of Institution - 09.06.2016 Date of Order - 10.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Deepak Jain, SCO No.825, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.8, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Deepak Jain, resident of House No. 20, Sector 8, Panchkula vide his letter
dated 9.6.2016 stated that he had filed a complaint against Electricity
Department for charging arrears from 23.6.2000 to 23.5.2002 for SCO No.825,
NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh. An Arbitrator was appointed but no relief was
provided, resulting into levy of surcharge on the charged amount.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-101/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.
2 vide letter dated 13.6.2016 for supplying parawise comments and
feedback along with consumption data with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.8 vide his letter dated 21.6.2016
submitted that the electricity connection for SCO No.825, NAC, Manimajra
stands in the name of Shri Rajinder Jain with sanctioned load of 8.650 KW
under NRS category. The dispute raised by the complainant relates to
average charges for the period 23.6.2000 to 23.5.2002 @ 702 units per
month on the basis of consumption recorded during the period June 1999 to
2000 with short assessment of RS.90155/-. The case was referred to
Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer, Electricity Operation Circle, U.T.,
Chandigarh vide order dated 29.8.2012. As per the order the bill was
revised, the outstanding amount was transferred to the present connection
being same consumer at the same premises. He also supplied the
consumption data for the period 23.12.1999 to 23.8.2004 and the arbitration
orders.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 27.2.2016. Though SDO and RA
were present, the complainant did not attend. As such a fresh opportunity
was given to the complainant and the case was renotified for hearing on
10.8.2016.
5. On the date of hearing on 10.8.2016, the complainant as well as RA of the
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.8 were present. The complainant submitted that
though he represented on charges levied vide an application dated 22.3.2005
before S.E. Electy. ‘OP’ Circle, U.T., Chandigarh, his case was disposed off by
the Arbitrator vide order dated 29.8.2012. Subsequently he filed an
application with the CGRF on 6.2.2014. After waiting for about more than
one year he again filed a fresh application on 9.6.2016. He raised the issue
of levy of surcharge during the period his application remained pending with
the Arbitrator or with CGRF.
6. The Forum after going through the records observes as under:-
i) The order of the Arbitrator confirmed that an application was filed on
22.3.2005 on the charges levied on account of overhauling of the
account during the period meter remained defective.
ii) The Arbitration order also indicates that the concerned file of the
Arbitration was misplaced and could be traced only in the month of
August 2012 where after the case was disposed off on 29.8.2012 with
the following order.
“Therefore, from the above submission, I do not find any merit
in the plea of claimant. The average charged is appropriate and correct and accordingly, the issue no (ii) is decided in
favour of the respondent. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of cost. If consumer has paid the current electricity bill in time, no surcharge should be levied and the
account of the consumer be overhauled accordingly.”
The applicant along with his application supplied copy of letter of CGRF
dated 6.2.2014 inviting para-wise com
ments/action taken report on the representation of the consumer
dated 6.2.2014. This representation also appears to be misplaced.
iii) The short assessment charged through sundry was Rs.90155/- out of
which the complainant deposited Rs.49000/- under protest. Where
after it was agreed to refer the matter for arbitration.
7. The Forum on the basis of above facts of the case and the consumption data
submitted by the SDO, concludes that the charges levied by the Sub Division
after overhauling of the account during the period meter was defective are
appropriate. However, the Forum finds merits in submissions made by the
applicant that exceptionally long time was taken by the Arbitrator/CGRF to
dispose off his representation, resulting into the levy of bi-monthly
surcharges which has become huge amount on date. This Forum decides
that no surcharge be levied from the date, the complainant first filed his
representation on 22.3.2005 as mentioned in the orders of the Arbitrator.
However, in case applicant defaulted in making payment of the current cycle
charges during the period 22.3.205 to date, surcharge be levied only on the
arrears of the current cycle charges. Compliance be reported within 21 days
after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by
Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003
8. With above decision and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed
off in aforementioned terms.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-64/2016
Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Davinder Pal Singh Brar, House No. 301-C, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Davinder Pal Singh Brar, resident of House No.301-C, Sector 51-A,
Chandigarh through his application dated 4.5.2016 stated that for the last one
and a half year his electricity meter was defective, which has now been
replaced. The old defective meter recorded the consumption of 11506 units
during the period Jan. to July 2014 which was much more than his average
consumption of 500-700 units for a cycle of two months. He apprehended that
this inflated consumption could be on account of meter jumping. The Sub
Division after overhauling the account for the period meter remained defective
levied sundry charges of Rs.84911/-. He stated that the inflated consumption
due to jumping of meter was also included resulting into higher sundry charges
much more than the average consumption. He prayed for reversal of sundry
charges of Rs.84,911/-.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-64/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 4.5.2016 for comments and feedback along with consumption data
with a copy to the complainant. The complainant was allowed to make the
payment of Rs.30,000/- of the disputed amount plus current cycle charges.
Suitable directions in this regard were also imparted to the Nodal Officer i.e.
not to disconnect the connection till disposal of the case.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated
2.6.2016, with a copy to the Nodal Officer, submitted the reply. He stated
that defective electricity meter was replaced on 25.1.2016 being dead stop.
The average for the period meter remained dead/stop has been charged
w.e.f. 16.7.2014 to 25.1.2016 @ 1109 units per month on the basis of
previous consumption of one year from 7/2013 to 7/2014. The short
assessment of Rs.84911/- was charged through sundry. He enclosed photo
copy of MCO, consumption data and details of assessment.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.6.2016 but the complainant did
not attend. Another opportunity was afforded on 21.7.2016 but again
complainant did not attend. On the next date of hearing on 11.8.2016, the
complainant, SDO and RA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant
raised that the consumption of 11506 during the period Jan. to July 2014
was on account of meter jumping and should be excluded for calculating the
average. The SDO on the other hand stated that recorded consumption of
11506 units could be due to accumulation or inadvertently wrong recording
of reading by Meter Reader/typing error.
5. From the consumption data supplied by the respondent, the Forum noted the
readings recorded by the Meter reader on various dates as under:-
Period Initial Reading
Final Reading
Consumption Code
7/2014 to 9/2014 42722 42528 194 Z
5/2014 to 7/2014 42528 31022 11506 Z
3/2014 to 5/2014 - 31022 602 4 Months A
1/2014 to 3/2014 42096 31022 602 I
11/2013 to 1/2014 31022 30488 534 Z
6. From the above, it is clear that the meter recorded consumption of 11704
units during Jan 2014 to March 2014 (Final Reading 42096-iR 31022).
However, as the consumption was much more than the average consumption
of 600-700 units, the reading was ignored and bill was prepared on average
units 602 units considering reading as ‘Inconsistent’. The next bill for the
period March to May 2014 was again prepared on average basis. The
reading in July 2014 (as recorded by Meter Reader) was 42528 which
indicates that from march 2014 to July 2014 (4 months) the meter recorded
432 units only (42528-42096). From the above analysis, it is clear that
during the period Jan. to March 2014 inflated consumption of more than
11000 units were recorded where as during next 4 months only 432 units
were recorded during summer period when normal consumption is generally
1.5 times average consumption. This clearly indicates that the meter
became defective during the period Jan 2014 to March 2014.
9. In view of above, sundry charges levied by the Sub Division are set aside.
The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account again for the period
1/2014 to date of MCO on the basis of consumption recorded during the
period 1/2013 to 1/2014. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the
receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble
JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. With above decision and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed
off in afore mentioned terms.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-125/2016
Date of Institution - 21.07.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Jatinder Kumar, House No.2419, Sector 52,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora
ORDER
1. Shri Jatinder Kumar, resident of House No.2419, Sector-52, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated 21.7.2016 submitted that his domestic bill is
increasing with passage of time and desired to know about ACD charges
levied in the bill.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-125/2016 was
forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 4 vide letter dated 21.7.2016 for comments and feedback
along with consumption data with a copy to the complainant. The
complainant through e-mail, with the request to submit written
complaint as per the procedure followed by Hon’ble JERC.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated
9.8.2016 with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that Rs.833/- was
charged in the bill on account of difference in existing and new ACD.
He also provided the details of calculation of ACD and reason review of
ACD every year.
4. The complainant through his e-mail dated July 22, 2016 after visiting
the Sub Division showed his satisfaction and conveyed his thanks for
information provided to him.
5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant
did not attend. The concerned SDO along with RA present during the
hearing re-iterated his written submissions.
6. The Forum considering that the complainant showed his satisfaction to
the explanation provided by the SDO, the complaint is considered as
disposed of being fully satisfied.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy
be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-110/GR-115/2016
Date of Institution - 24.6.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Diksha Dutt, House No. 3091/2, Sector 44-D,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora
ORDER
1. Smt. Diksha Dutt through her e-mail dated June 21, 2016 informed that
the voltage in House No. 3091/2, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh is generally
very low. She requested for taking appropriate action for improving the
voltage in the area.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-110/2016 was
forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 4 vide letter dated 22.6.2016 for comments and
feedback. A copy of the complaint was sent to the complainant, with
the request to submit written complaint as per the procedure followed
by Hon’ble JERC. The complainant subsequently through her e-mail
dated June 24, 2016 again sent a similar e-mail without giving
reference of her earlier e-mail dated June 21, 2016. Inadvertently, the
complaint is registered as Complaint No.115 which be read along with
GR-110/2016 and was forwarded to the Nodal Officer on 28.6.2016 for
comments.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated
8.7.2016 with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that the low
voltage problem of the consumer was due to burning of feeding service
cable and loose ‘T’ Joint. The same was set right and consumer
showed her satisfaction to the service provided by the department.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant
did not attend. The concerned SDO along with RA present during the
hearing submitted that the problem of the consumer was set right and
consumer showed her satisfaction.
5. The Forum observed that the problem of the consumer has already
been solved, the complaint is considered as disposed, as being fully
satisfied.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy
be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-112/2016 Date of Institution - 22.06.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016 In the matter to Shri Madan Lal, House No.2320-B, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per Member, Shri Jaswinder Sidhu
ORDER
1. Shri Madan Lal, resident of House No.2320B, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh vide his
representation dated 21.06.2016 submitted that he received electricity bill dated
12.8.2015 where in penalty of RS.12016/- was imposed. The complainant has
claimed that meter was burnt out, therefore, and was running fast. Requesting the
reverse of excess amount collected by the department shown as arrears and
penalty.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-112/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated
21.7.2016 for comments and feedback along with consumption data with a copy
to the complainant. In the mean time, the complainant through his e-mail dated
July 14, 2016 enquired about the latest development in the case.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 21.7.2016
with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that the complainant had challenged
the working of the meter installed at his premise. Accordingly vide SJO
No.303/379 dated 21.10.2015 a check meter was installed which showed the
meter of the complainant was registering 29.25% excess readings. The
necessary analysis of meter change order as well as detailed consumption since
2013 have been annexed with the reply. The respondent has also asked the
complainant to pay the electricity energy charges till the completion of one year
period after which account of the complainant would be overhauled on the basis
of last six months billing cycle.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant attend the
proceedings. The SDO along with his RA were also present. The matter was
deliberated at length and it was agreed that overhauling of the account of the
complainant be made after completion of one year of replaced meter. The
complainant was also directed to deposit Rs.5000./- in addition to current cycle
charges as per his consumption for remaining two cycles of completion of one
year of the MCO.
5. In view of above, the Nodal officer is directed to get the account overhaul
immediately after one year consumption of the replaced meter is available. The
connection of the complainant should not be disconnected in case the
complainant makes payment of current consumption charges plus Rs.5000/- per
bill.
6. The complaint is considered as disposed off in aforementioned terms.
The Forum considering that the complainant showed his satisfaction to the explanation provided by the SDO, the complaint is considered as disposed.“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-124/2016
Date of Institution - 15.07.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016
In the matter to Dr. Geeta Gahlawat, House No.157-A, Sector 42-A,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Dr. Geeta Gahlawat, resident of House No. 157-A, Sector 42-A,
Chandigarh through her e-mail dated July 15, 2016 stated that they have
been receiving erratic power supply since last few weeks, with situation
becoming worse after 10.00 PM. When she called the Complaint Office in
Sector-43 on 15th July 2016, she was told that problem could be due to
over loading. She requested for taking appropriate action to improve the
quality of power supply.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-124/2016 was
forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 4 vide letter dated 18.7.2016 for comments and feedback
along with consumption. A copy was also sent to the complainant, with
the request to submit written complaint as per the procedure followed
by Hon’ble JERC.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated
27.7.2016, with a copy to the Nodal Officer, submitted that the voltage
fluctuation problem at the residence of the complainant was due to the
burning of red phase contact of the main switch installed at the
consumer premises. As this was the internal fault which was to be
rectified by the consumer herself but the same was rectified and the
problem of consumer was resolved. Consumer gave her written
consent in this regard showing her satisfaction.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant
did not attend. The fact of attending the fault to her satisfaction by the
sub division has not been controverted by the complainant. The
concerned SDO along with RA present during the hearing stated that
the grievances of the consumer have already been redressed.
5. The Forum observed that the grievances of the consumer has already
been resolved, the complaint is considered, as being fully satisfied.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy
be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-109/2016 Date of Institution - 20.6.2016 Date of Order - 11.08.2016 In the matter to Shri Pritam Singh Saini, House No.1219, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora
ORDER
1. Shri Pritam Singh Saini, Additional Advocate General Haryana, Punjab & Haryana
High Court, Chandigarh through his representation dated June 20, 2016 submitted
that the bill dated 20.4.2016 included an amount of Rs.9775/- as sundry charges.
He requested for providing the details of the charges levied stating that the same is
not payable by him and the possession of the house is Jan. 2000, after he
purchased the said house from Shri K.G. Chaudhary.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-109/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated
21.7.2016 for comments and feedback along with consumption data with a copy
to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 21.7.2016
with a copy to the Nodal Officer submitted that the electricity connection stands in
the name of Shri K.G.Chaudhary under domestic category. With regard to
sundry charges levied in the bill, he stated that Sri P.D. Aggarwal got a
temporary connection 14.5.2014 for construction of boundary wall, garden of
spring, Sector-53, Chandigarh. He did not pay the full amount and temporary
connection was disconnected on 29.5.2016 with defaulting amount of Rs.9775/-.
While resulting the temporary connection, Shri K.G. Chaudhary was a witness to
the agreement and as such the defaulting amount was transferred to the account
of Shri K.G.Chaudhary.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 11.8.2016. The complainant’s son was
present along with SDO and RA of the Electy. Sub Divn. No.9. The SDO
submitted that recently a new permanent connection has been released at the
premises to which the defaulting amount of the temporary connection pertains.
Accordingly, the defaulting amount of the temporary connection amounting to
Rs.9775/- which was charged to the complainant is being transferred to the
permanent connection released at the premises of temporary connection. Since
amount is transferred, a sundry allowance will be allowed to the complainant
thereby redressal to his grievances.
5. The Forum observing that the electricity department would reverse charges
levied to the complainant, considered the complaint as disposed as complainant
showed his satisfaction to the proposed action. The Nodal officer is, however,
directed to submit compliance report within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003.
The Forum considering that the complainant showed his satisfaction to the explanation provided by the SDO, the complaint is considered as disposed.“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-87/2016
Date of Institution - 23.05.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to M/s Jaycon Infrastructure Limited, House No. 1464,
Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 12.07.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The parties were informed in advance
vide letter dated 9.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and
the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6.
The Forum in its sitting on 17.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 12.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 12.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-87/2016 Date of Institution - 23.05.2016 Date of Order - 12.07.2016 In the matter to M/s Jaycon Infrastructure Ltd., House No.1464, Sector 43-B, Chandigarfh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. M/s Jaycon Infrastructure Ltd. vide their letter dated 19.5.2016 received in the office of
CGRF on 23.5.2016 submitted that they had a temporary connection which was got
permanently disconnected on 16.3.2016 on their request dated 15.3.2016. Now they have
received the bill for the period 8.11.2015 to 16.3.2016 on average basis, where as they were
receiving the bills on reading basis on regular intervals. They enclosed copies of the bills
from November 2015 onwards in support. It was also submitted that they completed major
works during the month of October 2015 and got the completion in the month of December
2015 for which they supplied copy of the letter issued by M/s H.S.C.L also. It was
submitted that the issuance of bills on average is not in order.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-87/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal Officer
i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 25.05.2016 for
comments/action taken report, with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated 09.6.2016 submitted that
the meter was defective since 8.11.2015 and accordingly the account was overhauled on
past consumption basis from 3/2015 to 11/2015. Accordingly short assessment of
Rs.42,870/- was assessed and debited to their account. It was further submitted that the
consumer had requested for extension of the temporary connection for three months vide
letter dated 7.1.2016 which indicate that the work for which the temporary connection was
taken was continuing. The meter when removed on 16.3.2016 was found with meter
terminal block burnt. On the basis of this report coupled with low consumption after
11/2015, the account was overhauled. A copy of request by the complainant for extension
of the temporary connection, copy of MCO and consumption details from 11/2013 to 4/2016
were supplied.
4. The Case was notified for hearing on 12.7.2016 vide letter dated 23.6.2016. The
Complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant insisted that
the amount be charged on the basis of reading recorded by the meter and not on average
basis as they had completed major works by December 2015 and only minor left over works
were being undertaken thereafter with regard to renovation of the CSIO building. The RA
submitted that the meterl was found to be burnt at the time of PDCO and accordingly the
account was overhauled w.e.f. 11/2015 when the consumption dropped exceptionally on the
instance by the Internal Auditor. She stated that the electricity bills during February as well
as March 2016 were issued on average basis as the consumption was found to be
extremely low compared to their past average consumption.
5. The Forum from the consumption data observed that the average consumption up to Nov.
2015 was in the range of 2000 units per month which dropped to 206 units in the bill issued
on the basis of reading on 8.1.22015. The consumption was found to be 625, 28 and 47
units only in the bills issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter on 8.1.2016,
8.2.2016 and 8.4.2016 respectively. It was however, found that though the reading
recorded by the meter on 8.2.2016 was indicated in the bill, the bill was issued for 800 units
and not for 28 units. Similarly recorded consumption for next 2 months was only 47 units.
Certificate issued by HSCL indicated that the contractor commenced the work of
modernisation of ISTC building at CSIO on 18.3.2011 with the scope of work up to
15.01.2016. The various structures were completed at regular intervals from 24.9.2011
onwards and the last structure was completed on 10.12.2015.
6. Conclusion and Decision:
On the basis of certificates dated 15.1.2016 issued by M/s Hindustan Steel
Works Construction Ltd. (HSCL) that last structure was completed on 10.12.2015, it is clear
that the consumption of the Company would drop thereafter as the company would be
undertaking only minor works as per observations of the client. Thus charging by the Sub
Division on the basis of average of consumption recorded during the period 3/2015 to
11/2015 when major works were being undertaking is not in order and thus set aside. On
the other hand it has also been noted that the consumption fell extremely low during the
disputed period. Some minor left over works were yet to be completed and the company
accordingly made a request for extension of the temporary connection beyond Jan. 2016.
The meter was found burnt when removed. As stressed by the Sub Division, the meter
getting burnt could be the reason for recording of extremely low units. The Forum also
noted that the Sub Division charged average consumption of 800 units per month in the first
instant but subsequently raised to 1865 units per month. The charging at 800 units per
month after completion of major works appeared reasonable.
7. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled during the
disputed period with 800 units per month and not with 1865 units as done by the Sub
Division. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which
the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity
Act 2003.
8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put up
to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office of
XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever required.
File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after
the same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-88/2016
Date of Institution - 25.05.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Miss Neelam Dhiman, House No. 1031, First Floor,
Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 09.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The parties were informed in advance
vide letter on dated 09.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear
and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6.
The Forum in its sitting on 17.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, so it can be safely presumed the grievances of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 09.06.2016.
4. The instructions issued vide interim orders dated 09.06.2016, therefore, become final
and binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-88/2016 Date of Institution - 25.05.2016 Date of Order - 09.06.2016 In the matter to Ms. Neelam Dhiman, Hoiuse No. 1031, First Floor, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Miss Neelam Dhiman, resident of House No. 1031, First Floor, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh
through her representation received in the office of CGRF on 25.5.2016 submitted that they
received high amount of electricity bill amounting to Rs.65,631/- for the period 11/2015 to
3/2016. She stated that no AC/Cooler was being used during the period. She requested for
verification and rectification of the bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-88/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal Officer
i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 25.05.2016 for
comments along with consumption data and actual connected load. It was also notified the
case would be heard on 9.6.2016 in the office of CGRF.
3. On the date of hearing on 9.6.2016, the complainant as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division
No.6 were present. The SDO submitted that the premises was got checked and it was
noted that the commercial activity (Stitching/Tailoring) was being undertaken in the flat. He
also informed that the meter was found dead stop at the time of verification/checked. He
also showed the consumption data for last three years and that the connected load checked
was around 6 KW.
4. From the consumption data, it was observed that consumption recorded by the meter after
9/2015 increased considerably (more than 9000 units per cycle) from the earlier
consumption in the range of 100-150 units per cycle. The SDO agreed that the
consumption recorded after 9/2015 was not possible with the sanctioned load/checked
connected load and the inflated consumption may be on account of meter becoming faulty.
The meter ultimately became dead stop.
5. The complainant with regard to commercial activity stated that after obtaining Degree in
Fashion Designing in July 2015, she along with her friend has undertaken stitching work
with a view to display the articles during exhibition only during in the last six months or so.
6. On the basis of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to:
i) Get the defective meter replaced immediately.
ii) To overhaul the account of the consumer from 9/2015 onwards on the basis of future
six months consumption recorded by the replaced meter.
iii) The Electricity connection be treated as NRS connection and the difference in tariff
of NRS to DS connection may be recovered for last one year.
iv) Henceforth with the NRS tariff be charged instead of domestic.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put up
to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office of
XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever required.
File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after
the same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-51/2016
Date of Institution - 04.04.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Anil Salwan, Manager, Flat No. 648, RBI
Colony, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 19.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The parties were informed in
advance. vide letter dated 9.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.6.
The Forum in its sitting on 17.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 19.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 19.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-51/2016 Date of Institution - 04.04.2016
Date of Order - 19.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Anil Salwan, Manager, Flat No. 648, RBI Colony, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Anil Salwan, Manager RBI through his letter dated 4.4.2016
submitted that the electricity bill for Flat No.648, RBI Colony, Sector 30,
Chandigarh for the period 26.12.2015 to 28.02.2016 included sundry
charges. He also stated that the meter of the flat was defective and bill
was being raised on average basis which was being paid regularly. He
requested for verification of the bill enabling the occupant to make the
payment.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-51/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 08.4.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a
copy to the complainant.
3. In response, SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated
20.4.2016 submitted that the defective meter was replaced on
26.12.2015 and thereafter account of the consumer has been overhauled
and average @ 286 units per month was charged for the period
28.10.2014 to 26.12.2015 on the basis of past consumption from
10/2013 to 10/2014. An amount of Rs.9380/- was calculated as short
assessment after adjustment of the payments already made. He supplied
the copy of MCO and consumption data.
4. The reply of the Sub Division was forwarded to the complainant for his
information and feedback vide letter dated 26.04.2016.
5. During the hearing of the case on 19.5.2016, Shri Loha Singh, Present
occupant of the flat stated that he occupied the flat on 20.5.2015. The
earlier occupant Shri Bharat Lal vacated the flat on 21.4.2015 and thus
the flat remained vacant for one month from 21.4.2015 to 20.5.2015.
He submitted that average for the period of one month flat remained
vacant, should not be charged. Shri Karan Singh, representative of the
complainant (Manager RBI) provided the photo copy of inventory register
being maintained which clearly showed that Shri Bharat Lal vacated the
flat on 21.4.2015 which was taken over by Shri Loha Singh on
20.5.2015. It also contained remarks that the electricity meter was not
working. The applicant was provided the details of the charging done by
the Sub Division and they got convinced that charging done by the Sub
Division was in order. However, following two issues were raised:
i) No charging should be done for one month, the flat remained
unoccupied.
ii) The charges related to period the flat was occupied by Shri Bharat
Lal needs to be recovered from him. Shri Loha Singh, present
occupant also informed that he had already made the payment of
ful amount of the bill including the amount of sundry charges raised
by the electricity department. Shri Karan Singh on behalf of RBI
conveyed that the amount related to Shri Bharat Lal would be
deducted from his salary & would be credited to the complainant.
The SDO on the basis of inventory register agreed to give refund for
the period 21.4.2015 to 20.5.2015 when the flat remained vacant.
6. On the basis of above. the Nodal Officer is directed to:-
i) Not to charge any amount for the period 21.4.2015 to
20.5.2015.
ii) To provide breakup of charging from 28.10.2014 to 21.4.2015
and from 20.5.2015 to 26.12.2015 to the complainant, enabling
him to recover the charges upto 21.4.2015 from the salary of
Shri Bharat Lal.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of
the Electricity Act 2003.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-41/2016
Date of Institution - 18.03.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Saroj Goel, Vijay Flour Mill Bay Shop No. 17-18,
Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
11. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 19.05.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to
lack of quorum.
12. The case was re-notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The parties were informed in advance
vide letter dated 9.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and
the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6.
The Forum in its sitting on 17.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
13. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 19.05.2016.
14. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 19.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
15. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-41/2016 Date of Institution - 18.3.2016
Date of Order - 19.05.2016
In the matter to Stm. Saroj Goel, Vijay Flour Mill, Bay Shop No.17-18, Sector-20, Chandigarh..
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. A complaint was received from Smt. Saroj Goel on 18.3.2016 on behalf of
Vijay Flour Mills, Bay Shop No.17-18, Sector 20, Chandigarh. It was
stated that the bill for the period Jan. to Feb. 2016 contained sundry
charges of Rs.55886/- for which no details were provided.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-41/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 22.3.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a
copy to the complainant.
3. In response, SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated
30.03.2016 submitted that the electricity meter got burnt and was
replaced on 21.1.2016. After replacement of the burnt meter, the
account of the consumer has been overhauled for the period 10.4.2015 to
21.1.2016 (Date of MCO) on the basis of average consumption during the
corresponding period from April 2014 to April 2015 @ 1333 units per
month. An amount of Rs.55886/- has been calculated to be charged less
which has now been debited through sundry. He enclosed copy of MCO
and the Consumption data.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 19.5.2016, the representative of the
complainant appeared. He was shared with the details of charging and he
got convinced that the sundry charges levied in the bills were in order. He
also stated that he has already made the payment of the disputed
amount.
5. The Forum observed that the charging done by the Sub Division was in
order and further that consumer was satisfaction with the amount
charged.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-119/2016
Date of Institution - 04.07.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Ved Parkash Mehta, House No.406/1, Sector20-A, Chandigarh
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Ved Parkash Mehta, resident of House No.406/1, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh through
his representation dated 3.6.2016 addressed to SDO submitted that they visit abroad
frequently during which period their house remains locked. However, bill during the
period of their absence was issued on average basis though they were out of India
during the period 31.8.2014 to 24.2.2015 and from 4.5.2015 to 25.9.2015. He supplied
copies of the Passport of his wife as well as self in support of his statement. He
requested for correction of his bill.
2. A copy of this representation was submitted to the office of CGRF on 4.7.2016 by
Shri Jagir Singh, resident of House No. 1448A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh for
redressal of grievances of Sh. Ved Parkash Mehta.
3. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-119/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated
5.7.2016 with the directions to supply consumption of last three years as well as
factual position about occupancy of the house.
4. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated 14.7.2016
submitted that the electricity meter of the consumer was replaced on 29.2.2016 as
the meter was found dead stop. The account of the consumer was overhauled on
adhoc/connected load basis for the period 24.6.2014 to 29.2.016 - (more than 22
months) during which meter remained defective. Short assessment of Rs.8177/- was
assessed and debited to his account. He further added that the position of the
vacancy was got checked after site verification. As per report submitted by the
official no neighbour was ready to comment regarding the vacancy of the house.
However, ground floor as well as first floor were found to locked on the date of
verification. He supplied copy of MCO, consumption data and the verification report.
5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The representative of the
complainant i.e. Shri Jagir Singh attended on behalf of the complainant. He
submitted that complainant again left India around 15th June 2016 and would come
back only after 6/8 months. After deliberations of the case, the Forum observed that
the first bill was issued after 16 months in October 2015 at the same reading i.e.
2015 for nil consumption. The meter was removed on 29.2.2016 at the same reading
i.e. 2015 with remarks as ‘dead stop’. From the copies of the Passport, it was noted
that complainant namely Shri Ved Parkash Mehta along with his wife left India on
30.8.2014, came back on 24.2.2015 and again left on 4.5.2015. They returned back
to India on 25th September 2015.
6. On the basis of above facts, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account on
the following lines.
i) From 24.6.2014 to 31.8.2014, from 24.2.2015 to 4.4.2015 and from
25.9.2015 to 29.2.2016 --- on the basis of consumption recorded during the
period 29.2.2016 to 24.6.2016.
ii) From 31.8.2014 to 24.2.2015 and from 4.5.2015 to 25.9.2015 – on the basis
of consumption to be recorded during the period 24.6.2015 to 24.12.2016.
7. The complaint is considered disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON. ER. A.K. JAIN, MEMBER.
SH.J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-119/2016 Date of Institution - 04.07.2016 Date of Order - 06.10.2016
In the matter to Shri Ved Parkash Mehta, House No.406/1, Sector20-A,
Chandigarh
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Briefly mentioning that the complainant GR-119/2016, was disposed off vide order dated 17.08.2016, with
directions to the concerned Nodal officer as mentioned in Para 6 of the afore mentioned order.
However the concerned respondent SDO ‘OP’ Sub Div.6 vide memo no. 4168 dated 06.09.2016,
expressed difficulties in complying with the orders and sought clarifiaction and necessary directions in this
regard.
Keeping in view the interest of the complainant as well as maintaining the sanctity of the order it
was felt necessary to call the contesting parties to the complaint No. GR-119/2016, therefore a hearing
was convened on 05.10.2016, and the matter was deliberated upon.
During deliberations, it came to notice that a typographical error occurred in the operative part of
the order.
In the interest of justice, and with the consent of the contesting parties, it was resolved that the
date “24.06.2015 to 24.12.2016” mentioned in second line of Para 6 (ii) of the order dated 17.08.2016.
needs to be modified to “24.06.2016. to 24.12.2016”.
According the Para 6 of the order dated 17.08.2016 be substituted as under :-
6. On the basis of above facts, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account on
the following lines.
iii) From 24.6.2014 to 31.8.2014, from 24.2.2015 to 4.4.2015 and from
25.9.2015 to 29.2.2016 --- on the basis of consumption recorded during the
period 29.2.2016 to 24.6.2016.
iv) From 31.8.2014 to 24.2.2015 and from 4.5.2015 to 25.9.2015 – on the basis
of consumption to be recorded during the period 24.6.2016 to 24.12.2016.
Copies of this order be sent to parties free of cost and the copy of this order be tag with the original file.
(J.S SIDHU) (A.K. Jain) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-107/2016
Date of Institution - 16.6.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Saran Kaur Sawhney, House No.3033, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Harbans Singh Sawhney, Husband of Smt. Saran Kaur Sawhney, resident
of House No.3303, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh vide his representation dated 16
June, 2016 raised the issue of levy of proposed sundry charges as conveyed by
the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide letter dated 26.5.2016 and
10.6.2016. It was submitted that they have two electricity connections, one for
ground floor and other for first floor. Though the ground floor is occupied by
them, first floor is lying vacant w.e.f. 1st August 2014 till date. The consumption
of the first floor dropped significantly after 1st August 2014. The meter of the
first floor was changed in April 2016, due to low consumption after 1st August
2014 (non occupancy), the electricity department proposed to overhaul the
account (treating meter as defective) on the basis of consumption recorded
during the period July 2013 to July 2014. It was prayed that the sundry charges
should not be levied as the replaced meter was not faulty.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-107/2016, same was
forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division
No. 3 vide letter dated 16.6.2016 for comments along with consumption
data for last three years and verification of tenancy from the neighbours with
a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated
23.6.2016, submitted that the meter of the complainant was defective/burnt
and was replaced on 4.4.2016. Thereafter the account of the consumer was
overhauled w.e.f. 22.7.2014 to date of MCO i.e. 4.4.2016 on the basis of
previous consumption recorded during the period July 2013 to July 2014.
Short assessment of Rs.47859/- was assessed. On the issue of premises
lying vacant as stated by the complainant, the SDO stated that consumer did
not inform the office about the premises lying vacant. He requested for
directing the consumer to make the payment of the amount charged through
sundry. He supplied copy of MCO and the consumption data.
4. The complainant through subsequent letter dated 9.7.2016 in reference to
remarks in the MCO that the meter was burnt, he submitted that the meter
was perfect/ fine and was recording less consumption due to non occupancy.
In support, he submitted that the consumption recorded by the new meter is
also comparable with earlier consumption supporting that the meter was not
defective/burnt. He also supplied a copy of the Lease Deed dated 15.7.2011,
photo copy of readings of new meter recorded on various dates.
5. The case was notified for hearing 12.7.2016, the wife of the complainant i.e.
Smt. Saran Kaur Sawhney and the concerned SDO were present. It was
noted that the Respondent SDO did not comment on the issue of verification
on the tenancy as specifically directed while inviting the comments on the
representation. The SDO was directed to submit a report within ten days.
Subsequently the SDO vide his letter dated 21.7.2016 submitted that the
first floor of the premises remained vacant during the period July 2014 to
July 2016 as per statement recorded by the neighbours.
6. The case was notified for hearing on 17.8.2016 , Smt. Saran Kaur as well as
concerned SDO were present. The consumer submitted that the old meter
was working fine and was recording the consumption correctly. With regard
to nil/less consumption, she stated that the first floor was now in their
possession along with ground floor after the tenant vacated on 1st August
2014. The first floor was being used for family get together, family guests
resulting in low consumption of electricity.
7. The Forum, from the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division noted
that consumption w.e..f July 2014 to March 2016 ranged between 3 to 170
units against the earlier average consumption of around 500-600 units. The
bills were prepared on reading with ‘Z’ Code i.e. meter in working order
during this period.
7. In view of statement given by the neighbours that the first floor has not been
rented out again after August 2014 and issuance of bill with ‘Z’ Code, the
Forum concludes that the billing done during the disputed period was in
order. The amount of sundry charges charged to the complainant are set
aside. The meter removed at reading of 31636 on 4.4.2016 be treated as
O.K instead of dead stop/burnt as recorded in the MCO. Compliance be
reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the
penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003.
8. The complaint stand disposed off with above directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-116/2016
Date of Institution - 28.6.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Veena Gandhi, House No. 258, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. A complaint dated 28.6.2016 was received in the office of CGRF from husband of
Smt. Veena Gandhi stating that top floor of their house No.258, Sector 46-A,
Chandigarh is lying vacant for last 5 to 6 years and is being used as store. The
sundry charges were levied treating meter as defective. The position of vacancy
was got checked by the Sub Division by deputing J.E. in December 2015. The
consumer also enclosed an affidavit in support of his statement that the first
floor was not occupied and requested for withdrawal of the sundry charges.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-116/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide
letter dated 28.6.2016 for comments, with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated
21.7.2016, submitted that the meter was found defective and was replaced
on 25.1.2016. Thereafter the account was overhauled for the period
10.3.2014 to 25.2.2016 on the basis of connected load/adhoc basis as
adequate consumption for the past period was not available. He further
submitted that the consumer did not inform the Sub Division about the
premises lying vacant. On the basis of an affidavit submitted by the
consumer, the facts were got verified by the representative of the office. He
reported that the premises is being used for Store purpose. He requested for
issuing directions to the consumer to deposit the amount charged to them as
the meter was found dead stop. He supplied a copy of MCO, consumption
data and the report by J.E. about vacancy position.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The complainant as well as
SDO were present. The complainant submitted that as the premises was
lying vacant and was being used as store, the electricity consumption was
negligible. The SDO on the other hand stated that average @ 190 units per
month has been charged for the period 10.3.2014 to 25.1.2016 on adhoc
basis which will be adjusted after availability of consumption of the replaced
meter during next 12 months.
5. The Forum observed that the electricity bills from Nov. 2013 onwards were
being issued for Nil consumption with meter status Code as ‘Z’. The prior
consumption was also recorded as 3,3,97 and 9 units during past 4 cycles
during the period 3/2013 to 11/2013. The consumption of the replaced
meter from Jan. 2016 to May 2016 was also one unit during four months.
On the basis of past as well as new consumption recorded by the replaced
meter, the forum concludes that the average units being charged @ 190
units per month are very much on higher side. The sundry charges already
levied by the sub division are therefore set aside. The Forum directs the
Nodal Officer to overhaul the account during the period meter remained
defective from 10.3.2014 to 25.1.2016 on the basis of adhoc consumption of
50 units per month subject to adjustment on the basis of consumption
recorded by the replaced meter from 25.1.2016 to 10.1.2017. Compliance of
overhauling the account on adhoc basis @ 50 units per month be reported
within 21 days.
6. The complaint stands disposed off with above directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-83/2016
Date of Institution - 12.05.2016
Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Khushwant Rai, Flat No.1829, Nirwana Society, Sector 49,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, ER. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Khushwant Rai, owner of flat No.1829, Nirwana Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh
through his application dated 12.5.2016 submitted that the flat is being given on rent
since its occupation. However, sometimes there is gap in renting out to a new tenant on
vacation by old tenant. The electricity meter became faulty and was changed in Feb.
2016. Subsequently the account was overhauled and RS.37,170/- were charged in the
bill issued on 22.3.2016 on account of average w.e.f. 26.10.2014. The Sub Division
informed that from this date the meter recorded negligible consumption. The bill was
challenged. The Sub Division, however, conveyed that the bill was in order and directed
him to pay the same. He submitted that the flat remained vacant during the period
2014-15 except for 2 months due to non availability of suitable tenant. The flat was
rented out only in May 2015. He also submitted that the meter was working fine but the
consumption during the period 2/2015 to 6/2015 was very less due to non occupancy of
the tenant. The meter became defective subsequently after the flat was occupied by
new tenant from May 2015. In support of his statement that flat was lying vacant, he
enclosed copy of Lok Pal Statement, giving details of Income from property and also
copy of Income Tax Return for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 indicating that the rental
income was less during the period 2014-15 as compared to 2013-14.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-74/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated
7.6.2016 for comments/action taken report along with consumption data of last
three years and the connected load as checked. He was also directed to accepted
Rs.15000/- out of disputed amount plus current cycle charges and not to disconnect
the connection.
3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated 17.5.2016
submitted that the electricity meter was defective/dead stop and was replaced on
19.2.2016. He further mentioned that the meter was defective since 26.10.2014, as
the meter recorded almost Nil consumption. Therefore, the consumer account was
overhauled for the period 26.10.2014 to 19.2.2016 on the basis of previous
consumption recorded during the period 10/2013 to 10/2014 @ 674 units per month.
Rs.37,170/- was calculated as short assessment and was debited to the consumer
account. He also submitted that the consumer did not give any information regarding
the flat lying vacant during the disputed period. He supplied copy of MCO and the
details of the consumption recorded during last three years.
4. The complainant through subsequent letter dated 19.5.2016, supplied a copy of rent
agreement for the period 1.4.2013 to 28.2.2014 specified the monthly rent as
Rs.20500/-. In support of his statement that the tenant vacated the flat in April
2014, he enclosed bank statement showing the entries with regard to payment of
rent received through cheques. He elaborated that the rent was received up to April
2014 and thereafter when the flat was again re-rented out, the payment for 2 months
of advance rent plus dealer’s commission for August and September 2014 as existing
on 30.7.2014 in the bank statement. The next payment of Rs.21000/- on April 27,
2015 was advance rent of May 2015 from the new tenant where after there is regular
entry of payment received through NEFT towards the rent received in respect of the
flat.
5. The case was listed for hearing on 9.3.2016. The complainant as well as concerned
AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 were present. The AEE was directed to get the
vacancy position confirmed from the neighbours and also that no renovation was
undertaken during the disputed period.
6. The concerned AEE vide his letter dated 21.7.2016 supplied report by the J.E.
regarding the site verification. As per report, the premises remained vacant for the
period May 2014 to May 2015.
7. On the next date of hearing on 17.8.2016, the complainant as well as concerned AEE
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 were present. The complainant stated that after the
occupant vacated in April 2014, the flat was rented to a Company and advance rent
of Rs.54000/- was received from them for August and September 2014. After the flat
was vacated by this company, new tenant occupied the flat from May 2015. The
case was deliberated at length, the documents supplied by the complainant as well as
SDO were seen. It was noted from the consumption data that the electricity bills were
issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter with status code as ‘Z’ up to
August 2015 where after bills were issued for an average of 580 units with meter
status Code as defective before the meter was replaced on 19.2.2016. On the basis
of assets and liability statement submitted by the applicant under Lok Pal Act,
Income Tax Returns and the bank statement and the report by J.E. about the
verification of occupancy, it is evident that the flat was lying vacant during the period
May 2014 to March 2015. Therefore, the electricity bills already issued up to April
2015 with meter status Code Z i.e. working okay be considered as final and may not
be overhauled on the basis of average. From the consumption data, it is further
seen that the meter became defective (dead/stop) during the period May and June
2015 at reading of 33804.
8. In view of above analysis, overhauling already done by the Sub Division isset aside.
The Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the account from 5/2015 to 19.2.2016 (date
of MCO) on the basis of future consumption to be recorded by the replaced meter
during the corresponding period of 2016-17 and not on the basis of past
consumption as the premises was occupied by a new tenant whose consumption may
be different from previous occupant. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the
receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as
per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003
9. The complaint is considered disposed off with aforementioned directions
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-96/2016
Date of Institution - 07.06.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, House No.3482, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, resident of House No.3482, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh
through her representation dated 6.6.2016, received in the office of CGRF on
7.6.2016, represented on the average charged for the period 2014-15 to the
electricity connection for the first floor. She submitted that the first floor was
occupied by her son who left for Poland in Jan. 2014. Thereafter the first floor
was neither rented nor occupied by any one. Their account was overhauled for
the period Nov. 2015 to Jan. 2016 by the Sub Division as the meter was not
working properly. She requested for reversal of charges levied stating that the
First floor was in their possession but nobody was residing on the first floor
during the disputed period resulting into very very low consumption of
electricity. She submitted an affidavit in this regard and photo copy of fee
deposited towards bill challenging fee.
2. The complaint registered as Complaint No. GR-96/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter
dated 7.6.2016 with the directions to supply comments along with
consumption of last three years, with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated
14.06.2016 submitted that the meter of the consumer was found defective
and was replaced on 23.2.2016. The account of the consumer was
overhauled w.e.f. 27.3.2014 to 27.9.2015 and 27.1.2016 to 23.3.32016 @
190 units per month on adhoc/connected load basis. Short assessment of
Rs.9359/- was assessed and debited to the consumer account. He also
submitted that the consumer had not conveyed about the premises lying
unoccupied.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 12.7.2016. The complainant as well as RA
of the Sub Division were present. From the consumption data supplied by the
Sub Division, it was noted that the copy of MCO affected during the period
5/2015 to 7/2015 was not supplied along with the reply. The complainant
submitted that the representative of the Sub Division visited the premises to
check the factual position regarding non occupancy as per their affidavit, she
insisted for report of the official. Necessary directions were issued to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 to comment
on the statement of the consumer as well as to supply the copy of MCO
affected during May to July 2015.
5. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated
25.7.2016 submitted that the vacancy position was got verified from the
neighbours and he submitted the report of the J.E. on the back of Affidavit.
He also supplied a copy of MCO dated 5.6.2015.
6. On the next hearing of the case on 17.8.2016, the complainant as well as
SDO were present. From the report submitted by the J.E. with regard to
affidavit furnished by the complainant, it was noted that Shri Ramesh Chand
Goel, resident of House No.3484, Sector 46-C, authenticated statement of the
complainant. The J.E. also remarked that meter was in working order and
first floor was lying vacant on 16.5.2016 and the date of his visit. He also
supplied a copy of MCO affected on 5.6.2015.
7. From the deliberations during the hearing and documents placed before the
Forum, it is noted that the bills issued from Nov.2012 up to 5.6.2015 were
issued on Z Code with meter status Code as O.K. The reason for change of
meter was given as mechanical meter to be replaced with electronic meter.
The working of the replaced meter was declared O.K as per MCO report. It
was also seen that the consumption declined sharply particularly during
summer months of 2014 as compared to that of 2013. The Electronic meter
installed on 5.6.2015 became dead stop between July 2015 to Sept. 2015
after registering 122 units (FR 128, IR-6) during the period 5.6.2015 to 27
July 2015. The dead meter was replaced on 23.2.2016.
8. On the basis of discussions and documents placed before the Forum, it is
seen that the mechanical meter was in working order when replaced by
electronic meter on 5.6.2015. Thus the overhauling done by the Sub Division
27.3.2014 to 5.6.2015 is not in order and thus set aside. Thereafter the new
meter became dead stop after 27.7.2015 implying that billing already done
up to 27.7.2015 was also in order and is not required to be overhauled. With
above inference, the only period which needs to be overhauled is the period
between 27.7.2015 to 23.2.2016 (date of MCO). As recorded consumption
during the corresponding period during the year 2014-15 is available, the
same be taken as base for overhauling the period 27.7.2015 to 23.2.2016.
10. The Nodal officer is directed to get the account overhauled on the above
lines.With aforementioned directions the complaint is disposed off.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections
of the Electricity Act 2003.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-56/2016
Date of Institution - 13.04.2016 Date of Order - 17.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Arvinder Kumar, Flat No. 3477, Sector 46-C,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
16. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after conducting
hearing vide Interim order dated 19.05.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to
lack of quorum.
17. The case was re-notified for hearing on 17.8.2016. The parties were informed in advance
vide letter dated 9.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not appear and
the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6.
The Forum in its sitting on 17.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
18. As the complainant did not turn up. So it can be safely presumed their grievance of the
complaint stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 19.05.2016.
19. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 19.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
20. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-56/2016 Date of Institution - 13.04.2016
Date of Order - 19.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Arvinder Kumar Aggarwal, House No.3477, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Arvinder Kumar Aggarwal through his e-mail April 13, 2016 pointed
out that though the three phase meter was provided by him for
installation at his residence House No. 3477, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh,
yet the Electricity Department is charging meter rentals w.e.f. Nov. 2014.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-56/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 21.4.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a
copy to the complainant.
3. In response, SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.6 vide his letter dated
29.4.2016 stated that necessary correction has been done after
verification. Amount of Rs.360/- has been refunded to the consumer to be
reflected in the next bill.
4. The reply of the Sub Division was forwarded to the complainant for his
information and feedback vide letter dated 11.5.2016.
5. The case was listed for hearing on 19.5.2016, the complainant did not
attend. The SDO present during the hearing stated that grievance of the
complainant has already been redressed.
6. The Forum considering that the necessary relief has already been
provided by the Sub Division. Consider the complaint as redressed
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-91/2016
Date of Institution - 30.05.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Shri. Ashish Kumar, House No. 3038, Second Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 21.07.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.9 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 21.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 21.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-91/2016 Date of Institution - 30.05.2016 Date of Order - 21.07.2016 In the matter to Shri Ashish Kumar, House No.3038, 2nd floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9 Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Ashish Kumar through his e-mail dated May 30, 2016 submitted that the complaints
regarding disruption of electricity supply were not being treated on priority. To explain he
stated that he lodge a complaint on 4.45 AM on May 30, 2016 but same was not attended till
6.30 in the morning. He did not get a satisfactory reply about the time for restoration of the
supply from the Sub Division.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-91/2016, was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated 31.5.2016 for
comments/action taken report, with a copy to the complainant, with the request to submit a
written complaint within five days as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.
The complainant did not submit written complaint as requested but subsequently on June
7, 2016 again through e-mail requested for updated status of his complaint dated May 30,
2016.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 09.6.2016 with a copy
to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, submitted para-wise reply. He stated that on verification
of the Complaint Register, it was seen that complaint was lodged at 4.45 hours regarding
failure of electricity supply of House No.3038, sector 41-D, Chandigarh. The supply had
failed from 33 KV GSS Sector 37 from 4.45 to 4.45 hours. As the electricity of Sector 41-D
is being fed from this 33 KV Grid Sub Station, it was through that the disruption of supply was
on account of failure of supply from the Grid Sub Station and the same might have been
restored when supply from the Sub Station resumed. However when the complainant again
informed that supply of his house was still disrupted, the staff was deputed at 7.55 hours and
it was found that two core PVC Service cable feeding the complainant’s house were broken.
Same was attended and the supply was restored. He regretted the inconvenience faced by
the consumer due to misunderstanding the reason of disruption of supply. He further
submitted that due to peak summer season the load on supply system is increasing gradually
causing number of power supply failure particularly during rainy/stormy days. He further
submitted that his office was trying to attend the complaints promptly to the satisfaction of the
consumers.
4. Through subsequent e-mail dated 26.6.2016, the complaint submitted that during 24 and 25
June 2016, the supply was again disrupted for about 4 hours. The telephone was not picked
up and he had to visit personally Sector 43 Office to lodge complaint. On their request the
person was called whose mobile number was provided to the complainant. Thereafter the
person came after 2 and half hours and told that the wire was found to be burnt. Another one
and half hour was taken to rectify the fault. Similar position occurred on 26th June when he
had to visit the office personally to lodge complaint as the phone was not being picked.
Through another e-mail dated 29 June, 2016, he stated that his complaint was attended after
6 hours after regular follow up.
5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the complainant did not attend. He
even did not submit written complaint as requested through the letter addressed to the
Nodal Officer for inviting comments. SDO along with his RA present during hearing
submitted that in general complaints are attended on priority but sometimes delay occurs
due to large number of complaints occurring during these months on account of heavy rains
and thunder storms. He further stated that there is shortage of staff besides the Sub
Division is being heaviest Sub Division with more than 41000 electricity connections spread
over 13 sectors and 6 villages. In the present case, the supply was restored at the earliest
possible with limited manpower and resources. He also explained that additional staff of
other sections was also being diverted to attend to the complaints when large number of
complaints are received. His office tries its best to maintain the power supply with the
existing strength. Regarding provision of telephone for receiving the complaints, he stated
that two landline phones with No. 0172-2603927 and 0172-2667859 are existing at the
Complaint Centre under his jurisdiction and are in working order. In addition, to facilitate
the general public for lodging their grievances regarding power supply and street light,
Consumer Facilitation Centre has been created at Sector-9, Head office which is working
round the clock with multiple lines with telephone No. 0172-4639999.
6. The Forum observed that the Sub Division caters to large number of consumers spread over
large area scattered over 13 Sectors and 6 villages and the frequency of power supply failure
increases manifolds during summer and rainy months. The Sub Division staff as submitted
by the SDO tried their best to maintain the power supply with limited resources. On going
through e-mails of the complainant, it has been observed that time taken to attend the faults
was on higher side. On the basis of these observations, the Nodal Officer is directed to look
into the existing system and take effective steps including deployment of additional staff on
temporary basis particularly during summer period to ensure that the complaints regarding
power supply failure are attended promptly.
7. With above observations and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed. The
complainant may note that the telephone numbers of Complaint Office as well as telephone
number of Centralised Cell to lodge such complaints
8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put up
to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-65/2016
Date of Institution - 03.05.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Kmwaljit Singh Sehgal, House No. 1151, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 21.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Sub Divn.No.9 along with
RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 21.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 21.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-65/2016
Date of Institution - 03.05.2016 Date of Order - 21.06.2016
In the matter to Shri Kanwaljit Singh Sehgal, House No.1151,
Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Kanwaljit Singh Sehgal, resident of House No.1151, Sector 44-B,
Chandigarh vide his letter, received in the office of CGRF on 3.5.2016 submitted
that the current bill for the period 25.1.2016 to 25.3.2016 received by him is
very much on higher side (Rs.57,335/-) against his normal bill of Rs.3000-4000.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-65/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 04.05.2016 for comments and action taken report along with
consumption data, with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 02.6.2016
submitted the reply. He stated that the meter of the complainant was replaced
on 15.4.2015, being defective. For the period, the defective meter was in place,
w.e.f. 25.1.2014 to 15.4.2015, the account has been overhauled @ 1202 units
per month on the basis of previous consumption recorded during the period
1/2012 to 1/2013. After adjusting the bills already paid, the short assessment
is Rs.52301/- which has been charged in the current bill as sundry charges. The
SDO also mentioned that the short assessment has been pointed out by the
Internal Auditor vide Half Margin No.1443 dated 18.2.2016. He also attached
the copy of MCO, Half Margin and consumption data.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 21.6.2016. While forwarding the hearing
notice, the reply submitted by the SDO was enclosed for information of the
complainant. The complainant as well as SDO and RA were present on date of
hearing on 21.6.2016. The complainant submitted that he was never informed
by the Meter reader/Bill Distributor/Electricity Department that the meter was
defective and the bills were being issued on average basis. Had Meter reader
informed him, he would have got new meter installed. On this plea, he stated
that the amount should not be charged from him and instead the amount be
charged from the meter reader. The SDO/RA stated that the bills were being
issued on average basis with meter status Code as ‘D’, Code for the defective
meter. With regard to query by the Forum, he stated that the meter could not
be replaced earlier due to non availability of the meter with the department.
During the hearing, it was also gathered that the complainant had already paid
1/3rd of the disputed amount along with current charges while making the
payment of disputed bill.
5. On the basis of the consumption data, MCO and Internal Auditor observations, it
is observed that the average has been correctly charged by the department to
the complainant. However keeping in view, the period of the charging which is
more than 12 months and the amount involved, the complainant request for
allowing him to clear the amount in instalments without levy of any surcharge is
accepted. The Nodal Officer is directed not to levy any surcharge on the
amount of sundry charges raised in the bill issued in the month of April 2016,
despite the fact that the full amount was not paid by due date. The balance
amount is allowed to be recovered in 3 equal bi-monthly instalments without
levy of any surcharge. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt
of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per
relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-63/2016
Date of Institution - 30.04.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Lovedeep Behal, House No. 2224, Pepsu Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 21.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.9 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 21.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 21.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-63/2016
Date of Institution - 30.04.2016 Date of Order - 21.06.2016
In the matter to Shri Lovedeep Behl, House No.2224, Pepsu Society,
Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Lovedeep Behl, resident of House No.2224, Pepsu Society, Sector 50-C,
Chandigarh through his e-mail dated 30th April, 2016 forwarded a copy of
representation made to SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9, Chandigarh. He stated
that he received bill dated 20.4.2016 amounting to Rs.37612/- including sundry
charges of Rs.37642/-. The sundry charges were based on average
consumption for the period 1/2014 to 27.2.2015 @ 818 Units per month on
account of meter defective, as gathered after discussions with the Sub Division.
He submitted that the meter stopped working in August 2015, where after he
registered a complaint with Electricity Department and with CGRF on August 12,
2014. The defective meter was replaced on 3rd March 2015 after orders of CGRF
dated 19.12.2014 in Complaint No.598. The average consumption of his house
after replacement of new meter is around 180 units per month where as the
Sub Division charged 818 units per month for the period Jan. 2014 to Feb.
2015. He further stated that he took the possession of house on 29.3.2014 and
logically the average consumption of electricity for charging should be based on
the recorded consumption, after installation of new meter. He enclosed copy of
disputed bill with the request to calculate the average on the basis of
consumption by the replaced meter.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-63/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 04.05.2016 for comments along with consumption data and connected
load as checked with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 02.6.2016
submitted the parawise reply. The SDO submitted that the domestic connection
stands in the name of Shri Narinder Gupta having sanctioned load of 7.980 KW.
The electricity meter was replaced vide MCO dated 9.5.2014 affected on
27.2.2015, with meter dead stop. On account of dead stop meter, average has
been charged w.e.f. 22.1.2014 to 27.2.2015 (13 months) @ 818 units per
month on the basis of consumption recorded during the period 1/2013 to
1/2014. After adjusting the amount already paid, short assessment of
Rs.37642/- was assessed and charged through sundry. Copy of MCO as well as
consumption data was enclosed with the reply.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.6.2016. Both the SDO along with
his RA as well as complainant, were present. The complainant re-iterated his
written submissions and submitted that the overhauling of the account for the
period meter remained defective on the basis of past consumption of earlier
occupant is not logical/ in order. As a proof of purchase of house, he supplied
copy of GPA dated 17th July 2014 signed by Shri Narinder Gupta, the owner.
He prayed for overhauling the account on the basis of his consumption recorded
by the replaced meter. The SDO submitted that the account has been
overhauled on the basis of provision of the Supply Code that past consumption
should be taken as a base for overhauling.
5. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant moved in the house in
the month of March 2014. He stated that as he lives alone, his consumption is
much less than that of the previous occupant. The Forum sees logic in his
argument that for overhauling the period, the meter remained defective, his
future consumption subsequent to installation of correct meter be adopted.
6. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, it has been noted that
the meter became dead stop in March, 2014 which coincide with the month
complainant shifted in the house. The meter was replaced in Feb. 2015. Now
more than one year consumption of the new meter is available with the sub
division, though not supplied in the consumption data.
7. On the basis of above facts and arguments made by the complainant, Sundry
charges levied by the sub division is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to
rework out the average on the basis of consumption of one year after
replacement of meter for charging during the period meter remained defective
i.e. from March 2014 to Feb. 2015, when the occupant of the house was the
complainant. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the
order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per
relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-86/2016
Date of Institution - 21.05.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Rajiv Sharma, House No. 3157/2, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 21.07.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.9 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 21.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 21.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-86/2016
Date of Institution - 21.05.2016 Date of Order - 21.07.2016
In the matter to Shri Rajiv Sharma, House No. 3157/2, Sector 44-D,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9 Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Rajiv Sharma, resident of House No. 3157/2 Sector 44-D, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated May 21, 2016 submitted that supply of electricity of his
house went off at around 12 O’clock in the night on 19.5.2016. He made a
complaint and got the answer that it would be rectified soon. But nothing was
done and he kept on waiting for about 4 hours before he again called the
complaint office. He got reply that the delay was on account of availability of
only one driver/vehicle which had just returned from Sector 41 after attending
the complaint. and his complaint would be attended soon. After about one hour
his power supply was restored, though the complainant was made to boil for the
whole night. On 20th May, 2016, power supply again failed at around 10 PM.
He could not contact the complaint centre as the telephone number was found
busy despite many tries. He went to the office to see large number of people
arguing with the staff for proper power supply to their residences. The
complainant had commented that though the area of 14 sectors plus villages
were being covered by the Sub Division, only 4 persons were provided to deal
with the complaints. For receiving complaints only one telephone number was
provided. He also commented that city was trying to achieve the status of
Smart City, but the state of affairs in the electricity department is at its poorest
level.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-86/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 24.5.2016 for comments/action taken report, with a copy to the
complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days as
per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 21.6.2016,
with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, submitted para-wise reply. He
stated that L.T. line conductor in Sector 44-D Chandigarh feeding the house of
the complainant broke down on 19.5.2016 which was attended during night
hours. On next day i.e. 20th May 2016 the supply was interrupted in most of the
area of Chandigarh due to heavy rain and thunder storms resulting into falling
of trees on the supply line. All out efforts were made to restore the supply at the
earliet possible. With regard to comments on the vehicles/staff and telephone
number in the complaint office, he submitted that the contract of 2 No. drivers
had expired, which has now been extended. The department had two vehicles
which are deployed round the clock. In addition one No. pick up jeep along
with driver (which has also been engaged through outsourcing) was used to
attend the consumer complaints promptly. The Sub Division has more than
41000 electricity connections spread over 13 sectors and 6 villages. His office
tried best to maintain the power supply with the existing strength. Additional
staff of other Sections was also diverted to attend the complaints. He further
submitted that process of outsourcing of Lineman, Assistant Lineman is already
under process at the level of higher authorities. Regarding provision of
telephone for receiving the complaints, he stated that two landline phones with
No. 0172-2603927 and 0172-2667859 are existing at the Complaint Centre
under his jurisdiction and are in working order. In addition, to facilitate the
general public for lodging their grievances regarding power supply and street
light, Consumer Facilitation Centre has been created at Sector-9, Head office
which is working round the clock with multiple lines with telephone No. 0172-
4639999.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the complainant did not
attend. He even did not submit written complaint as requested through the
letter addressed to the Nodal Officer for inviting comments. SDO along with his
RA present during hearing submitted that the in general complaints are attended
on priority but sometimes delay occurs due to large number of complaints
occurring during these months on account of heavy rains and thunder storms.
He further stated that as already explained in the written submissions there is
shortage of staff besides the Sub Division is being heaviest Sub Division with
more than 41000 electricity connections spread over 13 sectors and 6 villages.
In the present case, the supply was restored at the earliest possible and
thereafter no further complaint regarding disruption of supply was received from
the complainant,
5. Observing that the complaint was attended to the satisfaction of the
complainant, complaint is consider as disposed. The complainant may note that
the telephone numbers of Complaint Office as well as telephone number of
Centralised Cell to receive such complaints
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-40/2016
Date of Institution - 17.03.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Ravinder Mankad, House No. 1107/A, Progressive Coop. Society, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 21.07.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Sub Divn.No.9 along with
RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 21.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 21.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-40/2016
Date of Institution - 17.03.2016 Date of Order - 21.07.2016
In the matter to Shri Ravinder Mankad, House No.1107A,
Progressive Co-op. Society, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9 Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri R.K.Mankad, resident of House No.1107A, Progressive Co-op. Society,
Sector 50-B, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated March 17, 2016 submitted
that he had paid electricity bills up to date, but still the arrears were being
shown in the bill. He made last payment of Rs.22,000/- on 11.2.2016 but that
was not reflected in the recent bill issued by the electricity department. It was
further submitted that he gave an application to the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.
No.9 on 1.2.2016 that his house remains closed and thus bill should be sent on
actual basis or on minimum charges basis. The arrears in the current bill were
RS.24,166/-.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-40/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 22.3.2016 for comments/action taken report, with a copy to the
complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 15.6.2016
with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4 submitted that bill issued to the
complainant was correct and prepared on actual consumption. As he was not
making the payment of the electricity bills since 24.9.2014, the arrears
accumulated to Rs.24,185/- which was reflected in the disputed bill. The
complainant cleared the arrears of Rs.24,166/- on 28.3.2016. The consumption
data was also enclosed with the reply.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the complainant did not
attend. He even did not submit written complaint as requested earlier. SDO
along with his RA present during hearing submitted that the arrears were on
account of non payment of electricity bills since Sept.2014. The complainant
during his visit to the Sub Division was explained the reasons of arrear to his
satisfaction. Thereafter he made the payment on 28.3.2016 including arrears.
5. The Forum observed that the complainant got satisfied with the amount of
arrears shown in the bill and thereafter made the payment. The complaint is
consider as disposed in view of his making the payment of amount disputed by
him in the complaint.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-73/2016
Date of Institution - 09.05.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Sh. Vinod Kumar, House No. 383, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 16.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.9 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 16.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 16.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-73/2016
Date of Institution - 09.05.2016 Date of Order - 16.06.2016
In the matter to Shri Vinod Kumar, House No.383, Sector 45-A,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Vinod Kumar, resident of House No.383, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh through
his e-mail dated May 9, 2016 submitted that meter reader wrongly recorded the
reading as 6359 on 20.2.2016, though the current reading on date was much
less. He also supplied photo copy of the bill and picture of the meter showing
reading as 6229.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-73/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 11.05.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 06.06.2016
submitted that the electricity bill of the consumer was revised and adjustment of
Rs.1051/- was credited after verification of the reading. He also enclosed copy
of the revised bill prepared with verified reading. Copy of the letter and revised
bill was also forwarded to the consumer for information.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 16.6.2016. The consumer did not
attend. The SDO submitted that the bill of the complainant has already been
revised and adjustment of Rs.1051/- was reflected in the bill which was issued
on 29.5.2016.
5. Observing that the grievance had already been redressed, the case is
considered as disposed. Further, in case the adjusted amount of Rs.1051/- was
not credited in the bill is issued on 29.5.2016, the complainant may again
approach to CGRF.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-62/2016
Date of Institution - 27.04.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, House No. 1076, Progressive Enclave, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 16.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.9 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 16.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 16.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-62/2016
Date of Institution - 27.04.2016 Date of Order - 16.06.2016
In the matter to Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Huse No.1076, Progessive
Enclave, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, resident of House No.1076, Progressive Enclave, Sector
50-B, Chandigarh through her e-mail dated April 27, 2016 stated that while
proceeding to USA, she paid Rs.3000/- as advance payment to the Electricity
Department against the bill dated 22nd July 2015. The amount was credited in
the account of previous owner of the flat and the same has not been adjusted
despite visit to the sub division.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-62/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 28.04.2016 for comments/action taken report with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.9 vide his letter dated 30.5.2016
submitted that the complainant applied for change of name on 12.12.2014. The
complainant made the payment of Rs.3000/- against old account number on
22.6.2015. Since she had applied for change of name, a new account number
was allotted and the old account was closed. He further submitted that
adjustment of Rs.3000/- has been made through sundry allowance on
20.5.2016 against her account and same would be reflected in the bill to be
issued on 24.6.2016.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 16.6.2016. The consumer did not
attend. The SDO submitted that the grievance of the complainant has already
been redressed and the adjustment of Rs.3000/- (Disputed amount) would be
reflected in the bill to be issued on 24.6.2016.
5. Observing that the grievance had already been redressed, the case is considered
as closed. Further, in case the adjustment is not reflected in the bill to be
issued on 24.6.2016, the complainant may again approach CGRF.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-75/2016
Date of Institution - 14.05.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Silky Goyal, House No. 367, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 21.07.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 23.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.9 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9.
The Forum in its sitting on 23.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 21.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 21.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-75/2016
Date of Institution - 14.05.2016 Date of Order - 21.07.2016
In the matter to Smt. Silky Goel, House No.367, Sector 45-A,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.9 Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. An e-mail dated May 14, 2016 was received from “[email protected]”
stating that electricity meter of House No.367, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh was not
working and requested for replacement of the meter. It was also mentioned
that there were loose connections affecting the power supply.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-75/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 16.05.2016 for comments/action taken report, with a copy to the
complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days.
3. The concerned SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.9 vide his letter dated 6.6.2016
with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4 stated that the defective meter of
the complainant was replaced on 3.6.2016 being burnt meter. He enclosed
copy of MCO along with his reply.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 21.7.2016, the complainant did not
attend. Neither written complaint was filed as requested. SDO along with his RA
present during hearing submitted that the defective meter (burnt) was replaced
on 3.6.2016, thus redressing the grievances of the complainant.
5. The Forum observing that the grievances of the complainant has already been
redressed, considers the complaint as disposed.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-144/2016
Date of Institution - 22.8.2016 Date of Order - 23.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Shashi Kiran, House No.1677, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Shri R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Smt. Shashi Kiran, resident of House No.1677, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh vide her
representation dated 22.8.2016 submitted that the subject cited house has been
allotted to her husband namely Shri Jaspal Singh working in the Employment
Generation & Training Department, Government of Panjab. Her husband has
filed a Divorce case in the Hon’ble Panjab & Haryana High Court and the same
is listed for hearing on 8.12.2016. In the meantime he preferred an application
before the Hon’ble District Court with the prayer to issue directions for vacation
(by her) of the said house allotted to him. The Hon’ble District Court vide order
dated 16.9.2015 under Para 6 issued following directions.
“ In this regard, this court is of the view that a valid marriage
between the parties still exists and no decree for separation has been passed yet by the Court, therefore, the respondent wife has a right to live in the residence of the husband. She cannot be treated
as trespasser or licensee in the premises, therefore, no directions can be issued to her to vacate the premises.”
Thereafter her husband got himself transferred at Ropar and applied
respective departments for disconnection of water and electricity connection.
The electricity connection was disconnected by the SDO electricity, when
contacted, he refused to reconnect the electricity supply. She prayed for
reconnection of the electricity connection stating that they have two children
son aged 22 years and daughter aged 13 years and also that she is suffering
from Endometrial Polyps in Uterus and has to undergo surgery at GMSH,
Sector-16, Chandigarh. She enclosed copy of orders of the Court, Medical
prescription and copy of the electricity bill.
2. The representation registered as Complaint No. GR-144/2016 was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 22.8.2016 for parawise comments. Directions were also issued
to reinstall the electricity connection, with a copy to the complainant.
3. On 23rd August 2016, Shri Jaspal Singh, Husband of the complainant
submitted an application stated that he was allotted the said house vide
Chandigarh Administration letter dated 24.5.2010. Thereafter he was
promoted as Supdt. on 31.12.2015 and was posted in Ropar. He took over
the charge of Supdt. at Ropar on 1.1.2016 and is continuing there till date.
He also stated that he is staying at Ropar only. As per the instructions, one
can retain the Government Accommodation for six months only on transfer
which has been completed on 30.6.2016 in his case. To avoid penal rent, he
approached the electricity department in Sector-23 for disconnection of
electricity connection of the said house and requested for issue of NDC
before surrendering the house. On getting the information that his wife
whose separation case is pending in the District Court since September,
2014, had approached this Forum for reconnection of the electricity
connection of the said house, he moved this application. Stating that the
said house in which the applicant is residing along with her children is a
Government accommodation and not a personal property. The government
accommodation has to be vacated in view of his transfer out of Chandigarh.
Stating that retaining of house further would attract penal rent @ 50 times
the normal rent, he is approaching the concerned offices for issuance of
NDC. He also stated that his retirement is due in May 2017 and he has to
complete the formalities of NDC before that date. Stating that his wife owns
a house No.5082 in Sector 38 West, Chandigarh, which has been rented out,
he prayed for review of the orders of the reconnection. He supplied copy of
allotment letter dated 24.5.2010, promotion orders and the instructions
regarding retention of the Government accommodation after transfer.
4. In view of the application by Shri Jaspal Singh submitting the factual
position, it was decided to hear both the parties along with the Nodal Officer
or his representative. Telephonic message in this regard were sent to all
concerned on 23.8.2016 with the request to make it convenient to attend the
hearing at 3.00 P.M. on 23.8.2016 to deliberate on the representation
submitted by Shri Jaspal Singh .
5. The complainant when informed refused to attend the hearing. However,
Shri Jaspal Singh along with concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.1
attended the hearing on the notified date and time. Shri Jaspal Singh
submitted that the electricity connection was in his name for which he had
already requested for disconnection. He further submitted that he joined his
new posting at Ropar on 1.1.2016 and starting residing there thereafter.
He allowed his family to stay in the house allotted to him for more than six
months. Though after six months penal rent becomes 50 times the normal
rent. The applicability of penal rent w.e.f. July 2016 compelled him to
surrender the house to avoid the penal rent. With a view to obtain NDC, he
approached the Sub Division for disconnection of the electricity connection to
clear the up to date dues. SDO submitted that reconnection has already
been done on 23.8.2016 as per orders of CGRF dated 22.8.2016. He further
pointed out that the electricity connection is in the name of Shri Jaspal Singh
and his consent is required for continuation of the electricity connection in his
name. To a query, he submitted that the applicant namely Smt. Shashi
Kiran cannot get electricity connection in her name as the said house was not
allotted to her.
6. This Forum on the basis of the submissions made by Shir Jaspal Singh as
well as by SDO and the documents placed before the Forum, observed that
the directions issued by the Hon’ble District Court vide order dated
16.9.2015 that the applicant namely Smt. Shashi Kiran has right to live in
the residence of the husband were issued at the time when Shri Jaspal Singh
was posted in Chandigarh. As on date he is posted at Ropar and cannot
retain the house allotted to him without paying penal @ 50 times of the
normal rent. The applicant Smt. Shashi Kiran is also a Government
employee, should have foreseen this aspects that the premises in which they
are living is Government accommodation and has to be vacated after six
months of transfer i.e. by 30.6.2016 to avoid penal rent. She should have
approached the House Allotment Committee for allotment of this house in her
name or another house as per her entitlement out of turn in view of
transfer of her husband. However, looking at the present situation and other
facts such as necessity of the electricity connection, vacation of house to
avoid penal rent etc, the Forum suggested the co-applicant Shri Jaspal Singh
to allow the applicant to reside in the said house for sometime so that she
can make alternative arrangements. On the suggestions by the Forum, co-
applicant Shri Jaspal Singh agreed to allow her to live in the said house up to
31st August 2016, provided the electricity charges for the period 23.8.2016 to
31.8.2016 are paid by Smt. Shahsi Kiran.
7. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to continue the reconnected
electricity connection up to 31.8.2016. The connection be disconnected on
31.8.2016 and NDC be issued to Shri Jaspal Singh after outstanding dues of
electricity are cleared by Smt. Shahsi Kiran/Sh. Jaspal Singh.
8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-61/2016
Date of Institution - 27.04.2016 Date of Order - 24.08.2016
In the matter to Er. Seema Bahga, House No. 139, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 30.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 24.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.1 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.1.
The Forum in its sitting on 24.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 30.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 30.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-61/2016 Date of Institution - 27.04.2016
Date of Order - 30.05.2016
In the matter to Er. Seema Bahga, House No.139, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Er. Seema Bahga, resident of House No.139, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh
vide her e-mail dated April 27, 2016 stated that Rs.3643/- were levied as
sundry charges for the period 13.5.2012 to 13.05.2013 vide Memo. dated
16.3.2016 by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 without providing any
details.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-61/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1
vide letter dated 28.4.2016 for comments and action taken report with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 11.5.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1. The SDO in his reply
submitted that the meter of the consumer was changed on 10.7.2015 as
totally burnt with final reading not visible. The amount of Rs.3643/- has
been charged to the consumer account for the period 13.5.2015 to
10.7.2015 @ 413 units per month calculated on the base of average of
consumption recorded during the period 13.5.2012 to 13.5.2013. He
also supplied copy of MCO as well as consumption data.
4. The reply furnished by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the
complainant for her information and feedback vide letter dated
13.5.2016.
5. On the date of hearing on 27.5.2016, the complainant did not attend,
despite the prior intimation vide letter dated 23.5.2016. The SDO ‘OP’
Sub Division No.1 explained the base of charging of the disputed amount.
The complainant, when contacted on phone showed her satisfaction to
the reply given by the SDO and also confirmed that she had already made
the payment of dispute amount. She also conveyed that no more hearing
may be conducted and case be closed.
6. The Forum observing that consumer showed her satisfaction to the
charging done by the Sub Division, considers that the complaint has been
redressed.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the
case would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins
for concurrence/opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-53/2016
Date of Institution - 08.04.2016 Date of Order - 24.08.2016
In the matter to Sh. Kuldeep Singh Sabharwal, House No. 704, First Floor, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 30.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 24.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.1 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.1.
The Forum in its sitting on 24.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 30.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 30.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-53/2016 Date of Institution - 08.04.2016
Date of Order - 30.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Kuldip Singh Sabharwal, House No.704, 1st Floor, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Kuldip Singh Sabharwal, resident of House No. 704, 1st Floor, Sector 22-A,
Chandigarh through e-mail dated 8 April, 2016 submitted that he received a
SMS on 7.4.2016 from E-Sampark that electricity bill for Rs.6741/- is payable on
22.4.2016. Submitting that his previous bills were amended in line with the
orders issued by the CGRF and were paid by him, he stated that he has not
been regularly residing in the premises for the last three years and as such
consumption of the electricity may be nominal. He requested for verification
and correction of the bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-53/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide letter
dated 12.4.2016 for comments and action taken report with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 12.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted
by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1 duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply stated
that the bill of the consumer for the period 10.1.2016 to 10.3.2016 included a
sum of Rs. 6624/- as sundry charges. He further stated that these charges
were inadvertently charged to the consumer by the audit section. On detection
of the mistake, the same has been rectified by allowing an allowance of
Rs.6894/- to be reflected in the next bill. Rectification of the bill and allowing
an allowance of Rss.6849/- was also conveyed to the complainant vide letter
dated 10.5.2016. He enclosed copy of letter written to the complainant.
4. The complainant did not attend the hearing on 30.5.2016, despite the prior
intimation vide letter dated 23.5.2016. The SDO reiterated the written
submissions that the amount was charged inadvertently by mistake.
5. The Forum observed that for redressal of the complaint the Sub Division
confirmed taking appropriate action. The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure that
the proper sundry allowance advice is sent to the Computer Cell in time so that
the same is incorporated in the next bill.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case
would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for
concurrence/opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-54/2016
Date of Institution - 10.04.2016 Date of Order - 24.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, House No. 2148, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 30.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 24.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant as well as
SDO were present. The complainant in regard to orders of the Forum submitted that he is
taking appropriate action for shifting the meter outside as a permanent solution to the
problem. He also state that he is making arrangement to convey the reading to meter
reader as and when the premises is found locked by him.
3. As the complaint did not raise any issue on the orders dated 30.05.2016 issued by the
Forum, it is safely presumed that his grievance stands addressed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
4. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-54/2016 Date of Institution - 10.04.2016
Date of Order - 30.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, House No.2148, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, Senior Citizen through letter dated 10.4.2016 stated
that a Booth No. 2422-B, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh was earlier given on lease till
31.12.2015. The said premises is lying vacant since January 2016 and is not in
use since then. He further stated that he received a bill dated 21.3.2016 for
average consumption of 1015 units (without indicating reading) of Rs.5062/- .
He requested for amendment of the bill on the basis of actual consumption as
nobody is using the booth since 31.12.2015.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-54/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide letter
dated 12.4.2016 for comments and action taken report with a copy to the
complainant to submit a written complaint, which was received on 21.4.2016
duly signed.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 11.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted
by the SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.1. The SDO in his reply stated that the bill under
consideration for the period 22.12.2015 to 22.02.2016 was prepared on L-Code
i.e. ‘premises locked’ for average consumption of 1015 units as premises was
found locked. The consumer now has provided reading of the electricity meter
and next bill of the consumer will be prepared on actual reading with adjustment
of average charged during the disputed bill. He also prayed that the consumer
may be advised to get the meter shifted outside so as to avoid issuance of bill
on PL basis.
4. The reply furnished by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the complainant for
his information and feedback vide letter dated 13.5.2016.
5. On the date of hearing on 27.5.2016, the complainant did not attend, despite
the prior intimation vide letter dated 23.5.2016. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division
No.1 stated that the bill was prepared on locked basis and the average charged
during the bill will be adjusted when bill will be prepared on reading provided by
the complainant.
6. As submitted by the SDO, the consumer may approach the Sub Division for
shifting of meter outside in order to avoid preparation of bill on average basis, in
case he proposed not to give booth on rent in future.
7. The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure that the next bill is issued on reading
with adjustment of average charged along with surcharge amount. The
complainant may approach again in case next bill is not issued on the basis of
reading provided by him to the Sub Division.
8. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case
would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for
concurrence/opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-26/2016
Date of Institution - 15.02.2016 Date of Order - 24.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Gurcharan Singh, SCF 13-14, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Gurcharan Singh, owner of SCF 13-14, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through his
application dated 15.2.2016 submitted that on receipt of a notice from the
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 that a sum of Rs.1,30,902/- is due from him. He
approached the Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, but no action was
taken. The bill is continuesly to be issued with surcharge, forcing to him to
approach the CGRF.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-26/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 16.2.2016 for parawise comments, consumption data and
connected load as checked. Simultaneously it was also conveyed that the
case would be heard on 22.3.2016 in the office of CGRF. Subquently vide
letter dated 18.2.2016, the applicant was advised to make payment of
Rs.65000/- (about 50% of the disputed amount) besides current cycle
charges within seven days in order to avoid the disconnection of his
electricity supply.
3. The complainant vide his letter dated 26.2.2016, after making the payment
of Rs.80,000/- including Rs.65000/-, as advised by the CGRF, requested for
deciding his case on priority. He supplied copy of bill along with copy of
demand draft and receipt of e-Sampark Centre.
4. On 22.3.2016, the complainant as well as SDO, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division
No.1 along with his RA were present. It was noted that reply from Nodal
Officer was not received. The complainant submitted that during the period
his account was overhauled, the premises was lying unoccupied, resulting
into less consumption than the average. The complainant was directed to
submit documentary evidence in support of his statement, that the premises
was lying vacant during the disputed period. The SDO was also directed to
expedite the submission of the reply.
5. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 8.4.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the concerned SDO duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply
submitted that there are two connections in the name of Shri Gurcharan
Singh at the said premises. The disputed connection is in respect of A/c No.
2255/745304A with sanctioned load of 16.4 KW. The meter of the consumer
was changed on 12.1.2015 as totally burnt with final reading not visible.
Thereafter an average was charged w.e.f. 22.10.2013 to 12.1.2015 @ 2450
units per month on the basis of consumption recorded during 8/12 to 8/13.
Elaborating on the period, he submitted that the old meter was showing less
consumption since 22.8.2013 as compared to previous bills due to which the
account was overhauled w.e.f. 22.8.2013. On the issue of premises lying
vacant, as stated by the complainant, he submitted that no period has been
specified in his application and further no temporary connection was taken
during the period the renovation was carried out. He supplied copy of MCO
and the consumption data.
6. The reply by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the complainant vide letter
dated 10.5.2016 for his information and feedback.
7. The complainant vide his letter dated 17.5.2016 submitted a copy of lease
deeds entered into on 18th April 2012 and 24th October 2013.
8. On the notified date of hearing on 24.8.2016, the complainant as well as
SDO were present. The complainant submitted that previous tenant though
initially entered into lease deed for a period of nine years vacated the
premises in August 2013. Thereafter a fresh deed was entered into on
24.10.2013. Though the possession was taken over in December 2013,
business started after completing some renovation work thereafter. The
SDO submitted that no intimation regarding the vacancy/renovation was
conveyed to the Sub Division.
9. The Forum on the basis of submissions made by the complainant, observed
that the consumption dropped significantly w.e.f. August 2013 suggesting
that the tenant vacated the premises as the bills were issued on ‘Z’ code i.e.
meter working O.K. The extract of reading as provided by the Nodal Office
are reproduced below:-
Period New Reading Old Reading Units Code
22.02.13 to 22.4.13 20317 15196 5121 Z
22.4.13 to 22.6.13 25.46 20317 4729 Z
22.6.3 to 22.8.13 29399 25046 4353 Z
22.8.13 o 22.10.13 29440 29399 41 Z
22.10.13 to 22.12.13 29661 29440 221 Z
22.12.13 to 22.2.14 30131 29661 470 Z
22.2.14 to 22.4.14 30610 30131 479 Z
22.4.14 to 22.6.14 - 30610 479 A
22.6.16 to 22.8.14 34744 30610 4134 Z 4
Months
22.8.14 to 22.10.14 35928 34744 1184 Z
22.10.14 to 22.12.14 - 35928 1720 K
22.12.14 to 22.2.15 828 4 824 Y
22.2.15 to 22.4.15 2149 828 1321 Z
22.4.15 to 22.6.15 4640 2149 2491 Z
22.6.15 to22.8.15 6919 4640 2279 Z
It may be seen that the consumption again showed upward trend w.e.f. April
2014 recording the consumption of more than 4000 units for four months
which could be on account of occupancy by a new tenant. After the meter
was replaced on 12.1.2015 (due to burning of old meter), the recorded
consumption for the period Feb.2015 to December 2015 has been in the
range of 889 (during winter months) to 2491 units (during summer months)
per cycle of 2 months. The old meter also recorded consumption of 4143
units during the period 4/2014 to 8/2014 , comparable with the future
consumption recorded by the replaced meter during corresponding period
suggests that the meter was not defective during that period as considered
by the Sub Division. Immediately before the meter getting burnt, it recorded
1184 units during the period August to October 2014 which also matches
with the consumption recorded during the corresponding period in 2015.
From above analysis, it is clear that the meter was in working position till
October 2014 and got burnt during the period October 2014 to December
2014.
10. In view of above inference, overhauling done by the Sub Division is set aside.
The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the period only from 22.10.2014 to
12.1.2015 (date of MCO) on the basis of corresponding consumption
recorded by the replaced meter and not on the past consumption basis since
the tenant/occupant during the past period in 2013 was different.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections
of the Electricity Act 2003.
11. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
12. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-29/2016
Date of Institution - 18.02.2016 Date of Order - 24.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Onkar Singh, SCO 846, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.1, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Onkar Singh, owner of SCO No. 846, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through his
representation dated 18.2.2016 submitted that there are 3 Nos. floor-wise
electricity connections in the name of Shri Onkar Singh, Mrs. Manpreet Kaur and
Shri Rashbeg Singh in the said SCO. The account of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur was
overhauled by the Sub Division and sundry charges were levied. He approached
SDO as well as Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 for resolving the
dispute but to no avail, forcing him to approach the CGRF for settling the
dispute. He also requested for not to disconnect his supply till time decision and
to keep disputed amount pending.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-29/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 23.2.2016 for parawise comments on the representation and to
supply the connected load as checked and consumption data. The Nodal
Officer was also directed not to disconnect the supply in case consumer
makes payment of current amount of last two bills plus Rs.30,000/- out of
the disputed amount. The case was also listed for hearing on 22.3.2016
simultaneously.
3. On the date of hearing on 22.3.2016, the complainant as well as SDO,
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1 along with his RA were present. It was noted
that reply of the Nodal Officer was yet to be submitted. Accordingly, it was
decided to re-notify after receipt of the reply of the Nodal Officer.
4. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 8.4.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the concerned SDO duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply
submitted that the meter of the connection in the name of Mrs. Manpreet
Kaur was changed on 20.4.2014, as the same was found burnt. Thereafter
adhoc bills were issued for the period 11/2013 to 11/2014. On scrutiny of
the consumption data subsequently, it was found that the meter was showing
less consumption w.e.f. 10.9.2012 and accordingly the account was
overhauled. Further the meter installed on 20.10.2014 was changed on
6.2.2015 as dead stop, but subsequently was found to be working within
permissible limits when checked in M&P Lab on 20.3.2015. He enclosed
copy of MCO, M&P report and consumption data with his reply.
5. The reply by the Nodal Officer was forwarded to the complainant vide letter
dated 10.5.2016 for his information and feedback.
6. The complaint was notified for hearing on 30.5.2016 which was attended by
the complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division. The complainant during
the hearing submitted that the load of connection in the name of Mrs.
Manpreet Kaur was shifted to other connection when meter became defective
and as such the consumption was being recorded through other meter. He
requested to compare the total consumption of all the three connections in
support of his statement. The SDO was directed to supply consumption of all
the three connections for last five years along with connected load.
7. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his
letter dated 11.7.2016 forwarded the consumption data of all the three
connections w.e.f. May 2011 to March 2016.
8. The case was again notified for hearing on 24.8.2016, when the
complainant as well as SDO were present. The complainant re-iterated his
earlier submissions that the load was shifted and as such average should not
be charged. The Forum on scrutiny of the consumption data of all the three
connections did not find any merit in the statement of the complainant. No
appreciable change in the consumption of other two connections was noted.
The consumption of both these accounts was consistent. The complainant
also got convinced with the detailed analysis of the Forum and agreed for
overhauling the account of Mrs.Manpreet Kaur during the period mete
remained defective on the basis of past consumption of one year. On
further analysis of the consumption data, it was noted that the consumption
of connection of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur dropped significantly after September
2012 from average of 6000 units to around 1000 units for 2 months
indicating that the meter became defective after September 2012. The SDO
also supplied the connected load as checked on 5.2.2015. The checked load
of connection of Mrs. Manpreet Kaur was 15.5 KW equal to the sanctioned
load suggesting that there was no merit in the statement of the complainant
that the load of this connection was shifted to other connection when meter
became defective.
9. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account from
September 2012 to 6.2.2015(date of MCO) on the basis of one year
consumption recorded during the period September 2011 to September
2012. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order
failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant
sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
10. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
11. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-70/2016
Date of Institution - 06.05.2016 Date of Order - 29.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Bhushan Lal, House No. 2001, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 08.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 29.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.3 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.3.
The Forum in its sitting on 29.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 08.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 08.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-70/2016
Date of Institution - 06.05.2016 Date of Order - 08.06.2016
In the matter to Shri Bhushan Lal, House No.2001, Sector 19-C,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,
Chandigarh. 2. SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Bhushan Lal, Ex-Serviceman, resident of House No.2001, Sector 19-C,
Chandigarh through his complaint received in the office of CGRF on 6.5.2016
stated that he received a notice from SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide letter
dated 3.5.2016 to deposit Rs.1466/- within seven days. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub
Division No.3 issued the notice on the basis of ECR dated 20.4.2016 when it was
found that domestic connection was being used for commercial purpose i.e. for
Storage of goods/go down. The complainant submitted that there is no
commercial activity going on at the said premises. He further elaborated that
after death of his two sons, he stopped running of STD/PCO since 2010. He
further stated that he has two non CST shops in No.12 Wing, Air Force and
Sainik Rest House in Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. Some of the goods to be sold at
these shops are kept by the side of bed room in his house sometimes. He
prayed that the penalty imposed by SDO amounting to Rs.1466/- may be
waived, in view of above position, being Senior Citizen and his financial
condition due to death of his two sons.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-70/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter
dated 10.05.2016 for comments. The Nodal Officer was also requested to
intimate the area of the premises as well as area where proposed commercial
activity was going on. The notice issued by the SDO was also stayed till disposal
of the case.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated 16.5.2016
submitted that the electricity connection was checked by the staff of Division
Office on 20.4.2016, when it was found that the DS connection was being used
for storage of goods/go-down. Accordingly as per ECR, Rs.1466/- was charged
for difference of DS to NRS tariff for two years under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act.
4. While notifying the hearing date as 23.5.2016, the Nodal Officer was directed to
supply the total area as well as area of commercial activity. Due to non receipt
of reply from the Nodal Officer, hearing was postponed to 8.6.2016 vide letter
dated 18.5.2016.
5. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 31.5.2016 conveyed that one room of
size 5’x6’ at ground floor was being used for storage of material and half portion
of the Drawing room at ground floor was being used for residential purpose.
The total area of the house was 50 Sq.yds. Owner himself residing in the house
at ground floor except for one room of size 5’x6’.
6. On the date of hearing on 8.6.2016, the complainant as well as SDO ‘OP’ Sub
Division No.3 were present. The complainant submitted that after death of his
two sons, his Daughter-in-law are running the shop in Air Force area and Sainik
Rest House in Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. The material purchased for these two
shops were being kept at his place as temporary measure before transporting to
both the shops. He also submitted that apart from above, no commercial
activity is being conducted from his premises.
7. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 agreed that apart from storing of the material,
no other commercial activity was found to be conducted.
8. Observing that only small room of size 5’x6’ (30 Sq.ft.) was being used for
storing of goods as temporary measures before transporting the same to both
the shops run by his widowed Daughter-in-laws, it is concluded that no
commercial activity is being conducted such as sale of goods etc. from the
house. The Supply Code Regulations also permit certain category of consumers
to use DS connection for practising from their residence with area restricted to
25% of the area of the premises or 50 Sq. mtr. whichever is less. In addition,
cottage and commercial activity operating in residences have also been
permitted with total load of 5 KW domestic tariffs.
9. On the basis of above, charging of Rs.1466/- is set aside. Since the quorum of
the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would be put up to the
Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-49/2016
Date of Institution - 05.04.2016 Date of Order - 29.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Purushotam Gupta & Others, Shopkeepers of Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 23.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 29.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of Divn.No.3 along with RA
of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.3.
The Forum in its sitting on 29.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 23.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 23.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-49/2016 Date of Institution - 05.04.2016
Date of Order - 23.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Purushotam Gupta and others, the shopkeepers
of Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Purushotam Gupta and others, the shopkeepers of Sector 27-C,
Chandigarh through e-mail dated April 05, 2016 complained regular break
down of electricity for almost 4 to 5 hours. They contacted concerned JE
of the area but problem was not resolved.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-49/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 for
taking action and to submit report vide letter dated 18.04.2016 for
supplying para-wise comments with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No. 3 vide his letter dated
12.04.2016 submitted that the power supply of parts of sector 27-C
market was shut down on 01.04.2016 from 11.10 to 13.55 hours to
undertake preventive maintenance work with a view to ensure
uninterrupted power supply during summer season. The intimation of
proposed shut down was published in news papers also. He further
submitted that on 05.04.2016, power supply to sector 27-c, market
remained the suspended due to burning of main LT cable of transformer.
The supply was re-stored within one hour after attending the fault.
Stating that there was no complaint of break down during the period
20.03.2016 to 05.04.2016 as per complaint register, he attributed the
complaint regarding daily break down of electricity for 4 to 5 hours as
baseless.
4. The reply by the SDO was e-mail to the complainants on 21.04.2016 as
the mailing address was not indicated.
5. The case was notified for hearing on 23.05.2016 at 3.P.M. Sh. Gupta
along with some of the shopkeepers came at around 4.P.M. By the time,
the SDO had already left. Sh. Gupta stated that the problem of break
down improved after their complaint but they were again facing the
problem for last 1/2 days. It was observed that there was storm during
these days. The storm on 23.05.2016 was quite strong leading to
breakdown of electricity in many parts of the city and surrounding areas.
They were requested to contact the SDO No. 3 for their problem. During
hearing the SDO had already been directed to get the system checked to
locate the cuse of break down if any.
6. In the view of above, the nodal officer is directed to get the system
checked to indentify the reason for frequent break downs and to set it
right. The complainants may also contact the SDO on his mobile in case
the problem continues.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-84/2016
Date of Institution - 20.05.2016 Date of Order - 29.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Rakha Ram, House No.1021, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Rakha Ram, residing at House No.1021, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through
his e-mail dated May 20, 2016 submitted that he is running business of
Photostat-cum- Lamination from one room of size 9’x15’ on the ground floor of
his residence. Giving a reference of Order/Notification dated 19.6.1998, he
submitted that the consumers are allowed to use up to 20% of the area subject
to a maximum of 15 Sq. Mtrs. for running STD, PCO, Fax Photostat etc. He
further submitted that he received a notice from the SDO for Rs.17526/- on
account of applicability NRS tariff. He prayed for withdrawal of the amount of
Rs.17526/- in view of the instructions permitting NRS activities from the
residences where area being used for NRS is less than 20%.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-84/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide
letter dated 23.5.2016 for comments and also to supply the total area of
the premises as well as area being used for commercial activity also. A copy
was also sent to the complainant, with the request to submit a written
complaint within five days as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble
JERC.
3. In response, the complainant submitted the written complaint duly signed
on 21.5.2016.
4. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated
31.5.2016 submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant was
checked by the staff of the Division office vide ECR dated 20.4.2016. As it
was found that domestic supply was being used for commercial purpose i.e.
Photostat/Internet, the connection was treated as unauthorized Under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act and difference of tariff i.e. DS to NRS was
charged for 2 years amounting to Rs.17526/-. He further
commented that the total area is 192 Sq.Yds. and the one room of size
11’x10’ is being used for commercial purpose. He enclosed copy of ECR.
5. The complainant through subsequent e-mail dated June 25, 2016 requested
for issuing suitable directions to the SDO for keeping the charged amount
pending till settlement of the matter.
6. The complaint was notified for hearing on 14.7.2016 vide letter dated
28.6.2016. The complainant did not attend but the SDO ‘OP’ SubDiv.No.3
was present. Another opportunity was given to the complainant by listing the
case of the hearing on 29.8.2016. The complainant did not appear on this
date also. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.3 present during the hearing prayed
for dismissal of the case on the basis of written submissions made by him.
7. The Forum observed that the instructions dated 1998 referred to by the
complainant are not applicable today, with the notification of Supply Code
Regulations/Tariff Orders 2016 by the Hon’ble JERC coming into force. The
Supply Code Regulations exempt only following activities to be operated from
the residences and not to be treated as unauthorized use of electricity as per
sub regulation B (iv) of Regulation 10.1, reproduced below:-
“Professional such as Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers , CAs, Journalists and Consultant practicing from their residence
irrespective of location provided that such use shall not exceed 25% of the area of the premises or 50 Sq. meters, whichever is less
subject to installation of MDI meters.”
For cottage and commercial activities operating in residences such as repair of shoes by cobbler, dhobi, ironing of clothes, stitching/knitting, paan shop and bakery products etc. small shops,
tea shops etc. with total load (maximum demand) of 5 KW domestic tariff shall be applicable subject to installation of MDI meters. In
case where total load is more than 5 KW, separate metering shall be
done for commercial and domestic use and consumption shall be charged according to the tariff applicable.
8. The Forum from the notified tariff order for the period 2016-17 also
observed that running of Photostat/Internet business has not been permitted
to run from residential area under the relevant notes for applicability DS
tariff as reproduced below:- (Notes under Para 11.3 at Page 210).
i) Where a portion of the dwelling is used for mixed load purposes the
connection shall be billed for the purpose for which the tariff is higher. ii) Hostels shall be considered as one unit and billed under domestic
supply tariff without compounding. iii) Private education institutions not recognized by the Chandigarh
Administration shall be billed under Non Domestic Tariff.
iv) STD/PCO, shops attached to Religious Institutions will be billed under Non Domestic Tariff.
v) A room or a part of a residential house utilized by a teacher for imparting tuition work, self occupied handicapped persons operating
from their residences, cooking classes taken by house ladies, beauty parlour run by house ladies, ladies doing tailoring work etc. shall be covered under domestic tariff.
On perusal of the Notes (i) it is clear that where the dwelling units is
being used for mixed load purposes, the connection shall be billed for the
purpose for which tariff is higher i.e. NRS tariff in the present case. The Note
(v) does not include running of Photostat Machine etc. to be covered under
domestic tariff.
From the above, it is clear that the NRS tariff is to be charged as the
connection is being used for mixed load i.e. domestic as well as commercial
purpose.
9. The Forum observed that the notice issued to the consumer was not under
Section 126. Accordingly the case is not being considered as unauthorized
use of electricity. The Supply Code Regulations provides for method of
charging when it is observed that the applicability of tariff is different and
higher from the tariff being charged but the relevant regulation is silent
about the period of assessment which has been taken as 2 years by the SDO.
The Forum does not find it proper to charge for 2 years as done by SDO.
10. The Forum after going through the Supply Code finds that time period for
charging in such cases has been specified in the Supply Code Regulations
under Para 10.3 (c) (iv) reproduced below:-
“The assessment under Clause 10.3 (c) (iii) shall be limited to twice the financial loss caused to the department for the period
during which such unauthorized use has taken place i.e. two times
the difference of the electricity charges required to be paid by the consumer as per relevant category of tariff and electricity charges
actually paid during the period, subject to maximum period of 12 months.”
In views of above provision, the assessment is to be done for
maximum period of 12 month, where as SDO in his reply submitted that the
difference of domestic and NRS for a period of two years was charged. The
Nodal Officer is directed to reassess the charges strictly in line with the
provision of the Supply Code Regulations quoted above. The complainant
may exercise his option to obtain a separate NRS connection for the portion
of his residence which is being used for commercial activity such as Photostat
Machine/Lamination/Internet to avoid levy of NRS tariff for his portion being
used as residence.
11. With above decision and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed off
in aforementioned terms. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the
receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble
JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
12. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-23/2016 Date of Institution - 08.02.2016 Date of Order - 29.08.2016 In the matter to Shri Inderjit Singh, House No.3198, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.3, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Inderjit Singh, resident of House No.3198, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh vide his letter
dated 28.01.2015, submitted in the office of CGRF on 8.2.2016, stated that he was in
receipt of letter dated Jan.14, 2016 from SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 asking him to
deposit the pending payments. In this context, he drew attention towards his application to
the CGRF with regard to suspected jumping of meter which was however not accepted by
this Forum. His request to the Xen/SDO to divide the amount in five equal instalments on
the plea that he was retired officer surviving on pension was not accepted by the electricity
department. He requested this Forum for allowing him to deposit the amount in five equal
instalments and also to waive off the surcharge during pendency of his case.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-23/2016 was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 9.2.2016 for
comments and other relevant documents. Simultaneously, it was notified that the case
would be heard on 23.2.2016.
3. The concerned SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 vide his letter dated 15.2.2016
submitted that the consumer submitted a request on 26.11.2015 for allowing him to clear
the pending amount in five equal monthly instalments which was forwarded to the
Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3 being competent authority. However, the
approval was not accorded by the division office and consumer was informed vide
memo. dated 14.01.2016 to deposit the pending amount. He also submitted that
consumer did not pay the current bill within due date and the surcharge can not be
refunded as per Rules and Regulations of the Department. On the issue of pending
payment, he stated that notice was served to the consumer as per CGRF order dated
14.8.2015 to make the payment of outstanding amount within 15 days to avoid
disconnection of supply. However, consumer paid only two instalment - Rs. 30,000/- on
10.11.2015 and Rs.40,000/- on 28.12.2015.
4. The applicant vide his e-mail dated 23.2.2016, (the date of hearing) informed that he is
not well and requested for adjournment. The SDO present on 23.2.2016 did not raise
any objection to the request made by the applicant for adjournment. The next date was
notified as 21.3.2016 vide letter dated 2.3.2016 but again only SDO was present and the
consumer did not attend.
The applicant however, through his e-mail dated 26.3.2016 informed that he
received the hearing notice only on 2.3.2016 and thus could not make to attend the
same. The case thereafter was listed for hearing on 23.5.2016, the complainant as well
as SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.3 were present. The complainant requested for waiver off
surcharge during the pendency of the case and also to allow him to clear the pending
payment in five equal instalments apart from two instalments already paid by him. He
also informed that in addition to instalments he would also pay the current cycle charge.
Since the quorum was not complete, the request of the complainant for waiver off the
surcharge could not be taken up and was kept pending. However, keeping in view that
he is a retired Government Officer,
instructions were issued on 23.5.2016 to allow him to clear the outstanding amount as
was on his date of application i.e. 28.1.2016 in five equal bio-monthly instalments
without levy of surcharge plus the current consumption charges.
5. Subsequently on joining of a new member, quorum was achieved, the case was again
notified for hearing on 29.8.2016. The complainant as well as SDO ‘OP” Sub Division
No.3 were present. The complainant prayed for waiver off surcharge from the date he
made first application to the electricity department. The SDO informed that the
instalments were worked out as per instructions of the Forum dated 23.5.2016 issued
vide Memo. No. CGRF/Comp-GR-23/2016/942-43 dated 25.5.2016 and conveyed to
the complainant after obtaining his signatures.
6. The Forum on the basis of submissions made by both the parties, during hearing on
29.8.2016, observed that the complainant after receipt of high consumption bill for the
period August 2013 to December 2013 approached the concerned Sub Division vide his
letter dated 29.1.2014. The Sub Division got the meter checked and found same in
working order. Connected load was also found more than the sanctioned load. The
SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.3 did not find merit in the request made by the applicant and
asked him to make the payment vide letter dated 28.3.2014. However, meter was
sealed for checking at the M&P Lab when the consumer challenged the same. The
meter was got tested in the presence of consumer/representative on 17.4.2014 but the
errors were found within permissible limits. The consumer was thereafter asked to clear
the pending payments and was allowed to make payment in instalments. Thereafter
the consumer approached CGRF vide letter dated 27.5.2014. The request by the
complainant was considered by the Forum. On the basis of checking report,
consumption data and other documents placed before the Forum the request of the
consumer was not found justified. On the request made by the consumer, the meter
was also got tested at the lab of 3rd party i.e. PSPCL but again errors were found within
permissible limits. The Forum vide order dated 6.8.2015 concluded that working of the
disputed meter was correct and the amount charged to the consumer was as per rules.
The complainant thereafter approached the Division/Sub Division for allowing
him to clear the pending amount in five equal instalments which was not accepted by the
Division. Subsequently he was allowed to clear the payment in instalments, vide
instructions dated 23.5.2016 as referred in Para 5 above.
7. The Forum after deliberating the case decided as under:-
i) To confirm the instructions already issued allowing the complainant to clear the
pending amount in five equal instalments plus current consumption charges.
ii) As a special case keeping in view the status, as retired Govt. officer, age and
health of the applicant, Respondents are directed not to levy any surcharge from
the date, the applicant first moved his application to the SDO i.e. from 29.1.2014.
It is however clarified that surcharge would be applicable on the current
consumption charges in case not paid within due date. Further surcharge would also be
applicable in case the complainant defaults in making payment of instalment or current
consumption charges after the amount of instalment is conveyed to the complainant.
Directions are also issued for levy of surcharge only on the unpaid amount of bill rather
than full amount in case of part payment. The applicant, in his own interest, must
approach the Sub Division for regularisation of the excess load found at the time of
checking of the meter to keep the record regarding his load straight.
8. The complaint is considered as disposed off in aforementioned decision and directions.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the
penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity
Act 2003
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-42/2016
Date of Institution - 26.03.2016 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to M/s Anjali Arts, Plot No. 156, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 20.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 30.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.5..
The Forum in its sitting on 30.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 20.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 20.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-42/2016 Date of Institution - 26.03.2016
Date of Order - 20.05.2016
In the matter to M/s Anjali Arts, Plot No. 156, Industrial Area, Phase-II,Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. E-mail dated 20th March, 2016 was received from M/s Anjali Arts, Plot No.
156, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh where in it was indicated that
they did not receive electricity bill of Feb, 2016. Through return e-mail it
was advised to have duplicate bill by paying the requisite fee of Rs.5 or
Rs.10/- . Alternatively to visit Sampark Centre for knowing the bill and
making payment.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-42/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 2 vide letter dated 29.3.2016 for supplying para-wise
comments with a copy to the complainant.
3. In response, concerned AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter
dated 18.4.2016 submitted that the bills were regularly being issued and
delivered to the complainant. He also advised to get the duplicate bill or
downloaded from the website.
4. The reply of the Sub Division was forwarded to the complainant for his
information and feedback vide letter dated 26.04.2016.
5. On the date of hearing on 20.5.2016, the complainant did not attend.
The SDO as well as RA present on behalf of the sub division stated that
bills were being delivered regularly.
6. The Forum observed that no further communication has been received
from the complainant. Consider the complaint as redressed
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-138/2016
Date of Institution - 16.8.2106 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Sutinder Singh Chopra, House No.679, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Sutinder Singh Chopra, resident of House No.679, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh
through his letter dated 16.8.2016 submitted that the consumption recorded
during the period 23.9.2015 to 22.11.2015 was 44671 units which was much
much more than his average consumption of around 700 units per cycle. He
attributed this high consumption as a result of jumping of reading by the meter.
He also supplied the details of the consumption recorded by the meter from July
2013 onwards in support of his apprehension.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-138/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 16.8.2016 with the directions to submit parawise comments/
action taken report along with consumption data of last three years.
Directions were also issued to keep the balance amount (after receipt of the
current consumption charges) pending till the final disposal of the case. As
the consumer requested for early hearing because he was scheduled to leave
for Australia by 2nd September 2016, the case was notified to be heard on
30.8.2016.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 30.8.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the AEE. Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly countersigned.
The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply dated 26.8.2016
submitted that the mechanical electricity meter was replaced by the
electronic meter on 5.8.2015. He opined that the reading recorded on
22.11.2015 could be that of the old meter as 46038, found recorded in the
MCO. This reading could have been figured in due to inadvertent error by
staff of the Sub Division. A check meter was installed on 4.8.2016 to check
accuracy of the replaced meter, but as per report of check meter the error
was found within permissible limits. He offered to check the meter from M&P
or any other approved independent lab at the cost of applicant as permitted
under regulation 7.5.(2)(iii) of the Supply Code 2010. Refuting the
allegations of meter jumping, he stated that consumption of 4160 units
pertains to more than one year. He , therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
complaint. He supplied consumption data, MCO and copy of check meter
report.
4. On the notified date of hearing on 30.8.2016, the complainant as well as RA
of the Sub Division were present. The complainant attributed the recording
of high consumption during the period September to November 2015 on
account of meter jumping. The RA submitted that first bill after MCO was
issued for 296 units but subsequent four bills were issued on average basis
due to Inconsistent reading, premises locked, Inconsistent reading and
reading not taken for reason other than premises locked, before the final bill
issued on the basis of reading recorded on 26/6/2016. He also provided the
details of the recorded reading as per the office record on various dates as
under:-
Sr.No. Period Reading Bill prepared/(code)
1. 26.8.2015 296 As per reading (Z code)
2. 26.10.2015 46767 Average (I code)
3. 26.12.2015 - Average (L code)
4. 26.2.2016 48136 Average (I code)
5. 26.4.2016 - Average (N code)
6. 26.6.2016 41456 As per reading (Z code)
7. 5.8.2016 49850 -do-
8. 20.8.2016 50005 -do-
From the above details provided by the Sub Division, the Forum
observed that the readings as per the office record on 26.10.2015 and
26.2.2016 as 46767 and 48136 are more than the reading recorded on
26.6.2016 as 41456. Further the reading as per check meter report was
found to be 49850 on 5.8.2016. Thus no consistency in recording of the
reading was observed. It, however, appears that reading recorded on
26.10.2015 and 26.2.2016 were right but was considered Inconsistent due to
high consumption and thus ignored. The reading of 41456 recorded on
26.6.2016 appears to be wrongly recorded, in view of the reading as per
check meter report on 5.8.2016.
5. From the above analysis, it appears that the meter recorded consumption of
46471 units (46767-296) during the period August to October 2015 which is
very much on higher side as compared to his past average consumption as
well as connected load of 14.360 KW and may be on A/c of jumping of
reading as contended by the complainant.
6. In view of above inference, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the meter
replaced immediately. He is also directed to overhaul the account from the
period meter was installed i.e. from 5.8.2015 to date of replacement of the
disputed electronic meter on the basis of consumption recorded during the
corresponding period in the year 2014-2015.
7. The complainant also stated during the hearing that he has already made
payment in excess of his actual use/average consumption. He, however,
requested that in case, after overhauling, some payment is still to be made,
he would pay the same immediately after returning from Australia. However,
his connection should not be disconnected in case the payment is not made
by him being out of India. The Forum in view of his request, allows him to
clear the bills immediately after his arrival in India and directs the Nodal
Officer not to disconnect his supply till November 2016 due to non payment
of outstanding amount, if any.
8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-92/2016
Date of Institution - 02.06.2016 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, House No. 1868, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1868, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh
through his e-mail dated June 2, 2016 submitted that he received the bill which
was not prepared on actual reading but on average of 200 units. He submitted
that the average being charged was on higher side. He got transferred recently
from Delhi and kept his family at Ghaziabad is residing alone in the premises
and that too for around 20 days in a month.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-92/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 02.06.2016 for parawise comments, with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 1.7.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the AEE. Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly countersigned.
The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply submitted that the meter
was defective during the period 20.4.2014 to 20.6.2016 and the bills were
being issued for ‘Nil’ consumption. The defective meter was replaced on
2.6.2016 and thereafter the account was overhauled w.e.f. 20.8.2014 to
6.6.2016 on the basis of provisional load basis as per Sale Manual
Instructions No.115 of the department, subject to adjustment on the basis of
future consumption. He enclosed copy of MCO, Consumption data, Notice
issued to the complainant before overhauling the account and Instruction
No.115 dated 16.2.2000.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 19.7.2016. The SDO along with
his RA were present but the complainant did not turn up. Another
opportunity was offered to the complainant on 30.8.2016, but again the
complainant did not attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division
reiterated the written submissions.
5. The Forum on the basis of consumption data observed that the consumption
was in the range of 15 to 56 units during the period 20.10.2013 to
20.8.2014 before recording ‘Nil’ consumption. The Forum also noted that
Sale Manual Instructions referred to by the Division was not relevant with
the notification of Supply Code Regulations by the Hon’ble JERC. As per the
submissions made by the consumer that he is having only one 14 Watt. CFL
Lamp and 60 Watt. Ceiling fan, the Forum is of the view that the
consumption of 200 units is not achievable with the appliances being used by
the complainant. The previous consumption recorded by the meter before,
it got damaged, also support the complainant’s statement. In view of above,
the Forum sets aside the overhauling done by the Sub Division. The Nodal
Officer is directed to get the account overhauled once it got of one year
consumption by the replaced meter is available.
6. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-68/2016
Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No. 107, Phase-2, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 15.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 30.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.5.
The Forum in its sitting on 30.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 15.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 15.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-68/2016
Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 15.06.2016
In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No.107, Phase II, Ram
Darbar, Chandigarh
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No2,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Deepak Goya through his e-mail dated May 4, 2016 submitted that the
electricity supply to his Booth No.107, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh is not
available since last night. Despite registering a complaint on Phone
No.01722652475, his electricity supply was not set right.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-68/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2
vide letter dated 04.05.2016 for comments/action taken report.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 18.5.2016
submitted that the failure of Electricity Supply to his booth was redressed by
replacing cable. The complainant expressed his satisfaction and gave a letter in
written. The SDO attached photo copy of the same and prayed for disposal of
the complaint.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 15.6.2016. The consumer did not
attend. The SDO conveyed that his grievances had already been redressed by
replacing the cable to his satisfaction.
5. Observing that the grievances has already been redressed to the satisfaction of
the complainant, the complaint is considered as disposed.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-43/2016
Date of Institution - 27.03.2016 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No. 107, Phase-2, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 20.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 30.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.5.
The Forum in its sitting on 30.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 20.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 20.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-43/2016 Date of Institution - 27.03.2016
Date of Order - 20.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Deepak Goyal, Booth No.107, Ram Darbar, Phase-2, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Deepak Goel through e-mail dated March 27, 2016 stated that he did
not receiv the bill for his Booth No.107, Ram Darbar Phase-2, Chandigarh
till 27.3.2016. Through returned e-mail, it was advised to have duplicate
bill by paying the requisite fee of Rs.5 or Rs.10/- . Alternatively to visit
Sampark Centre for knowing the bill and making payment. The
complainant, when contacted on telephone on 28.3.2016 to convey the
above, confirmed that he received the bill on 27.3.2016 in the evening.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-43/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’
Division No. 2 vide letter dated 29.3.2016 for supplying para-wise
comments with a copy to the complainant.
3. In response to this office letter dated 29.3.2016, the concerned AEE
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 vide his letter dated 18.4.2016 submitted
that the bills were regularly being issued and delivered to the complainant
through courier service. He also advised to get the duplicate bill or
downloaded from the website.
4. The reply of the Sub Division was forwarded to the complainant for his
information and feedback vide letter dated 26.04.2016.
5. On the date of hearing on 20.5.2016, the complainant did not attend.
The SDO as well as RA present on behalf of the sub division stated that
bills were being delivered regularly through courier service.
6. The Forum observed that no further communication has been received
from the complainant. Consider the complaint as redressed
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-36/2016
Date of Institution - 08.03.2016 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to Smt. Kavita, House No. 1290, Silverston Society, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 20.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 30.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.5.
The Forum in its sitting on 30.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 20.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 20.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-36/2016 Date of Institution - 08.03.2016 Date of Order - 20.05.2016 In the matter to Smt. Kavita, House No. 1290 Silverstone Society, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. A complaint was received from Smt. Kavita, House No. 1290, Silverstone Society,
Sector 48-B, Chandigarh through her e-mail dated 08.03.2016 Complaining that for
the last few months, the bills are being without meter reading.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-36 of 2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. S.E, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 for comments vide letter
dated 09.03.2016. Simultaneously the complaint was notified for hearing on
30.03.2016.
3. On the date of hearing neither the complainant nor the respondent SDO make
themselves present. As the reply was not received from the Nodal officer, the matter
was discussed with SDO No. 5 on phone. He stated that the meter was found
defective/dead stop which was replaced and the A/c was being overhauled. He
promised to submit reply within a week.
4. The nodal officer vide his letter dated 18.04.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by
the SDO No. 5. The SDO in his reply submitted that the electricity meter of the
complainant, when got checked through JE, was found be dead stop. The defective
meter was got replaced on dated 28.03.2016. On checking the record, it was found
that meter was showing same reading since 14.12.2014. The account of the
consumer was there after overhauled for the period 14.10.2014 to 28.03.2016 (date
of MCO) @ 690 units per month. The base for overhauling taken was previous
consumption for the period 14.10.2013 to 14.10.2014 i.e
704+702+445+4534+1897= 8282/12= 690 units per month. After overhauling, a
notice was served for depositing a sum of Rs. 47557/- on 30.03.2016. He enclosed
the consumption date, the MCO, report of JE and the notice dated 30.03.2016.
5. On the next date of hearing on 20.05.2016, the complainant did not appear. The
SDO No.5 stated that the complainant visited the Sub/division and he was provided
details of overhauling of the account. He got convinced that the charging done by
the Sub/Division was in order and made the payment.
6. The Forum observed that the meter was replaced promptly on receipt of the
complaint thus redressing the grievance. The Forum also noted that the overhauling
done by the Sub/Division was in order and complaint made the payment.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not completed, the decision will be put up to the
Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-99/2016
Date of Institution - 08.06.2016 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to Shri I.S.Ghuman, Wg. Cdr. (Retd.), Houe No.2272-B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Addl. Superintending Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 2, UT,
Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.5, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri I.S.Ghuman, Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) and General Secretary-cum-President of
Army Welfare Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Sector 47-C, Chandigarh
through his application dated 8.6.2016 submitted that an erroneous bill was
raised by the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 in December 2012 wherein
consumption was shown as 4972 units for four months against the average
consumption of 25-30 units for two months. Representative from the Sub
Division visited the premises in April 2013 but thereafter nothing was heard
from the Sub Division. The bills which were being issued were not paid
assuming that they have a credit. Subsequently meter was removed due to
non payment of bill dated 20.4.2016 amounting to Rs.48,873/-. In his
application he quoted the previous instance of generation of high consumption
bill in October 2011 which was rectified in February 2012. While submitting the
application in person he explained that instance of issuing of high consumption
bill in 2011 was on account of 3 digit reading being recorded as 4 digit reading
by treating the 1/10 unit as one unit. In another words, the decimal point after
3 digit was ignored while issuing the bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-99/2016, was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 2 vide letter dated
08.06.2016 for comments with specific directions to comment on the issue of
3 digit/4 digit and also the reading recorded at the time of removal of the
meter. Directions were also issued to restore the connection after accepting
payment of Rs.5000/-.
3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Addl. S.E., Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.2 forwarded the
reply submitted by the AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.5 duly
countersigned. The AEE in his reply submitted that the disputed meter was
installed on 11.3.2010 after old meter was found Dead Stop. Thereafter
regular bills were being issued on the basis of readings recorded by the
meter. With reference to representation of the consumer, he stated that the
meter was got checked on 13.6.2016 and was found correct. He further
pointed out that the consumer did not make any payment after 31.10.2011
and as such supply was disconnected but later on restored as per directions
by this Forum after the applicant made a part payment of Rs.5000/- on
13.6.2016. The amount of Rs. 45828/- is still outstanding as on date after
adjusting the payment of RS.5000/- made by the consumer. He enclosed
copy of MCO dated 11.3.2010, consumption data and the report of check
meter dated 13.6.2016 by J.E.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 30.8.2016, the representative of the
complainant as well as SDO and RA of Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.5 attended
the hearing. The Complainant attributed the recording of high consumption
as the case of meter jumping where as SDO submitted that the disputed bill
was issued on the basis of reading recorded by the meter there is no
confusion of 3/4 digits. Thereafter no case of recording of high
consumption has been found during last four years.
5. From the consumption data supplied by the Sub Division, the Forum
observed that the average consumption was in the range of 22 to 30 units
during the period May 2010 to July 2012 before registering a consumption
4889 (5277-338) units during the period July to September 2012. The
reading of 5277 recorded on 27.9.2012 was, however, ignored being found
inconsistent and the bill was prepared for 30 Units (based on past average).
The next bill was, however, prepared for four months on the basis of reading
of 5310 recorded on 27.11.2012 for 4972 units. Thereafter the meter again
continued to record normal consumption between 32 to 80 units from
November 2012 to March 2016.
6. From the above details of the consumption provided by the Sub Division, it
appears that the meter recorded abnormally high consumption during the
period July to September 2012 where after the meter again started giving
normal reading for the next four years or so. In view of above, the Forum
conclude that reading recorded on 27.9.2012 could be on account of meter
jumping and accordingly the Nodal Officer is directed to ignore this reading
and prepare the bill for the period July to September 2012 on the basis of
consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the year 2011. A
bill from September to November 2012 be issued on the basis of recorded
readings i.e. 5310 on 27.11.2012 and 5277 on 27.9.2012. The subsequent
bills have, however, been issued on the basis of recorded readings and there
is no issue as the consumption recorded matches with the average
consumption. The Forum also noted that the consumer after receipt of high
consumption bill in November/December 2012 did not bother to make any
payment out of the disputed amount or even the current bill issued
thereafter for the next more than 3-1/2 years. The complainant also did not
challenge the bill before appropriate authority. While ignoring the
consumption from July to September 2012 on account of suspected meter
jumping , the surcharge is, however, is to be levied on the bills issued
subsequently for the current consumption but not paid by the consumer. In
another words, after overhauling the account for the period July to
September 2012, the surcharge is to be levied on the current as well as
arrears. Thereafter till the overhauled outstanding amount is cleared.
7. With above decision and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed
off in aforementioned terms. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the
receipt of the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble
JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-104/2016
Date of Institution - 14.06.2016 Date of Order - 30.08.2016
In the matter to Ms. Sonam Chhering, House No.1877, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. The complaint was received through e-mail dated June 14, 2016 from Ms.
Sonam Chhering submitted that the meter installed at her residence No.1877,
1st floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh appears to be defective. She requested for
getting the same checked and to take further appropriate action.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-104/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 15.06.2016 for parawise comments with directions to get meter
checked and get it replaced, if not found working. A copy was sent to the
complainant with the request to submit a written complaint within five days
as per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 29.6.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the AEE. Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly countersigned.
The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply dated 24.6.2016
submitted that the meter installed at the residence of the complainant was
found defective from the date of installation on 29.1.2016. The same was
replaced on 17.6.2016 and the account was overhauled from 29.1.2016 to
17.6.2016 on the connected load basis @ 200 units per cycle, as per Sales
Manual Instruction No.115 on provisional basis subject to adjustment on the
future consumption, as the previous base was not available. He enclosed
copy of MCO and Sales Manual Instruction No.115 dated 16.2.2000. .
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 19.7.2016. The SDO along with
his RA were present but the complainant did not turn up. Another
opportunity was offered to the complainant on 30.8.2016, but again the
complainant did not attend. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division
reiterated the written submissions. The complainant did not submit the
written complaint either.
5. The Forum observed that the Sales Manual Instruction referred to by the
Nodal Officer pertains to Year 2000 where as now the Supply Code
Regulations are applicable. The sanctioned load of the consumer is 1.760
KW as conveyed by the respondent. The Forum noted that the main
grievances by the complainant was non working of the electricity meter
without any comments or references of the average being charged by the
department. With the replacement of the meter, the grievance of the
complainant stands redressed. The Nodal Officer is, however, directed to
overhaul the account again when consumption of 6 months become available
as the period during which the defective meter was in place is of 5-1/2
months. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order
failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant
sections of the Electricity Act 2003
6. With above decision and directions, the complaint is considered as disposed
off in aforementioned terms.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-48/2016
Date of Institution - 04.04.2016 Date of Order - 31.08.2016
In the matter to Sh. Tuntun Chaudhary, House No. 1665-B, Small Flat, Dhanas, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 14.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 31.08.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 12.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.4.
The Forum in its sitting on 31.08.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 14.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 14.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-48/2016
Date of Institution - 04.04.2016 Date of Order - 14.06.2016
In the matter to Shri Tuntun Chaudhary, House No.1665B, Small
Flat, Dhanas, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Tuntun Chaudhary vide his application received in the office of CGRF on
4.4.2016 stated that the bill for his house No.1665B, Small Flat, Dhanas were
being issued on average basis. He requested for preparation of bill on reading.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-48/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide letter
dated 05.04.2016 for comments/action taken report.
3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his
letter dated 05.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the SDO Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Division No.4 duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply stated that the
average bill for Rs.610/- was sent for the period 21.10.2015 to 21.12.2015 @
127 units per month on the basis of consumption recorded during the period
21.4.2015 to 21.10.2015 as the meter was found defective. The defective
meter has been replaced on 16.2.2016. He also stated that electricity meter of
the complainant was also changed on 6.4.2016 as the meter got burnt. He
supplied copies of both the MCOs and Consumption data.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 14.6.2016. Both the complainants as
well as SDO were present. He showed his satisfaction that the defective meter
was replaced and now the bills would be issued on actual consumption. The
complainant, however, submitted that the bills issued in the past were on
average and were on higher side as compared to appliances being
used by him. It was observed that the consumer was being charged average on
the basis of consumption recorded during summer months i.e. from April to
October whereas the period under consideration was pertaining to winter period.
The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for four
months from 21.10.2015 to 16.2.2016 (Date of MCO) on the basis of four
months consumption recorded during the period prior to 21.10.2015 i.e. from
21.6.2015 to 21.10.2015.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of
the Electricity Act 2003.
5. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-77/2016
Date of Institution - 17.05.2016 Date of Order - 08.09.2016
In the matter to Sh. K.K. Kataria, House No. 905, Sector 7, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 27.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 08.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 18.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.2.
The Forum in its sitting on 08.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 27.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 27.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-77/2016 Date of Institution - 17.05.2016
Date of Order - 27.05.2016
In the matter to Shri K.K.Kataria, House No. 905, Sector 7, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri K.K.Kataria, resident of House No. 905, Sector-7, Chandigarh
through e-mail dated May 17, 2016 stated that the bill dated 8.5.2016
was received with total amount payable as Rs.54,371/-. He submitted
that the current reading mentioned in the bill was much above then the
actual readings, which resulted into generation of inflated bill against his
average bill of Rs.3000/-. Subsequently the representative of the
complainant visited and intimated the present reading of the meter.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-77/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1
vide letter dated 17.05.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with the
direction to accept Rs.9000/- on the basis of current reading as on date
as intimated by the complainant.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 26.5.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the SDO duly countersigned. The SDO in his reply dated
20.5.2016 submitted that the inflated bill got prepared due to wrong
recording of the current reading. The reading was got verified through
J.E. and the bill of the complainant was rectified, as per reading verified
by J.E. amounting to Rs, 9808/-. The representative of the complainant
visited the Sub Division on 18.5.2016 and was informed the status of the
rectified bill.
4. On the date of hearing on 27.5.2016, the complainant did not appear.
The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the bill was
corrected to his satisfaction after which the amended bill was paid by the
complainant/ his representative. The complainant could not be contacted
in the absence of Mobile No. on the complaint.
5. Observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been
redressed by the Sub Division, no further action except that Nodal
Officer to ensure that the proper advice is sent to the Computer centre
before generation of new bill. It may also be ensured that amount of
surcharge is also adjusted simultaneously.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the
case would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins
for concurrence.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-72/2016
Date of Institution - 09.05.2016 Date of Order - 08.09.2016
In the matter to Smt. Jagjeet Verma, Coal Department, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 27.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 08.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 18.08.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through RA of the Electy. ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.2.
The Forum in its sitting on 09.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 27.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 27.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-72/2016 Date of Institution - 09.05.2016
Date of Order - 27.05.2016
In the matter to Smt. Jagjeet Verma, Coal Depot, Sector-10, Chandigah.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Smt.Jagjeet Verma, owner of Coal Depot, Sector-10, Chandigarh through her
application dated 9.5.2016 stated that she along with her two sons are co-owner
of the property, Coal Depot, Sector-10, Chandigarh. There are two electricity
connections with total load of 98.410 KW in the name of her sons already
existing in the premises. She requested for granting a separate electricity
connection of 20 KW on L.T in her name being co-owner which was being denied
by the Electricity Department.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-72/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide letter
dated 10.05.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The concerned Nodal Officer, Xen. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide his letter dated
26.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the SDO duly countersigned. The
SDO in his reply stated that the total load of 2 Nos. electricity connections,
already existing in the Coal Depot, is 98.410 KW. As per amendments in the
Electricity Supply Code 2010 issued by the Hon’ble JERC, the regulation 3.3(5)
was amended to the effect that the L.T. electricity connections may be released
up to 99 KW. He also enclosed copy of amendment. As the total load of
existing two connections is 98.40 KW, he stated that the connection as
requested by the complainant on L.T. cannot be released as the total load would
cross 99 KW. He, therefore, prayed that the complainant be directed to apply
connection on 11 KV after clubbing 2 Nos. already existing connections.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 27.5.2016. On the date of hearing,
the complainant did not appear. The RA present on behalf of the Sub Division
reiterated the written submissions. The complainant/her representative was
contacted on Mobile and the position as stated by the SDO was conveyed. The
representative was requested to rearrange the load of the existing two
connections in such a way that the total load of all the three connections remain
below 99 KW in order to have LT connection. The representative stated that the
load of already existing connections cannot be reduced. To a query whether
another hearing to be afforded to have his views, he submitted that he has
nothing more to say and no further hearing is required.
5. The Forum observes that Supply Code under Regulations 3.6 (B)(9) provides
that in case of Multi consumer complexes including commercial complexes the
new connection be provided on L.T., if load is below 100 KW and on H.T. if load
is 100 KW or more.
Keeping in view these regulations, the complainant may apply the
connection on H.T. as per written submissions by the Nodal Officer.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case
would be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for his
opinion/concurrence.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-126/2016
Date of Institution - 26.07.2016 Date of Order - 08.09.2016
In the matter to Commandant S.P.S. Sandhu, House No.306, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. An application dated 26.7.2016 was received from Commandant S.P.S. Sandhu,
House No.306, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh wherein he stated that he was allotted
House No.306, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh in October 2013. The last bill with
amount of Rs.33964/- is very much on higher side as compared to his average
bill since he occupied the said accommodation. He apprehended that the
inflated bill could be on account of change of single phase meter to three phase
meter as per his request. He requested for review and not to disconnect his
supply and issuance of suitable directions in this regard till disposal of the case.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-126/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 26.07.2016 for comments along with consumption
data/connected load etc. The directions were also issued to keep balance
amount pending till disposal of the case after accepting Rs.5000/- as part
payment.
3. The Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 18.8.2016 forwarded the reply
submitted by the AEE. Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly countersigned.
The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply dated 11.8.2016
submitted that the applicant requested for extension of load from 4.480KW
to 6.500 KW under Self Declaration Scheme. Accordingly, the single phase
meter was replaced with three phase meter on 24.5.2016. The disputed bill
includes 5276 units recorded by the single phase meter in addition to the
consumption recorded by the newly installed three phase meter resulting into
total amount of Rs. 33964/-. He also enclosed the consumption pattern and
the photo copy of the SJO.
4. On the notified date of hearing on 8.9.2016, the representative of the
complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The
representative of the complainant attributed that the exceptionally high
consumption recorded by the single phase meter (before removal), as 5276
units, could be on account of meter jumping as in the past consumption
never exceeded 900 units per cycle of two months.
5. The Forum observed from the consumption data that consumption of
applicant is consistent since 2013 in the range of 466 to 845 units per cycle
for 2 months. As per directions of the Forum, the RA, after checking with the
Sub Division, informed that the present reading of the three phase meter
taken on 5.8.2016 is 1100. As per this reading, the consumption for the
period 6/2016 to 8/2016 is 1008 units. The higher recording of units than the
past average could be on account of enhancement of the connected load
from 4.48 - to 6.500 KW. The consistent past consumption from 2013 to
April 2016 also rules out the possibility of accumulation of the reading. The
maximum estimated consumption with load of 5 KW as per the Supply Code
provisions after taking diversity factor 1.0 and load factor as 0.50 (worst
scenario) for a period of two months works out to 3600 units which is much
less than recorded consumption of 5276 during period of around 1-1/2
months. The Forum on the basis of above analysis opines that the recording
of 5276 units by single phase before its removal could be on account of
jumping of reading.
6. In view of above, the Nodal officer is directed to ignore the reading recorded
by the single phase meter at the time of removal. Overhauling of the account
be got done for the period 5.4.2016 to 24.5.2016 on the basis of pro-rata
consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the year 2015.
7. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections
of the Electricity Act 2003
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-66/2016 Date of Institution - 04.05.2016 Date of Order - 08.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Brij Mohan Singh, House No.1142, Sector 8-C,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.2, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Brij Mohan Singh. resident of House No.1142, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh
through his application dated 4.5.2016 submitted that he received a bill dated
23.4.2016 which included an amount of Rs.59,563/- as sundry charges. On
query from the office of SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2, he was told that the
amount charged as sundry is on account of overhauling of the account from
March 2014 to December 2014, as pointed out by the Internal Auditor by half
margin dated 30.3.2016. The applicant stated that average charged by the
department is very much on higher side and requested for review/waiver.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-66/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide
letter dated 04.05.2016 for comments along with consumption
data/connected load. The consumer was also requested to make payment of
amount Rs.30,000/- (50% of the disputed amount) plus current charges in
order to avoid disconnection of the connection. The balance amount was
being pending till disposal of the case.
3. The case was notified for hearing on 27.5.2016. The complainant did not
attend. The Forum observed that the reply from Nodal Officer was also
awaited. The RA appearing on behalf of the ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 supplied
an advance copy of the reply during the hearing.
4. Subsequently the Nodal Officer vide his letter dated 31.5.2016 forwarded
the reply submitted by the AEE. Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 duly
countersigned. The AEE Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.2 in his reply submitted
that the meter of the applicant became defective on 27.3.2012 and was
replaced on 16.12.2014. Subsequently the Internal Auditor framed the Half
Margins dated 30.3.2016 pointing out that the average charged to the
applicant during the period meter remained defective was quite on lower side
as compared to past/future consumption and therefore the account was
overhauled w.e.f. 27.3.2014, keeping in view he provision of Section 56 (2)
of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. The basis for overhauling was taken future
consumption recorded by the replaced meter as the past reliable data
pertained to more than 2-1/2 years back. He supplied photo copy of last
three years consumption, copies of MCO and half margin.
5. The complaint was notified for hearing on 8.9.2016 which was attended by
the complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division No.2. The complainant
showed his ignorance to the charging done by the Sub Division stating that
whatever the bills were being received were paid by him and he did not
indulge in any mal-practice and as such the amount levied now by the sub
division should be waived. On the other hand, the RA stated that the sundry
charges levied were on account of overhauling of the account due to
defective meter and is required to be paid by the complainant.
6. The Forum on the basis of consumption data supplied by the Sub Division
observed that the consumption of the applicant during the period 2011-2012
was in the range of 2461 to 4260 units per billing cycle of two months before
the meter became defective. The average being charged during the period
was quite on lower side. It was also observed that after replacement of the
defective meter on 16.12.2014 , the consumption was again in the range of
2090 to 4263 units per cycle of two months which was matching with the
consumption before the meter became dead stop. The Forum also observed
that account was overhauled only w.e.f. 27.3.2014 and not from the date the
meter became defective by wrongly interpreting the provisions of Section 56
(2). The account is required to be overhauled from the period the meter
became defective. The above observations of the Forum were explained to
the consumer to his satisfaction. He thereafter pleaded that he may be
allowed to make the payment in instalments of Rs.5000/- per cycle in
addition to current cycle charges without levy of any surcharge.
7. In view of above, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account of the
complainant from the date meter became defective. From the consumption
data, it is apprehended that meter became defective during the period
27.9.2011 to 27.11.2011, at the reading of 62491 as recorded in the MCO
though the reading on 27.11.2011 was inadvertently/wrongly recorded as
62941 instead of 62491 (3rd and 4th digit got interchanged at the time of
feeding of reading). This inadvertent error on the part of Sub Division is also
evident from the subsequent recorded reading of 62491. In view of above
analysis, the Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account w.e.f.
27.9.2011 to 16.12.2014 (data of MCO) on the basis of one year
consumption recorded by the replaced meter. The consumer may also be
allowed to make payment in instalments of Rs.5000/- per cycle plus current
cycle charges without levy of any surcharge. However, in case the
complainant defaulted in making payment towards any bill , the defaulted
amount will attract surcharge as applicable.
8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions. Compliance
be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the
penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-52/2016
Date of Institution - 07.04.2016 Date of Order - 14.09.2016
In the matter to Sh. Dharmanshu Sood, House No. 3059, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 17.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 14.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance through telephonic message dated 09.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the
complainant did not appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of the
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10.
The Forum in its sitting on 14.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 17.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 17.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-52/2016 Date of Institution - 07.04.2016
Date of Order - 17.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Dharmnshu Sood, House No.3059, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Dharmanshu Sood, Scientist ‘D’, DRDO (Ministry of Defence), TBRL,
Chandigarh through his e-mail dated April 7, 2016 submitted that none of
the street lights in the area of his House No.3059, Sector 40-D,
Chandigarh were in working condition leading to complete darkness in the
night. He requested for setting right the street lights.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-52/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4
vide letter dated 08.4.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 21.4.2016
submitted that there was no such complaint received in the particulars
area of the complainant during the period 6.4.2016 to 8.4.2016. He
further stated that all the street light points were in working order as got
checked through an official of his office.
4. The reply was sent to the complainant for his information and feedback.
5. During the hearing of the case on 17.5.2016, complainant did not attend.
The SDO reiterated the written submissions.
6. The Forum observing that the street light of the area was in working and
further no such other complaint from any other resident of the area was
received, consider the complaint as redressed.
7. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, the decision will be put
up to the Member subsequently on his joining before the complaint is
finally disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-105/2016
Date of Institution - 14.06.2016 Date of Order - 14.09.2016
In the matter to Smt. Saraswati Kumari, House No. 6356-B, Sector 56, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 25.07.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 14.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance through telephonic message dated 09.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the
complainant did not appear and the respondent was representated through SDO of the
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10.
The Forum in its sitting on 14.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 25.07.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 25.07.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-105/2016 Date of Institution - 14.06.2016
Date of Order - 25.07.2016
In the matter to Shri Sumit Kumar, Grandon of Smt. Saraswati, House No.6356-B, Sector 56, Chandigarh..
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4, Chandigarh.
2. AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.10 Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Sumit Kumar, Grandson of Smt. Saraswati, resident of House No.6356-B,
Sector 56, Chandigarh through his e-mail dated June 14, 2016 submitted that
the electricity bill issued in the month of May 2016 was for 4484 units against
their normal consumption of 100 units. He requested for verification of the
reading.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-105/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter
dated 15.6.2016 for comments/action taken report, with a copy to the
complainant, with the request to submit a written complaint within five days as
per the procedure circulated by the Hon’ble JERC.
3. The concerned AEE, Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 28.6.2016
with a copy to Xen. Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.4 submitted that the electricity
meter of the complainant was replaced on 9.12.2015 with initial reading as
4343. However, inadvertently wrong initial reading was sent as 434 (instead of
4343) to the Computer Centre. Detection of the mistake, bill of the consumer
was amended of Rs.469/- and was delivered to him on 22.6.2016. The
amended amount was paid by the consumer. He also enclosed copy of MCO an
the amended bill and consumption details of the last three years.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 25.7.2016, the complainant did not
attend. The Forum observed that the complainant did not submit written
complaint as requested earlier. SDO stated that bill of the consumer was
corrected to his satisfaction and thus redressing his grievances.
5. In view of the fact that the grievance of the complainant has already been
redressed, the complaint is considered as disposed.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-98/2016
Date of Institution - 07.06.2016
Date of Order - 14.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Gurmukh Singh, House No.6403-A, Sector 56, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Gurmukh Singh, resident of House No.6403-A, Sector 56, Chandigarh through his
representation submitted in the office of CGRF on 7.6.2016 stated that for the last
seven months he is receiving high consumption bills in comparison to the electrical
appliances being used by him apprehending that his meter was not working properly, he
challenged the meter by depositing Rs.150 with the Sub Division.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-98/2016 was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated
08.06.2016 for comments along with consumption data of last three years, with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016 submitted that
the bills were being issued as per the readings recorded on the meter. He also
supplied the consumption data for last three years. With regard to apprehension of
meter being faulty, he stated that consumer may challenge the meter by depositing
Rs.150/- as meter challenge fee, in case he is not satisfied. A copy of this reply was
also forwarded to the Nodal Officer, i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP” Division
No.4, Chandigarh.
4. The reply received from the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 was forwarded to the
complainant for his information and further action, if any. Vide letter dated
20.06.2016.
5. The case was notified for hearing on 25/7/2016. The complainant did not attend. It
was thought proper and one more opportunity was afforded. The case was again
listed for hearing on 13.9.2016 which was postponed to 14.9.2016 due to declaration
of Holiday on 13.9.2016.
6. On 14.9.2016, the consumer did not appear. The SDO submitted that the applicant
challenged the meter and a check meter was installed in series with the disputed
meter. After observing the consumption of both the meters from 27.6.2016 to
16.7.2016, it was found that existing meter consumed 1492 units against 115 units
consumed by the check meter. The bill of the consumer thereafter was overhauled
on the basis of check meter report. He supplied copy of check meter report (SJO
dated 27.6.2016) and the copy of revised bill.
7. The Forum on the basis of check meter report and the consumption data is of the
view that the meter became faulty somewhere during the period October 2015 to
December 2015, as the consumption was found more than the double than the
consumption recorded during the corresponding period in the year 2013 and 2014.
In view of above observations and check meter report the Nodal Officer is directed
to get the account overhauled for the period 24.10.2015 onwards till replacement of
the meter on the basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding period for
the year 2014-15. The faulty meter may also be got replaced immediately.
8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions. Compliance be
reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may
be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-159/2016
Date of Institution - 08.09.2016 Date of Order - 14.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Kewal Krishan, S.C.F. No. 16, First Floor, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. A complaint was received from Shri Kewal Krishan, SCG No. 16, First Floor,
Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, wherein he stated that Rs.900/- was being charged
in the bill under FPPCA (Fuel Price & Power Purchase Adjustment Charges). He
requested for deletion of these charges on account of FPPCA enabling him to
make the payment of the bill dated 24.8.2016 for the period 27.5.2016
to27.7.2016.
2. The Forum in its meeting held on 14.9.2016 observed that the FPPCA
charges are being charged by the electricity department in the electricity bills
with the approval of JERC. The Hon’ble Commission is notifying the charges
to be recovered from various consumers (DS/NRS) from time to time and the
electricity department is recovering the same from the consumers as per the
applicable rates notified for each applicable quarter. The consumer may refer
to the Tariff Notified by JERC for the period 2016-17 for details regarding the
background of these FPPCA charges. The applicant may consult the Sub
Division for break-up of the charges. In case if he finds any variation as per
the Notification of the Department/JERC, he may approach this Forum again.
3. With above observations, the complaint stands disposed off with
aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
4. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-100/2016
Date of Institution - 08.06.2016 Date of Order - 14.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Shamsher Singh, House No.0479, Dadu Majra Colony, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Shamsher Singh, resident of House No.0479, Dadu Majra Colony, Sector 38
West, Chandigarh through his representation received in the office of CGRF on
8.6.2016 submitted that he received the latest bill with high amount as
compared to bills received in the past. He requested for rectification of the bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-100/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 09.06.2016 for comments along with consumption
data/connected load as checked and relevant documents, with a copy to the
complainant.
3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016
submitted that the bill raised to the consumer is as per reading recorded in
the meter which is consistent with the past consumption. In support of his
statement, he also supplied the consumption data of last three years. With
regard to the complainant’s apprehension meter running fast, he stated
that the consumer may challenge the meter by depositing Rs.150/- as meter
challenge fee, in case he is not satisfied. A copy of reply was also
forwarded to the Nodal Officer, i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP” Division
No.4, Chandigarh.
4. The reply received from the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 was forwarded to the
complainant for his information and further action, if any. Vide letter dated
20.06.2016 by the Forum.
5. The case was notified for hearing on 5.8.2016. The complainant did not
attend. It was thought proper and one more opportunity was afforded. The
case was again listed for hearing on 13.9.2016 which was postponed to
14.9.2016 due to declaration of Holiday on 13.9.2016. The complainant was
informed on telephonic. He, however, conveyed his satisfaction to the reply
given by SDO and did not wish to attend the hearing.
6. On 14.9.2016, the SDO present during the hearing on 14.9.2016 reiterated
his written submissions.
7. The Forum on the basis of telephonic information by the complainant that he
is satisfied with the reply and did not wish to pursue his complaint, considers
the complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned observations.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-134/2016
Date of Institution - 09.08.2016 Date of Order - 14.09.2016
In the matter to Smt. Urmila Devi, House No. 4952/2, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Smt. Urmila Devi, resident of House No. 4952/2, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh
through her representation dated 9.8.2016 submitted that her bill for the period
April to June 2016 is much more than the electricity being used by them. She
requested for getting the meter checked.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-134/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide
letter dated 09.08.2016 for comments along with consumption data of last
three years, with a copy to the complainant with the request to make
payment of Rs.1200/- in order to avoid disconnection of electricity supply.
3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 12.8.2016
submitted that the bill of the complainant was raised on the basis of reading
recorded by the meter. He also supplied the consumption data of last three
years. With regard to higher amount of the bill, he pointed out that the
disputed bill also includes Rs.647/- as arrear of the previous bill not paid by
the consumer. A copy of this reply was also forwarded to the Nodal Officer,
i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP” Division No.4, Chandigarh.
4. The case was listed for hearing on 13.9.2016 which was postponed to
14.9.2016 due to declaration of Holiday on 13.9.2016.
5. On the date of hearing on 14.9.2016, the consumer, present during the
hearing, was explained that her consumption was consistent for the last two
years which suggested that the meter was working correctly. She was,
suggested to get the meter challenged in case she was still not satisfied.
She, however, got convinced on the basis of consumption data and agreed to
pay the bill but requested that the surcharge on the disputed bill may not be
levied.
6. The Forum on the basis of consumption data submitted by the respondent
SDO, concludes that the bill issued to the complainant was in order.
However, considering that the complainant is a labourer and is eager to clear
the outstanding amount and that she was allowed to make part payment by
the Forum allows her to pay the last bill dated 25.7.2016 in instalments
along with current cycle charges of the subsequent bill for the period
20.06.2016 to 20.08.2016 with due date falling in 2nd week of October 2016
without levy of any surcharge.
7. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned observations and
directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-113/2016 Date of Institution - 24.06.2016
Date of Order - 15.09.2016 In the matter Mrs Kamlesh Bhardwaj, House No. 2310, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant/Applicant
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 3 UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per Sh. J.S. SIDHU, Nominated Member.
Order
1. Mrs Kamlesh Bhardwaj, vide her letter 24.06.2015 submitted that the electricity
department on 07.06.2016 checked the domestic electricity connection of the
complainant and assessed the current load being in excess of sanctioned load 1.96
and served a memo no. 2034 dated 09.06.2016 (copy not attached) asking the
complainant to deposit Rs. 8400 as load surcharge without mentioning the details of
the same.
The Complainant has claimed that on the intervening night of 04.06.2016 and
05.06.2016 the main cable connecting the residential area of the complainant was
burnt due to high voltage and many electricity appliances were burnt in that locality
(House No. 2309 to 2318). The complainant has placed on record copy of news item
published in Dainik Bhaskar, in support of her claim.
The Complainant has alleged that the assessment of the existing load done
by the electricity department is only on account of reprisal on account of the demand
of compensation towards the burning of electricity appliances of the locality. The
complainant has also claimed that being a consumer under Consumer Protection Act
would soon approach District Consumer Forum seeking compensation damages for
losses suffered by her.
The complainant alleging wrong doing on the part of the electricity department
has sought the withdrawal of memo no. 2034 dated 09.06.2016 declaring the same to
be null and void. Complainant has also sought directions against the department to
reimburse the consumers for the damaged appliances due to high voltage in the
area.
2. The application was registered as complaint no. GR-113/2016 and the XEN OP
Division No.3 was directed to file para-wise comments/action taken along with
relevant documents by 04.07.2016. The same was received in the O/o this Forum on
06.07.2016 and copy of this reply was supplied to the complainant also.
3. The respondents while asserting their stand with regard to the checking and
assessment of existing excess load at the premises of the complainant have claimed
that vide assessment report dated 07.06.2016, an excess load of 5.904 K.W. was
detected and as per the provisions of applicable regulations an amount of Rs. 8400/-
(which included load Surcharge+ Security), was demanded, vide sundry charges,
through electricity bill dated 26.07.2016.
The respondents have also disclosed that the complainant visited its office
and requested the waiver of penalty and surcharges on account of excess load
claiming that she is about to retire in few months time and also that she is ready to
remove the appliances to bring the excess load within the sanctioned load limit.
The respondents have also placed on record a copy of intra department
memo no. 2124 dated 15.06.2016 in response to the news item publish in Dainik
Bhaskar dated 07.06.2016 regarding high voltage in sector 27, disclosing that there
were high velocity winds followed by rain which caused the cable feeding the area of
the complainant getting burnt due to over loading of the main service cable, causing
disruption in the electricity supply which was temporarily restored by its staff. Later on
after cheeking the existing load of the consumers of the area, the load was bifurcated
and a new additional cable of adequate capacity has been laid to avoid future faults.
4. The parties were called for hearing on 15.09.2016. The husband of the complainant,
duly authorized by her, vide her authorization latter dated 15.09.2016 came present
on her behalf and the SDO of the respondents represented the department. The
parties were heard and the matter was reserved for orders.
5. We have minutely perused the complaint of the complainant, reply of the
respondents and the documents placed on record by the parties, and have reached
the following conclusion.
The complainant having levelled allegations against the electricity department
of not maintaining the supply cables and also alleging surge of electricity in her
locality causing the damage to her house hold electrical appliances and also that of
other houses in her vicinity has only placed on record the news item published in the
local vernacular and a few undated photographs of loose cable in Support of her
contentions. The complainant has also claimed that the in response to her
representation the department checked the existing load of all the consumers of the
locality which was according to her in retaliation to her request for reimbursement
and compensation towards her loss of electrical appliances due to fault on the part of
the respondents.
The complainant has failed to prove that the damage to her house-hold
electrical appliances namely voltage stabilizer, Wifi adopter, LED bulb and three
ordinary bulbs is on account of electrical surge. There is no evidence to that effect.
Even the fact that the electrical failure in the area of complainant was on account of
bad weather and rain as is evidence from the reply of the SDO OP S/Division No.3
disclosing such situation vide his office memo no. 2124 dated 15.06.2016 submitted
with the XEN OP Division No. 3 which has not been controverted by the complainant
in any manner.
The complainant’s allegation with regard to the unauthorised checking of her
existing electricity load is also unfounded for reason that with the passage of time
consumers keep on adding electrical appliances beyond their sanctioned load without
informing the department and the electricity department is well within its rights to
check such unauthorised loads and saddle penalties as well as fines as applicable
under the provisions of JERC regulations applicable to such cases. Thus the Load
Assessment Report dated 07.06.2016 which was duly received on behalf of the
consumer and further her representation to respondents expressing her desire to
remove extra electrical appliances in order to bring her actual load within the
permissible limits proves that the complainant herself was in the knowledge of
existing excess load at her premises which further proves the veracity of the Load
Assessment Report dated 07.06.2016.
The complainant has placed on record the details of the loss suffered by other
neighbours (Residents of 2309 and 2309-A), by placing on record a single page
document which is not signed by her, or other consumers who are not party to
present complaint, therefore the complaint of complainant cannot be treated on their
behalf. The complainant has disclosed that they have already approached the District
consumer Forum seeking compensation for such losses. Hence in the absence of
any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence no fault can be attributed against the
respondents and the complainant cannot be compensated for such looses which she
herself has failed to prove against the respondents.
In view of the aforesaid observations we do not find any merit in the complaint
of the complainant and the same deserves dismissal.
6. With the above observations, the complaint stands dismissed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-120/2016
Date of Institution - 04.07.2016 Date of Order - 15.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Abhishek Sharma, Booth No.13, Sector 46-C, Stor Code:6676, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Abhishek Sharma, through his email dated 04.07.2016 approached CGRF
for resolving his problem regarding bill amount in respect of Booth No. 13,
Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. He stated that the bill was more than the power being
used by him.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-120/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide
letter dated 06.07.2016 for comments along with consumption data and
relevant documents, with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE through his letter dated 09.08.2016 addressed to the
Nodal Officer with a copy to CGRF submitted that a check meter was installed
for the period 28.07.2016 to 08.08.2016 to check the working of the meter
as per representation of the complainant. The consumption by the check
meter as well as the disputed meter was found to be same (237 units)
indicating that the working of the meter is okay. He also enclosed check
meter report and consumption data.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 15.09.2016 vide letter dated
08.09.2016. The Consumer did not appear on date of hearing. The SDO
reiterated his written submissions.
5. The Forum on the basis of consumption data and the check meter report
submitted by the SDO observed that the consumption was consistent and
was comparable with the consumption recorded in the corresponding period
in the past. The check meter report supplemented that the meter was
working fine. On the basis of these findings the Forum did not find any merit
in the complaint and dismiss the same.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-137/2016
Date of Institution - 10.08.2016 Date of Order - 15.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Tarlochan Singh, House No.2199-C, Sector 49, Super Enclave Society, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Tirlochan Singh, resident of House No.2197-C, Sector 49, Super Enclave
Society, Chandigarh through his representation dated 10.08.2016 submitted
that he received a bill dated 27.05.2016, which included sundry charges of Rs.
25684. He was told that the amount was on account of average charged for the
period meter was defective. He requested of waiver of these charges.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-137/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide
letter dated 11.08.2016 for comments along with consumption data and
relevant documents, with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.6 vide his letter dated 26.08.2016,
with a copy to the Nodal Officer, submitted that the meter was found dead
for the period 26.02.2015 to 26.12.2015. On replacement of the dead stop
meter on 26.12.2015, the account was overhauled on the basis of
consumption recorded during 2/2014 to 12/2014 at the rate of 775 units per
month. He enclosed consumption data along with the basis of charging and
the copy of MCO.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 15.09.2016 vide letter dated
08.09.2016. The complainant as well as SDO were present. The complainant
was explained the basis of charging. He however made request for allowing
to make the payment in instalments without levy of surcharge. He also
represented that he was not informed when the meter was changed.
5. The Forum on the basis of submissions made by the SDO and the
consumption data concludes that the amount charged by the SDO is in order.
On the request of the complainant, he is allowed to clear the amount charge
through sundry in three bi-monthly instalments without levy of any
surcharge in addition to current consumption charges. Nodal Officer is
directed to work on the instalments and convey the same to the complainant.
The Forum also observed that the MCO did not bear the signatures
of the consumer or his representative. This may be due to the fact that
premises was found locked as explained by the SDO. The Nodal Officer is
directed to impart suitable instructions that in cases where the signatures
cannot be obtained, suitable message be left in the letter box so that
complainant can check/compare the reading of the new meter.
6. Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections
of the Electricity Act 2003. With above observations, the complaint stands
disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC
Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-145/2016
Date of Institution - 24.08.2016
Date of Order - 15.09.2016
In the matter to Smt. Meena Rani, House No. 1412, Sector 49-B, Pushpac Complex,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Smt. Meena Rani, resident of House No. 1412, Sector 49-B, Pushpac Complex,
Chandigarh through her email dated 24.08.2016 forwarded a signed copy of
representation dated 24.08.2016. She submitted that the bill for the period 28.02.2016
to 28.04.2016 is amounting to Rs. 28623 which is almost fifteen times the average bill
as per her usage. The consumption of 4919 units is much more than average
consumption of 600 units. She apprehended this high consumption on account of some
technical error which may affect the future billing as well.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-145/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated
29.08.2016 for comments along with consumption data of last three years, with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO vide his letter dated 01.09.2016, with a copy to the Nodal
Officer, submitted that the meter was got checked and found okay on 02.06.2016.
Subsequently a check meter was installed as per the request of the complainant for
the period 22.06.2016 to 19.07.2016. The consumption recorded by the disputed
meter was found to be 592 units against 588 units by the check meter suggesting
that the error was within permissible limits. Thus he concluded that the working of
the meter is okay.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 15.09.2016 vide letter dated 08.09.2016. The
complainant did not attend. The SDO present during the hearing re-iterated his
written submissions. The Forum on the basis of consumption data observed that the
consumption during the period 02/2016 to 04/2016 was 4919 units which is much
more than her average consumption and the maximum consumption recorded in the
past three years. The consumption in the three years was found to be consistent
during the corresponding periods which also ruled out the possibility of
accumulation/recording of wrong readings. With connected load of 6/KW the
maximum consumption which can be recorded during 2 months is estimated to be
4320 units with diversity factor as 1.0 and load factor as 50% as per the Supply
Code. The recorded consumption of 4919 units during period of 2 months thus
appears to be on account of malfunctioning of the meter.
The Forum on the basis of above analysis and inference drawn concludes
that the meter malfunctioned during the period 02/2016 to 04/2016. According the
Forum directs the Nodal Officer to ignore the consumption recorded during 02/2016
to 04/2016 and overhaul the period with the corresponding consumption recorded
during the period 02/2015 to 04/2015. The disputed meter should also be replaced
immediately.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing
which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned
observations and directions
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-44/2016
Date of Institution - 30.03.2016 Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Shri. Adil Reyaz, House No. 1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 10.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 20.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 16.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.7.
The Forum in its sitting on 20.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 10.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 10.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-44/2016 Date of Institution - 30.3.2016
Date of Order - 10.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Adil Reyaz, House No.1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Adil Reyaz, resident of House No.1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh
through his e-mail March 30, 2016 submitted that his electricity bill for
the period 20.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 was issued for Rs.11907/- against
his average bill of Rs.300 to 500 only. He requested to get the meter
checked and to rectify the bill accordingly.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-44/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 01.4.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.7 vide his letter dated 8.4.2016
submitted that with reference to the complaint dated 1.4.2016 of the
consumer, the meter was got checked and found to be in working order.
It was, however, noted that the meter reading as recorded by the Meter
Reader was wrongas 5044 whereas the actual reading as got verified on
5.4.2016 was 2577 only. Based on the verified reading, the bill was
rectified to net amount of Rs.757/- only. The consumer deposited a sum
of Rs.500/- in advance and he was informed that the necessary
refund/correction will be reflected in the next bill.
4. The Case was notified for hearing on 10.5.2016. The complainant as well
as ARA of the Sub Division were present. The complainant showed his
satisfaction to the action taken by the Sub Division.
5. The Forum observed that the complaint of the complainant had already
been redressed by the concerned Sub Division to his satisfaction
promptly.
6. For final disposal, the case would be put up to the Member of the Forum
as soon as one joins for concurrence.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by
the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs,
“Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-46/2016
Date of Institution - 01.04.2016 Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Shri. Ashok Sankhla, House No. 1419-A, DAD Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 10.05.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 20.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 16.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.7.
The Forum in its sitting on 20.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 10.05.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 10.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-46/2016 Date of Institution - 01.04.2016
Date of Order - 10.05.2016
In the matter to Shri Ashok Sankhla, House No.1419-A, DAD Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri Ashok Sankhla , resident of House No.1419-A, DAD Colony, Sector
35-B, Chandigarh through his e-mail April 1, 2016 submitted that he
received a bill for the period 28.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 for Rs.5900/-
which was quite high. On checking, he found that the current reading
was shown as 6755 but actual reading on the meter on 1.4.2016 was
5444 only. He requested for rectification of bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-46/2016, was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3
vide letter dated 05.4.2016 for supplying para-wise comments with a
copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No.7 vide his letter dated 12.4.2016
submitted that with reference to the complaint dated 4.4.2016 of the
consumer, the meter was got checked and found to be in working order.
It was however, noted that the meter reading as recorded by the Meter
Reader was wrong as 6755 whereas the actual reading as got verified on
11.4.2016 was 5464 only. Based on the verified reading, the bill was
rectified to net amount of Rs.366/- only. The consumer deposited a sum
of Rs.300/- in advance and he was informed that the necessary
refund/correction will be reflected in the next bill.
4. The Case was notified for hearing on 10.5.2016. The complainant did not
attend. The ARA of the Sub Division submitted that the bill was rectified
after verification of the reading to the satisfaction of the consumer and he
was also made aware that the necessary correction will appear in the
subsequent bill.
5. The Forum observed that the complaint of the complainant had already
been redressed by the concerned Sub Division to his satisfaction
promptly.
6. For final disposal, the case would be put up to the Member of the Forum
as soon as one joins for concurrence.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before
the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed after the
same is put up to the Member of the Forum.
(R.K.ARORA) CHAIRPERSON, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-95/2016
Date of Institution - 04.06.2016 Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Shri. S.K. Dutta, House No. 1428-A, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing vide Interim order dated 22.06.2016. The final orders could not be
issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 20.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 16.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.7.
The Forum in its sitting on 20.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instruction dated 22.06.2016.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 22.06.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
Complaint No. - GR-95/2016
Date of Institution - 04.06.2016 Date of Order - 22.06.2016
In the matter to Shri S.K. Dutta, House No.1428-A, Sector 35-B,
Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,
Chandigarh. 2. AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
Interim Order
1. Shri S.K. Dutta, resident of House No.1428-A, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through
his e-mail dated June 4, 2016 submitted that the meter reading on 4.6.2016
was 4148, whereas he received a bill for Rs.4250/- on average basis with old
reading as 4242. He requested for correction of bill on the basis of actual
reading.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-95/2016, was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter
dated 07.06.2016 for para-wise reply and verification of reading, with a copy to
the complainant.
3. The concerned AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7 vide his letter dated 13.6.2016
submitted the reply that the reading was got checked through J.E. and was
found as 4195 as on 9.6.2016. Thus the previous reading recorded by the
meter reader on 30.12.2015 as 4242 was wrongly recorded. He further
submitted that the bill of the complainant was rectified and allowance of
Rs.1940/- was afforded in favour of the consumer, to be reflected in the
forthcoming bill. A copy of the above reply was forwarded to the complainant.
4. On the notified date of hearing on 22.6.2016, the consumer did not attend. The
RA present on behalf of the Sub Division stated that the grievance of the
complainant has already been redressed.
5. Observing that the bill has already been rectified and intimation conveyed by
SDO in this respect. The complaint is considered as disposed, since the
grievance has already been redressed.
6. Since the quorum of the Forum is not complete, for final disposal, the case would
be put up to the Member of the Forum as soon as one joins for concurrence/his
opinion.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum
may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this
order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to
the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed after the same is put up to the
Member.
(R.K.ARORA)
CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER
Complaint No. - GR-60/2016
Date of Institution - 26.04.2016 Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Smt. Sneh, W/o Sh. Ishwar Dayal, House No. 2245, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.
……………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The ExecutiveEngineer, , Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3, Chandigarh.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per The Chairman CGRF, ER. R.K. ARORA.
ORDER
1. Instructions were issued by The Chairman in the subject cited complaint after
conducting hearing on 10.05.2016 vide Memo No. CGRF.GR-60/2016/803 dated
11.05.2016. The final orders could not be issued due to lack of quorum.
2. The case was re-notified for hearing on 20.09.2016. The parties were informed in
advance vide letter dated 16.09.2016. On the date of hearing, the complainant did not
appear and the respondent was representated through SDO and RA of the Electy. ‘OP’
Sub Divn.No.7.
The Forum in its sitting on 20.09.2016 considered the complaint, the reply submitted by
the Nodal Officer and other aspects of the case.
3. As the complainant did not turn up, it can be safely presumed that the grievance of the
complainant stands addressed in term of the instructions conveyed as referred in para 1
above.
4. Therefore the instructions issued vide interim orders dated 10.05.2016 become final and
binding vide this majority order of the Forum.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
5. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the office
of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance wherever
required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly numbered and
indexed after the same is put up to the Member.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
From
The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum,
Room No. 531, 5th Floor,
U.T., Secretariat, Deluxe Building,
Sector 9-D, Chandigarh
To
The Executive Engineer (Nodal Officer),
Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.3,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. CGRF/GR-60/2016
Dated Chandigarh, the
Subject:- Complaint regarding Providing Electricity Connection at Hoiuse No.2245
(EWS Houses), Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.
Proceedings of hearing conducted on 10.5.2016 – Interim Order.
The subject cited case was deliberated on 10.5.2016 in the presence of
Complainant as well as ARA ‘OP’ Sub Division No.7.
The Forum observed that the Aadhar Card as well as Voter Card submitted by
the applicant clearly establish that the complainant is lawful occupant of the house for last 10
years and was using the electricity connection released in the name of Shri Ram Chander.
With regard to permission/consent of the owner to release the connection in her name, she
submitted that she is not aware of the present whereabouts of the owner. She promised to
produce the consent as and when the owner is contacted. Pleading for release of connection at
an early date, she offered to submit an affidavit that she would not claim the right on electricity
connection and that in case the owner objects, the connection be disconnected. She further
submitted that she also agrees to any other condition which may be imposed by the Electricity
Department for release of connection,
In view of the above position, the Nodal Officer is directed to consider her
application for release of new connection in her name as a lawful occupant after obtaining
requisite affidavit as an interim arrangement.
DA/ - CHAIRMAN (CGRF)
Endst.No : CGRF/Comp-GR-60/2016/ Dated :
1. Copy is forwarded to the SDO, Elecy.’OP’ Sub Division No.7, Chandigarh for information and necessary action please.
2. Copy is forwarded to Smt. Sneh, W/o Shri Ishwar Dayal, House No.2245, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh for information please.
DA/ - CHAIRMAN (CGRF)
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-15/2016 Date of Institution - 27.01.2016
Date of Order - 20.09.2016 In the matter Capt. K.K. Bhasin (Retd.), House No. 166, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Complainant/Applicant
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7 UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON, CGRF.
Order
1. Capt. K.K. Bhasin (Retd.), House No. 166, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh through his
letter dated 17.01.2016 addressed to AEE ‘OP’ Sub Division-7 with a copy to CGRF,
(received on 27.01.2016) represented that the L.T. pole in front of his house was
not shifted properly as per the request made by him. Though the estimate was
prepared for shifting the pole in front of the common wall of house No. 166 and 167
sector 33-A, Chandigarh and he paid the full amount of the estimate, (i.e. Rs.7052/-),
yet while executing, the pole was not shifted to identified location as per the
estimate. On his representation he was refunded the amount after deducting Rs.
2300/-, towards expenditure incurred for partially executing the job.
2. The Complaint was registered as complaint no. GR-15/2016 and the XEN OP
Division No.3 was directed to submit Para-wise comments/action vide letter dated
29.01.2013.
3. The concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub/Division No. 7 his letter dated 09.02.2016 with a copy
to concerned XEN and the complainant submitted that on receipt of request from the
complainant for shifting of L.T. pole in front of his house to have second entry gate, a
deposit estimate was prepared and got approved by the XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3.
After deposit of charges by the consumer, the work of shifting was carried out in
presence of XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3 and the complainant on 01.10.2014 to the
satisfaction of the complainant. But subsequently vide his letter submitted in his
office on 29.10.2014, the complainant raised the issue that the pole in question was
not shifted as per his request and desired for refund of the money deposited by him
for the purpose. With the approval of XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3, an amount Rs. 4752/-
was refunded in December 2014 after adjusting the actual expenditure incurred by
the electricity department (Rs. 2300/-). However the complainant subsequently
raised the same issue that the L.T. pole was not shifted as per his desire/request.
He attached the correspondent exchanged between electricity department and the
complainant.
4. Case was listed for hearing on 14.03.2016, the complainant as well as the
concerned SDO ‘OP’ Sub/Division No. 7 were present. The complainant prayed that
the pole be got shifted to the location as per request made by him i.e. in front of the
common wall between house no. 166 and 167 sector 33-A, Chandigarh. From the
details of the letter exchanged between the complainant and licencee, it was noted
that the complainant initially through his letter dated 29.10.2014 and 17.11.2014 had
requested for refund of the full amount of Rs. 7052/- without deducting Rs. 2300/- on
the plea that the work was not completely executed as per the deposit estimate.
Subsequently, now before the Forum, he insisted for getting the pole shifted as per
his request. The SDO who had taken over the charge recently on transfer request
for same time to submit his feedback. Though one month was allowed for submitting
the feedback, no reply was furnished by the Nodal Officer even after issuance of
reminder (s) by this Forum on 08.04.2016, 05.05.2016 and 29.07.2016.
5. The AEE ‘OP’ Sub/Division vide his letter dated 08.09.2016 submitted that the
execution of the work in 2014 could not be completed as per deposit estimate as the
neighbour started agitating and did not allow the shifting of the L.T. pole in line with
the common wall. Although the pole was shifted from original position to very near
of common wall but as complainant showed his dissatisfaction by filing an
application with the Forum, the issue of shifting was again taken up by the SDO.
With personal intervention of XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 3, he visited the site and was
successful in shifting the said electricity pole in the common wall of premises
adjoining house no. 166 and 167, sector 33-A, Chandigarh. The SDO also submitted
that the complainant is satisfied with the action taken by the department.
6. On receipt of above, the case was notified for hearing on 20.09.2016 vide letter
dated 09.09.2016 with a copy to complainant. The complainant did not appear on
the notified date of hearing. The SDO present during the hearing submitted that the
work of shifting the pole was subsequently executed to the satisfaction of the
complainant after he deposited the amount of deposit estimate.
7. The Forum on basis of reply by the Respondent SDO ‘OP’ Sub/Division No.7 dated
08.09.2016 as referred to in Para No. 5, above and that the complainant neither
responded to the hearing notice nor attend the hearing presume that grievance of
the complainant has been redressed by the electricity department to his satisfaction.
8. With above observations the complaint is considered as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-71/2016
Date of Institution - 09.05.2016 Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Capt. Birinder Singh Sidhu, House No. 1343, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Birinder Singh Sidhu, resident of House No. 1343, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh,
through his email dated 09.05.2016 stated that his name on the electricity bills
be modified as “Birinder Singh Sidhu” instead of “Birinder Singh”. Further the
address be corrected as “house no. 1343, Sector 33-C” instead of “house no.
1343, Sector 33-B”.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-71/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. Xen Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated
10.05.2016 for comments/action taken report. The consumer was also
requested to submit a written complaint duly signed. In response, consumer
supplied a written complaint dated 11.05.2016 on 17.05.2016.
3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7 vide his letter dated
08.09.2016 submitted that the consumer was requested vide Memo No. 2204
dated 13.05.2016 to supply authenticated proof of owner ship of the said
premises before any action for correction of name is initiated. The consumer
however did not turn up.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 20.09.2016 vide letter dated
09.09.2016. The complainant during hearing agreed to supply photocopy of
the registered deed of the said house to the SDO who agreed to modify the
name on receipt of the same.
5. The Nodal Officer is directed to modify the name by incorporating the full
name as per the registered deed to be supplied by the consumer, within 21
days of receipt. The address may also be corrected as “Sector 33-C” instead
of “Sector 33-B”.
6. With above observations, the complaint stands disposed off with
aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id-
[email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-130/2016
Date of Institution - 03.08.2016
Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Adil Reyaz, House No. 1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Adil Reyaz, resident of House No. 1475, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through his email
dated 03.08.2016 submitted that with installation of a new meter his bill for the period
20.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 was amounting to Rs 11901 against his average bill in the
range of Rs 300 to 500 only. He requested to get the matter checked and resolve the
issue.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-130/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated
05.08.2016 for comments/action taken report. The consumer was also requested to
submit a written complaint duly signed. In response, consumer supplied a written
complaint dated 11.08.2016. Wherein he again represented that his bill for the
period 20.04.2016 to 20.06.2016 is again high amounting to Rs. 2883.
3. The SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7 vide his letter dated 11.08.2016 submitted his
reply stating that the bill for the period 20.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 amounting to Rs
11207 was found to be prepared on wrong reading. The same was ractified and
correct bill was issued to the consumer. The electricity bill for the period 20.04.2016
to 20.06.2016 included the ACD amount which was calculated on the basis of past
one year bill amount. The ACD was calculated by the computer after including the
inflated wrong bill issued for the period 12/2015 to 02/2016. The revised ACD was
calculated manually as 345 instead of 2883 indicated in the bill. With revision of ACD
the amount of bill reduced to Rs 824 only.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 20.09.2016 vide letter dated 09.09.2016. The
complainant did not attend the hearing. The SDO stated that his grievance has
already been redress to his satisfaction.
5. With above observations, by the Forum that the grievance of the complainant has
already been redressed, the complaint stands disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-69/2016
Date of Institution - 05.05.2016
Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Shri B.D. Kalra, House No. 317, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. B.D. Kalra, resident of House No. 317, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh, through his
complaint submitted in the office of CGRF on 05.05.2016 pointed out that the Elecy. ‘OP’
Sub-Divn. No.6 served a notice to him for depositing Rs.18858 on account of
overhauling the account during the period his meter remained defective. His
representation to the Sub Division was not considered properly. He stated that his single
phase meter was not defective during the disputed period and was working fine when
replaced by three phase meter on his request on 08.06.2015. The reason for less
consumption during the disputed period was that the house remained locked as he along
with his wife were away to Madhya Pradesh and were residing with their only son. He
occasionally visited Chandigarh in connection with his regular check-up at hospital. He
also questioned the base period taken for calculation of average stating that all the three
floors (Ground, First, Second) were being fed through a single meter at that time.
Subsequently he applied for two separate connections for first and second floor which
were released on 21.08.2013. He enclosed the notice received from sub division and his
representation to the Sub Division.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-69/2016 was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated 05.05.2016 for comments
along with consumption data of all the three meters. Directions were also issued not
to disconnect the connection till disposal of the case in case the complainant deposits
Rs.9000 (50% of the disputed amount).
3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6 vide his letter dated 17.05.2016
submitted Para-wise comments stating that the meter was found defective since
25.11.2013. The defective meter was replaced on 08.06.2015 being meter digit
defective. Thereafter the account of the consumer was overhauled for the period
25.03.2016 to 08.06.2015 (date of MCO) on the basis of consumption recorded
during the period 11/2012 to 11/2013 at the rate of 371 units per month. After
adjusting the payments made by the complainant, short assessment of Rs.18858
was assessed and a notice was served to the complainant. He also confirmed that
two number new connections were released during the period 09/2013 to 11/2013
and the new meter installed on 08.06.2015 was a three phase meter. He enclosed
consumption data of all the three meter installed in the premises along with copy of
MCO etc.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 09.06.2015 the complainant and concerned
SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6 were present. The complainant submitted that his
meter for ground floor was not defective and the consumption dropped on account of
following reasons.
a) Two more connections were got sanctioned during 08/2013.
b) Most of the time during the period of dispute he was away to M.P
residing with his only son.
c) With effect from 06/2015 his daughter-in-law along with her two
sons started residing with them at Chandigarh resulting into increase
in consumption after installation of three phase meter.
He also purposed to submit an affidavit in support of his above statement. The
complainant was requested to provide the details of his travel between Budhni (M.P)
and Chandigarh along with copy of railway tickets which might have been booked
online.
5. After giving sufficient time (three months) to the complainant to submit the railway
tickets or any other proof the case was again listed for hearing on 15.09.2016.
On the date of hearing the complainant showed his inability to
submit the railway tickets as proposed by the Forum. He however submitted an
affidavit on the submissions already made along with a forwarding letter reiterating
again the oral as well as written submissions. Subsequently through a letter dated
10/12.09.2016 submitted personally in the office of CGRF on 19.09.2016 he again
submitted the same grounds in his defence but agreed for overhauling of his account
for the disputed period at the rate of 371/3 i.e. 124 units per month on the plea that
during the base period taken for calculation, the connection was feeding three floors
whereas during the disputed period only ground floor was being fed through the
instant connection.
The SDO during the hearing submitted that the complainant has
been changing his stand from time to time after a notice dated 01.04.2016 was
served to him.
6. The Forum on the basis of consumption data submitted by the sub division observed
that the consumption in the range of 700 units per cycle, dropped sharply to less
than 10 units per cycle with effect from 11/2013. The bills however were issued on
‘Z’ code till the meter was replaced on 08.06.2015. Thereafter the meter started
recording consumption of around more than 400 units per cycle. In the MCO, the
reasons for change of meter were recorded as “Meter digit defective” with reading
“not visible”. The consumption in respect of other two connections for first as well as
second floor was also found consistent from the date of installation (Aug-Sep 2013)
in the range of 200-500 and 400-700 units per cycle respectively. The SDO took the
consumption recorded during the period 11/2012 to 11/2013 as base for overhauling
the period from 03/2014 to 08/06/2015. However from the consumption data the
Forum observed that the meter became defective after 09/2013 and not after
03/2014 as considered by the Sub Division. The consumption which was in the range
of 640 to 1270 units, dropped sharply to 37 and 13 units during the period 11/2013
to 01/2014 and 01/2014 to 03/2014 respectively. Even after taking in to account
that first floor and second floor were taken out of this connection from 08/2013, the
drop in consumption after 09/2013 is substantial as the consumer stated that full
family along with his son’s family were residing till 02/2014. This clearly indicates
that the meter became defective after 09/2013. The consumption of the replaced
meter has been found to be more than 392 units per cycle when the full family
including his son’s family started residing since 06/2015 as per statement of the
complainant.
The Forum also noted that the stamp papers on which affidavit
has been furnished was issued on 29.08.2011 and thus is not valid on date. Further
the affidavit is authored by two different persons as evident from two different hand
writings visible to the naked eye. The affidavit is not attested and contains many
over writings without any authentication by the deponent. Thus the affidavit is out
rightly ignored.
7. The Forum on the basis of analysis and data provided by the sub division concludes
that the meter became defective after 09/2013 and thus the consumption during the
period from 09/2013 to 08/06/2015 needs to be overhauled. The Forum finds merits
in the submissions made by the complainant that during the base period taken by
the SDO, the connection was feeding three floors whereas during the disputed period
under consideration only ground floor was being fed. According the overhauling done
by the sub division is set aside. The Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account
from 09/2013 to 08/06/2015 on the basis of one year consumption recorded by the
replaced meter.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of
the order failing which the penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant
sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
8. With above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-74/2016
Date of Institution - 10.05.2016
Date of Order - 20.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Subodh Kumar, House No. 1417, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Subodh Kumar, resident of House No. 1417, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through his
letter dated 10.05.2016 submitted that the new meter installed at his residence was
running fast and was consuming around 99 units per day. He requested to get the meter
checked.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-74/2016 was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 vide letter dated
10.05.2016 for comments/action taken report.
3. The concerned AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.7 vide his letter dated 12.05.2016
stated that the reading was got checked on 12.05.2016 as 399 units indicating that
the meter was recording 4 to 5 units per day and not 99 units per day.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 22.06.2016 vide letter dated 15.06.2016.
During the hearing the complainant showed his dissatisfaction to the checking done
by SDO and desired for installation of a check meter. Necessary directions were
issued to the Nodal Officer vide letter dated 26.06.2016.
5. Subsequently the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 7 vide his letter dated 08.09.2016
informed that the complainant during visit of the Sub Division was explained that the
meter was working fine and the complainant had wrongly taken the consumption as
99 instead of 9.9 units only. Further the bill dated 15.06.2016 for Rs 680 and the
subsequently bill dated 08.08.2016 for Rs 298 convinced the complainant that the
working of the meter was okay. He paid both these bills.
6. The case was again notified for hearing on 20.09.2016 vide letter dated 09.09.2016.
The complainant did not attend the hearing. The SDO present during hearing stated
that the consumer got satisfied that the working of the meter was fine before making
the payment of the last two bills.
7. Considering that the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed the
complaint is considered as disposed.
8. With above observations, the complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned
directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-132/2016
Date of Institution - 08.08.2016
Date of Order - 28.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Ravi Sharma, House No. 3509, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Ravi Sharma, through his email dated 08.08.2016 enclosed a copy of the bill stating
that by mistake the wrong data was taken in respect of electricity bill for the period May
to July 2016 for house no. 3509, Sector 38-D Chandigarh.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-132/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated 09.08.2016 for
comments/action taken report, with a copy to Sh. Ravi Sharma, with the request to
submit a written complaint.
3. The concerned AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 17.08.2016 with
a copy to Nodal Officer submitted that the bill issued to the consumer was as per
reading recorded by the meter. The working of the meter was got checked and found
in order. He proposed that consumer may challenge the working of meter by
depositing fee of Rs 150, in case he feels that the meter is running fast. He also
enclosed the consumption data for last 3 years.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 14.09.2016 but the consumer did not appear.
Another opportunity was afforded by notifying the case again for hearing on
26.09.2016 vide letter dated 23.09.2016. The complainant was informed
telephonically. On the date of hearing on 14.09.2016 the complainant did not
appear. The Forum on the basis of consumption data supplied by the concerned SDO
noted that in the past consumption of 1835 units and even more than 2300 units
were recorded during the year 2014 and 2015. The disputed consumption was only
1569 units in the bill for the period May to July 2016. It has generally been observed
that during summer months the consumption of electricity increases substantially
due to use of cooling appliances such as Acs and coolers.
5. Since the consumer did not attend the hearing on the two opportunities provided to
him, it appears that consumer must have realised that the bill issued to him is as per
his use of electricity. Moreover the SDO has already got the meter checked and
found in order. Further, On the basis of above observations that the consumption
recorded by the meter in the past being more than the consumption disputed by the
complainant, the Forum doesn’t find any merit in the submissions made by him
dismiss the complaint..
6. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned observants.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
7. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-80/2016
Date of Institution - 18.05.2016
Date of Order - 28.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Harbhajan Singh, House No. 869, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Harbhajan Singh, owner of the House No. 869, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh, through his
letter, dated 18.05.2016, stated that he received a notice from SDO that an amount of
Rs 21520 was being charged for the period meter remained defective. He also stated
that the premises was vacant when the meter was non-functional. After the new meter
was installed by the complainant, the same was occupied by the tenants. He therefore
requested to set aside the sundry charges levied by the SDO. He also supplied a copy of
the notice surved by the SDO.
2. The above complaint was registered as complaint no. GR-80 and was forwarded to
Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for comments and consumption data
along with actual connected load as checked directions were also issued for not to
disconnect the supply, provided, the consumer made the payment of Rs 6000 +
current cycle charges.
3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10 vide his letter dated 30.05.2016
submitted that the meter was replaced on 24.07.2015 being defective. He also
stated that the meter remained defective from 16.11.2013 to 25.07.2015. The
complainant was billed 320 units per cycle. While checking the record, the office
noted that complainant was billed less as compared to the consumption recorded by
the new replaced meter. Accordingly the consumer account was overhauled for the
period 16.11.2013 to 25.07.2015 at the rate of 370 units per month on the basis of
consumption recorded during 25.07.2015 to 16.01.2016. He also submitted that the
connected load of the consumer was found to be more than the sanctioned load
when checked. He enclosed copy of MCO, consumption data and the ECR in respect
of load checked.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 17.06.2015 vide letter dated 02.06.2016. The
representative of the complainant during hearing stated that the house was vacant
during the period the meter was defective and as such the account should not be
overhauled on the basis of consumption when the premises was occupied. He was
requested to provide proof in support of his statement about the premises being
vacant. The Nodal Officer was also directed to check the factual position by
interacting with the neighbours vide letter dated 21.6.2016.
5. On the next date of hearing on 19.07.2016 the representative of the complainant
desired for more time to submit the proof of premises lying vacant. In the meanwhile
the SDO Electy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 10 supplied a report of checking by J.E on
04.07.2016. The J.E in his report stated that the site was checked and found the
premises occupied at present. With regard to the occupancy of the said premises
during the disputed period he stated that the neighbours didn’t comment.
6. On the next notified dates of hearing on 14.09.2016 as well as on 26.09.2016 the
complainant or his representative didn’t appear despite telephonic message of
hearing fixed for 26.09.2016 to the representative.
7. The Forum noted that the complainant failed to produce any evidence in support of
his statement that premises was not occupied during the disputed period. On the
other hand no neighbour gave any statement in favour of the complainant.
On the basis of above it is concluded that the premises was not vacant
and the account needs to be overhauled. The Forum also noted that the load existing
at the premises, including one 1.5T Air Conditioner was more than the sanctioned
load by 1.675kw. From the consumption data it is also been seen that the
consumption during the period 05/2013 to 07/2013 which was peak summer period
was only 77 units against 217 units recorded during the period 03/2013 to 05/2013.
With one AC of 1.5T, consumption of 77 units during peak summer is not possible
and clearly suggests that meter became defective after 16.05.2013. The Forum also
observed that consumption data prior to 16.05.2015 is also not consistent and was
much less than the average of 320 units which was being charged to the complainant
during disputed period. The complainant didn’t agitate for billing of 320 units despite
his past consumption was on lower side clearly suggests that the complainant was
aware that the units being billed was as per the appliances being used by him. The
Forum thus opines that the past data cannot be taken for overhauling. Therefore the
Nodal Officer is directed to overhaul the account for the period from 16.05.2013 to
25.07.2015 on the basis of 1 year consumption recorded by the new meter. Further
appropriate action as per the regulations be taken for the excess load detected at the
premises.
8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions. Compliance be
reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may
be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-50/2016
Date of Institution - 07.04.2016 Date of Order - 28.09.2016
In the matter to the Senior Post Master, General Post Office, Sector-
17, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.4, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. The Senior Post Master, General Post Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh
through his application dated 7.4.2016 filed a complaint as per liberty
granted by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(NCDRC), New Delhi. It is stated that the electricity meter of NRS
connection got burnt and was replaced with a new meter on 1.5.2003.
The meter was checked through Aqua-meter of the electricity department
on 19.11.2003 when it was found that meter was running slow by 52%.
A demand of Rs.6,89,312/- was raised through electricity bill dated
19.1.2004 on account of short assessment as per the report of checking
of the meter. The meter continued to remain in place and was not
replaced though the complainant purchased a new meter as per the
specification provided by the Electricity Department. However,
complainant was directed to purchase a new meter stating that the meter
purchased was not fulfilling the technical requirements. Ultimately meter
was replaced in July 2004 by the electricity department of their own.
Thereafter additional demand of Rs.5,44,259.31P was raised by
increasing the consumption recorded by the meter during the period
November 2003 (date of checking) to July 2004 (date of replacement).
The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the District Consumer
Forum, (DCF) U.T., Chandigarh which was disposed of on 3.4.2006 with
the directions to overhaul the accounts for 6 months against one year
charging by the department and to refund the balance amount out of
Rs.6,89,312/- already paid by the complainant. Subsequent demand of
Rs.5,44,.259/- was quashed. The electricity department aggrieved by the
order moved the State Consumer Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.
(SCDRC). The Hon’ble State Consumer Commission dated 22.1.2007,
modified the orders of the DCSR. With regard to overhauling of the
account for six months and the refund of balance amount against the
payment of Rs.6,89,312/- was upheld and the order with regards to the
denial of arrears of Rs.5,44,259/- was quashed.
The applicant thereafter filed an appeal before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi
against the orders passed by the State Consumer Forum, U.T. Through
an Interim Order dated 17.5.2007 the NCDRC stayed the operation of
the impugned order of the State Commission to deposit of 50% of the
amount giving liberty to the electricity department to withdraw the
same by furnishing the security bond. Subsequently the petition was
disposed of 10.10.2014 on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court giving liberty to the complainant to get his grievances
redressed from the appropriate Forum as per Electricity Act 2003. In
line with above liberty, the complainant filed a complaint with CGRF for
redressal of grievances. Copies of various orders and other supporting
documents including appeals were attached with the application.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-50/2016 was forwarded
to the Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 1 vide letter dated
08.04.2016 for parawise comments with a copy to the complainant.
3. The Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Electy. ‘OP’ Division No.1 vide
his letter dated 26.5.2016 forwarded the reply submitted by the AEE
Electy. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.4 duly countersigned. AEE ‘OP’ Sub
Divn.No.4 pointed out that NCDRC gave liberty to the complainant to
approach the CGRF vide order dated 10.10.2014 but the complainant
approached the CGRF on 7.4.2016 i.e. after a lapse of 1-1/2 years and
therefore prayed that complaint be dismissed on account of extra
ordinary delay. It was also pointed out that the meter was replaced on
21.7.2004 due to running slow and not due to meter burnt as stated by
the complainant. The meter under reference was checked by Meter
Inspector on 19.11.2003 and was detected to be running slow by 52%.
The meter was checked with the help of Aqua-check meter in the
presence of representative of the complainant and obtained his
signatures on the checking report in token thereof. The account of the
complainant was thereafter revised for the period of one year from
October 2002 to October 2003 by increasing the consumption by 52%.
Short assessment of Rs.6,89,312/- was assessed after adjusting
payments already made. The amount was paid by the complainant. Due
to non availability of new meter with the department, the representative
of the complainant was requested to arrange the same at his own level
through verbal as well as written requests. Reminder was also issued on
17.3.2004. The meter arranged by the complainant was not found to be
of proper capacity as per sanctioned load and they were, therefore,
advised to arrange the meter for the proper capacity as per the
specification/sanctioned load. The meter was ultimately arranged by the
department and replaced on 21.7.2004. Thereafter sundry charges
Rs.5,44,259.31 were levied in the bill dated 19.9.2004 for the period
Nov. 2003 to July 2004 by increasing the consumption registered by the
defective meter by 52%.
The complainant filed by complaint before the District Consumer
Redressal Forum, U.T., Chandigarh was disposed off on 3.4.2006 with
the directions to overhaul the account for six months in respect of
amount of Rs.6,89,312/- and demand of Rs.5,47,259/- was quashed.
The electricity department filed an appeal before the State Dispute
Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh contesting that the
complainant was required to challenge the accuracy of the meter in
case they were not satisfied with the site checking as per Instructions
No.113 of the Sale Manual which was not done by them. The electricity
department also challenged the District Forum order for not to charge
Rs.5,44,279.31 stating that the amount is liable to be paid since
inaccurate meter was in place recording less consumption than actual.
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission through its order
dated 22.1.2007 modified the orders of the District Consumer
Redressal Commission to the extent that the amount of
Rs.5,44,259.31 was liable to be paid .Simultaneously directions were
issued to give full details of the amount being so charged including the
meter reading etc.
Thereafter the complainant i.e. Postal Department challenged
the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
dated 27.1.2007 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi. The petition was disposed of with liberty to
get grievances redressed from the proper Forum. He attached
supporting documents such as MCO, Specification of the meter, letters
and the appeals etc.
4. The complaint was notified for hearing on 31.8.2016 vide letter dated
12.8.2016. The complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were
present. The complainant reiterated the issues as per his complaint.
He stressed that the meter was purchased by them in April 2004 as per
specification conveyed by the department but the electricity department
in May 2004 rejected the same that meter was of lower capacity. The
SDO could not attend the hearing and requested for another
opportunity.
5. The case was thereafter listed for hearing on 28.9.2016 when the
complainant as well as RA of the Sub Division were present. The
representative of the complainant specifically raised the following issues.
i) Account should be overhauled for a period of six months prior to
date of checking in line with Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act
2003.
ii) After checking the department failed to replace the disputed
meter and it continued till July 2004. For this period the
overhauling should be on the basis of average rather than
increased the consumption by 52%.
iii) The meter should have been got tested in the lab when it was
found to be slow after checking in November 2003. Thus
procedure was not followed by the Electricity Department, the
complainant should not be penalised.
iv) It was the duty of the department to maintain/install a proper
meter.
v) The meter was not replaced immediately after the inspection
despite pursuance by the complainant.
6. The Forum observed that though the complainant approached the CGRF
after a lapse of 1-1/2 years of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble NCDRC
and the plea by the electricity department for not to entertain due to
extra ordinary delay, the Forum in the interest of justice Condon the
delay.
7. We consider the issues raised by the complainant one by one.
(i) The period of Overhauling:
The complainant has prayed for limiting the period for
overhauling prior to date of checking to six months instead of
one year relying on the Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. It
has, however, been observed that Section 26 of the Electricity
Act is not relevant as it refers to establishment NLDC. Section
126 is also not applicable as it provides for assessment under
unauthorized use of electricity. The instance case of overhauling
is due to meter being slow/defective.
We are of the opinion that in case the period when the meter
started recording less consumption can be identified then the
overhauling should be done w.e.f. this indentified period only
rather than overhauling for a fixed period of six months/one
year. The present Supply Code Regulations also provides for
recovery of charges for the duration during the period the meter
remains non functional. In order to identify the period when
meter became slow, we studied the consumption data supplied
by the Sub Division. The disputed meter was installed during the
period October to December 2000. Thereafter the consumption
was in the range of around 25,000 units during winter period
and around 50,000 units during peak summer i.e. April to
October. The consumption showed a decline from the average
normal consumption during the period October to December
2002 to around 16,000 units (from initial reading 1975 to new
reading 2038 with MF 800/3) against 24,533 units recorded
during the corresponding period during 2001. This less
recording of consumption continued thereafter since the
consumption recorded during peak summer June-August and
August – October was only around 30,000 units against 46,400
and 52,533 units per cycle respectively during the corresponding
period in 2001. It has also been noted that after the disputed
meter was replaced in July 2004, the consumption again picked
up to the level of consumption in the year 2002. The
consumption by the replaced meter during the period June to
August 2005 and during August 2005 to October 2005 was
59352 and 45868 units respectively. During winter period also
the consumption was of the order of 37-40,000 units in the year
2005.
Above analysis clearly suggests that meter became faulty
during the period October to December 2002 and thus the account
needs to be overhauled w.e.f. October 2002 on the basis of above
inference. This idenfication of period incidentally coincide with the
period considered by the Sub Division for overhauling i.e. one year
prior to date of checking.
(ii) Basis of Overhauling for the period w.e.f. date of
checking to replacement of the meter:
The complainant has pleaded that overhauling be done on the
basis of average instead of increasing the consumption by 52%.
As reliable past and future consumption data is available, we find
merit in the submissions made by the complainant that the
overhauling should be done on the basis of average. Moreover
the loading position continued to change during the day and that
the error is generally different at different values of loading, thus
it may not be proper to overhaul the account on the basis of
figure(s) declared by the Sub Division during checking.
(iii) Checking of Meter in the Lab:
The complainant failed to produce an evidence that he agitated
at the time of checking. The complainant was supposed to raise
this issue at that time and not at a later date. The SDO in his
reply has also stated that the complainant did not raise this issue
at that time and did not deposit the requisite meter challenge
fee. As such the meter was not got tested in the lab. We also
feel that the complainant, if was not satisfied with the site
checking should have challenged the meter. Moreover its now
history and not relevant.
(iv) Department failed to maintain the meter properly:
We agree that it was the duty of the department to provide a
correct meter for recording the consumption.
(v) Non replacement of meter promptly:
The SDO stated that the meter could not be replaced due to non
availability and the complainant was requested to procure at his
end. This is now again history but the fact is that meter was
recording less consumption than being used as per analysis and
inference drawn under Para 6 (i) above. Thus the account
needs to be overhauled during the period the meter was
recording less consumption.
8. Conclusion and Decision:
From above analysis, the conclusion is drawn that the meter became
slow after October 2002 and remained in operation till 21.7.2004. As
the past reliable consumption data is available, the account during this
period of around 22 months be overhauled on the basis of consumption
recorded during immediately proceeding 22 months from December
2000 to October 2002. The account already overhauled is set aside. The
Nodal officer is directed to overhaul the consumption from 10/2002 to
21.7.2004 on the basis of consumption recorded during immediately
proceeding period from December 2000 to October 2002.
As the Electricity Department failed to install a correct meter after it
was detected that meter was slow, no meter rental be levied after
November 2002 till replacement of meter i.e. 21.7.2004. The meter
rental charged if any, during the period November 2003 to 21.7.2004
be refunded by the Nodal Officer simultaneously. Compliance be
reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the
penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of
the Electricity Act 2003
9. With above observations and decision, the complaint is disposed off.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the
Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V,
Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month
from the date of receipt of this order.”
10. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be
sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-135/2016
Date of Institution - 03.08.2016 Date of Order - 29.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Amritanshu Dwivedi, House No. 459/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Amritanshu Dwivedi, through his email dated 03.08.2016 pointed out that
his name on the electricity bill was not correctly spelled. In the absence of any
details such as account no. or house no. etc, through return email he was
requested to provide the required details for initiating action on his complaint.
Through his subsequent mail on 05.08.2016, he provided the details including
his account no. and address as House No. 459/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-135/2016 was forwarded to
the Nodal Officer i.e. XEN, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 for comments/feedback
vide letter dated 09.08.2016 with a copy to the complainant.
3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9 vide his letter dated
17.08.2016 stated that for correcting the spelling mistake in the name of the
consumer the advice to the computer cell would be sent on 30.09.2016. He
also informed that the correct name would be reflected on the bill to be
issued on 22.10.2016. He also enclosed a copy of above reply to the Nodal
Officer as well as to the complainant.
4. On the date notified for hearing i.e. 27.09.2016, the complainant didn’t
attend. The RA of the sub division present during the hearing confirmed that
his correct name would appear in the bill to be issued in October 2016.
5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been
redressed by the sub division consider the complaint as disposed. The
complainant may however approach the Forum in case the spelling mistake
of his name is not corrected in the electricity bill to be issued in October
2016.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity
Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016
(Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent
to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for
compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after
having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-118/2016
Date of Institution - 02.07.2016
Date of Order - 29.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Parag Raj Sharma, House No. 3044, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Parag Raj Sharma, resident of House No. 3044, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh, through
his email dated 02.07.2016 lodged a complaint with the SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9
for the inflated bill dated 28.06.2016 amounting to Rs. 3,74,030/-. He pointed out that
apparently this high amount of bill is on account of some inadvertent error which may be
checked and rectified. He also pointed out that his last bill was also on higher side. He
forwarded copy of this complaint to CGRF as well.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-118/2016 was forwarded to the
Nodal Officer i.e. Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated
05.07.2016 for comments along with consumption data and connected load as
checked. The consumer was also requested to submit a written complainant duly
signed within 5 days as per provisions of the procedure circulated by the JERC.
3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.9 through his letter dated 09.09.2016
submitted the reply with a copy to the Nodal Officer as well as to the complainant. In
his reply he stated that the said connection was checked by an official of his sub
division on 18.07.2016 and he found meter dead stop. The meter was replaced on
21.07.2016. After observing the meter as dead stop and recordings of abnormal
consumption as compared to past consumption, the consumer account was
overhauled for the period 01/2016 to 21/07/2016 at the rate of 371 units per month
on the basis of corresponding past consumption during the period 01/2015 to
07/2015. The amount of revised bill has been indicated as Rs 3881/-. He also stated
that the adjustment of Rs. 4,31,662/- would be reflected in the bill to be issued on
24.10.2016. He enclosed copy of MCO, consumption data and details of the amount
proposed to be adjusted in the subsequent bill.
4. On the notified date of hearing on 27.09.2016 the complainant as well as the RA of
the sub division were present. The RA explained him that his bill stands corrected as
per the consumption recorded in the past. The complainant showed his satisfaction
and confirmed that he had already paid the amount of the revised bill.
5. The Forum observing that the grievance of the complainant has already been
redressed by the sub division, consider the complaint as disposed.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
6. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-94/102/2016
Date of Institution - 04.06.2016 Date of Order - 30.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Jarnail Singh, House No.773, Sector-56, Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 4, UT, Chd. 2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.10, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Shri Jarnail Singh, resident of House No. 773, Sector-56, Chandigarh through his
representation dated 4.6.2016 pointed out that he received an electricity bill with sundry
charges of Rs.6,810/-. He raised his objection with regard to levy of sundry charges.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. GR-94/2016 was forwarded to the Nodal
Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Electy. ‘OP’ Division No. 4 vide letter dated
07.06.2016 for comments along with consumption data of last three years, with a
copy to the complainant. Another complaint for the same premises was received
from Shri Manjit Singh which was registered as Complaint No. GR-102/2016.
However, subsequently it was observed that this complaint though this was from a
different person, also pertains to same premises and same account as such both
these complaints are being disposed through this common order.
3. The AEE Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 vide his letter dated 16.6.2016 submitted that
the meter of the consumer was found (dead/stop) and was replaced on 4.5.2015.
On the basis of consumption details it was noted that the meter started recording
less consumption w.e.f. 19.6.2013. Thereafter the account of the consumer was
overhauled from 19.12.2013 to 4.5.2014 @ 200 units per month on the basis of
consumption recorded by new meter from 19.6.2015 to 19.2.2016 in view of non
availability of reliable past consumption data. He also supplied consumption data for
last three years along with copy of MCO.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 25.7.2016 but the consumer did not attend.
Another opportunity was afforded and the case was again listed for hearing on
13.9.2016 which was postponed to 14.9.2016 due to declaration of Holiday on
13.9.2016.
5. In the meanwhile, the reply received from the AEE ‘OP’ Sub Divn.No.10 was
forwarded to the complainant for his information and further action, if any, vide
letter dated 20.06.2016 by the Forum.
6. On 14.9.2016 also, the consumer did not appear. The Forum on the basis of
submissions made by the SDO and the consumption data observed that the meter
started recording very less consumption (25 Units and less against average of 200
units) w.e.f. 19.6.2013. This abnormal drop in consumption particularly during
summer months suggests that the meter became faulty after 19.6.2013. The
account was overhauled, however, from 19.12.2013 and not from 19.6.2013 by
wrongly interpreting the Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. In such cases, the
account was required to be overhauled from the period meter became faulty.
In view of the above, the Nodal Officer is directed to get the account overhauled
afresh w.e.f. 19.6.2013 to 4.5.2015 on the basis of consumption recorded by the
replaced meter from 19.6.2015 to 19.2.2016.
7. The complaint stands disposed with aforementioned directions. Compliance be
reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order failing which the penalties may
be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the Electricity Act 2003
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may
make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for
JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd
Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954,
Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main as well as GR-102/2016 files for record.
One copy be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to both the
complainants for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the record
room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM
ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON
SH. JASWINDER SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - CG-62/2016
Date of Institution - 22.10.2015 Date of Order - 30.09.2016
In the matter to Shri Ashish Gosain, House No. 312, Sector 46-A,
Chandigarh.
………………..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 3, UT, Chd.
2. SDO, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6, UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As per The Chairman, Er. R.K.Arora.
ORDER
1. Sh. Ashish Gosain, resident of House No. 312, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh,
through his complaint dated 22.10.2015 submitted that he is residing on
the first floor of the said house. The meter of the first floor suddenly got
defected and started jumping for which request was given to the
concerned SDO. This meter was replaced during Nov/2014 with a new
meter purchased by him. This replaced meter after about one year of
installation has again started giving higher reading/jumping. Praying that
the meter be got inspected and replaced, the complainant submitted that
the amount should be refunded back. He enclosed the rent deed the
references made to the SDO and the copies of the electricity bill.
2. The complaint, registered as Complaint No. CG-62/2015 was
forwarded to the Nodal Officer, XEN Elecy. ‘OP’ Division No. 3 for Para-
wise comments/feedback along with consumption data for the last
three years vide letter dated 21.11.2015 with a copy to the consumer.
3. The concerned SDO Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No.6 vide his letter dated
27.11.2015 submitted the Para-wise comments confirming that the
previous meter was replaced on 19.11.2014 being defective with a
new private meter. He further submitted that the working of the
present meter was got checked and the error was found within
permissible limits. He enclosed the copy of MCO, the report dated
20.11.2015 of checking of the meter and the consumption data.
4. The case was notified for hearing on 13.01.2016. Another opportunity
was given by re-notifying the case for hearing on 10.02.2016 as the
complainant did not attend on dated 13.01.2016
During hearing on 10.02.2016 the details provided by the SDO
were shared with the complainant who sought more time. Thereafter
the case was listed for hearing on 16.03.2016. The complainant during
hearing showed his dissatisfaction to the checking of the working of
the meter by SDO and challenged the meter. Directions were imparted
to the SDO for getting the meter tested in the Lab, after the
complainant deposit the requisite fee. Thereafter the hearing was
conducted on 09.06.2016. The complainant did not attend. The SDO
supplied a copy of the report dated 05.04.2016 of the checking of
meter in the M&P Lab. As per report, the error in the meter was found
to be within permissible limits. The testing was done in the presence of
the consumer representative. Thereafter two opportunities were given
to the complainant to defend his case by listing for hearing on
12.07.2016 and 20.09.2016. But the complainant did not attend. The
SDO/RA present during various hearings pleaded for dismissal of the
complaint on the basis of report of checking in the Lab.
5. The Forum observed from the consumption data that except for peek
summer period, the consumption of the meter was consistent during
the past as recorded by previous meter(s) as well as the future
consumption recorded by the replaced meter. The complainant
agitated on the basis of higher consumption recorded during the
summer months. It has generally been observed that the consumption
during summer months increases substantially. In isolated cases the
recorded consumption during summer months has been found to be
2.5 to 3 times the normal/average consumption during rest of the
period of the year.
6. In the present case, again consumption recorded by the new meter
replaced (on removal of disputed meter for getting tested in lab has
been found to be more than 1100 units per cycle during summer
period)
7. Further on the basis of the report dated 05.04.2016 of the M&P Lab,
the Forum finds no merit in the complaint made by the complainant
and dismiss the same. The forum also observed from the consumption
data that at the time of replacement of the meter on 19.11.2014, the
proportionate consumption was not included for the period the old
defective meter was in-place. The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure
that the proportionate consumption for the period the old meter was
in-place, is charged on the basis of consumption recorded during the
corresponding period in the year 2013.
8. The complaint stands disposed off with aforementioned directions.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the
Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya
Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob:
09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
9. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy
be sent to the office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the
consumer for compliance wherever required. File be consigned to the
record room after having it properly numbered and indexed.
(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA)
MEMBER, CGRF Chairperson, CGRF
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM ROOM NO. 531, 5TH FLOOR, UT SECTT. BUILDING
UT, CHANDIGARH-160009
BEFORE: ER. R.K. ARORA, CHAIRPERSON SH. J.S. SIDHU, NOMINATED MEMBER.
Complaint No. - GR-79/2016 Date of Institution - 17.05.2016
Date of Order - 30.09.2016 In the matter Sh. Hori Lal, House No. 285, Ph-2, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh. ………………..Complainant/Applicant
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Elecy. ‘OP’ Divn. No. 1, UT, Chd. 2. AEE, Elecy. ‘OP’ Sub-Divn. No. 2 UT, Chandigarh.
……………….Respondents
As Per Sh. J.S. SIDHU, Nominated Member.
Order
1. Sh. Hori Lal, vide his representation 17.05.2016 has disclosed that one Mr. Rafiq
Mian along with three other person namely Naseem, Mewa Ram and Raghubir
Singh, took upon themselves to enter into an agreement with the electricity
department to supply electricity in Bapu Dham colony on contract. The partnership
deed executed on 03.11.2008, along with bank account details dated 07.12.2008, in
the name of “Rafiq Mian and Associates” and a copy of receipt of electricity
consumption in the name of ”Rafiq Mian and company” (contactor Chandigarh
Electricity Department, situated at house no. 2434, Phase 2, Bapu Dham, Sector 26,
Chandigarh), is also placed on record to substantiate his pleading. The applicant is
aggrieved of the demand of Rs. 1,27,849, through the bill dated 18.02.2011, under
the heading of Arrears. The applicant has claimed that the demand of Rs. 1,27,849,
on the basis of a surety document should not have been initiated by the electricity
department for the reason that the defaulter Mr. Rafiq Mian, who himself is an
existing consumer of the electricity department, is residing at house no. 1922, small
flats Dhanas Chandigarh, and that such outstanding amount should have been
transferred against the existing connection in his name. However the action of
electricity department in demanding the defaulting amount pertaining to Rafiq Mian
from him without giving him any advance notice is a wrongful act and thus the
demand notice deserves to be withdrawn against him.
2. The respondent Nodal Officer i.e. XEN ‘OP’ Division No. 1, vide notice dated
18.05.2016 was asked to furnish brief history of the case, point/Para wise reply to
the points raised by the complainant, copy of relevant
Instructions/Rules/Regulations/Circular, consumption data, actual connected load as
checked etc. The undated reply vide memo no. 5212 dated 26.05.2016 was
received through which the electricity department contested that the complainant
along with one Mewa Ram were issued notices both dated 25.01.2011 on the basis
of a Surety Bond dated 24.09.2008 furnished by Hori Lal along with Meva Ram
through which he had promised to stand surety in favour of Rafiq Miyan that in case
he did not pay the bills and other dues of the electricity department that the same
amount will be debited in their accounts and department was fully authorized to do
so. The respondents further claimed that the complainant had also approached local
civil court against the department and Hon’ble court had dismissed the complaint of
the complainant on 06.08.2015 and even his appeal before the court of Additional
District sessions Judge Chandigarh which too has been dismissed vide order dated
24.02.2016. Therefore the complainant is held liable to clear the defaulting amount
which stood in the name of Rafiq Miyan as complainant was the surety holder
against him & Prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against respondents.
3. During the hearing on 14.06.2016, an interim order was passed by the Hon’ble
Chairman however the same being devoid of quorum was kept in abeyance till the
Forum attained quorum.
4. There after hearing was conducted on 29.09.2016 during which, as per the
disclosure of the complainant, details of the new connection released in the name of
Rafiq Miyan, S/o Maula Varus, on 26.11.2013 at his address house no. 1922,
Dhanas and other connected documents disclosing the allotment of dwelling unit
number flat no. 1922, situated at Dhanas Chandigarh, were sourced from the office
of Sub Division No.4, sector 15, Chandigarh. The identity of the defaulter Rafiq
Miyan S/o Maula Varus, stands established from the copy of aadhar card used for
the release of the new electricity connection that exist in his name, as of today, since
its subscription from the year 2013.
5. On minute perusal of the documents placed on record by the parties, we are of the
view that the respondents while entering into a contract with one Mr. Rafiq Miyan for
distribution of electricity energy in Madrasi Colony, Bapu Dham, Chandigarh, had
taken on record one Surety Bond dated 24.09.2008, jointly signed by Mewa Ram
and the complainant Hori Lal declaring that they will make good the un paid bills and
other dues of the electricity department in case Rafiq Miyan failed to pay the same.
Such amount would be debited in their account and the department will be fully
authorized to do so. However it is necessary to quote here that the actual defaulter
Mr. Rafiq Mayin had failed to respond to the notice dated 12.02.2009 and even
refused to receive it, as found mentioned on the copy of the notice placed by record
by the respondents.
It is understood that the electricity department even after having taken
recourse of adding the amount of Rs. 1,27,849/- in the bill dated 13.02.2011 as
Arrears was unable to recover the outstanding of Rafiq Miyan from the complainant
as the Hori Lal complainant is a daily wager and did not have the resources or
assets to make good such payments. On the other hand Mr. Rafiq Miyan, who had
acquired a property in Chandigarh itself and is enjoying a fresh connection in his
name at the address house no. 1922, Dhanas Chandigarh. It is necessary to quote
here that the provisions of Regulation 9.2 (10) clearly mandates the respondents to
disconnect the power supply to a consumer where any consumer having more than
one connection defaults in payment of dues relating to one of the connections,
therefore by extending these provisions, the respondents can very easily recover
the outstanding amount from original defaulter Mr. Rafiq Miyan who is now residing
at house no. 1922, Dhanas, Chandigarh since 2013 and is enjoying the electricity
connection issued by Sub Division no.4, of Chandigarh electricity department itself
under the same Division. Apart from the afore mentioned Regulation 9.2 (10), the
JERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2013 also empowers the respondents
to recover the outstanding dues due to the consumer by resorting to the provisions
of RR Act, as mentioned in Regulation 6.9 (2) of the Supply Code.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations we are of the view that the respondents are
directed to do the needful in making serious efforts for the recovery of outstanding
amount against Rafiq Miyan in the manner as is mandated under the provisions of
Regulation 9.2 (10) & Regulation 6.9 (2). The respondents are also ordered to
immediately restore the connection of the complainant against the payment of
energy charges due to him without charging any plenty or surcharges and also
facilitating such payment in instalments in case the complainant shows his inability in
paying the same in one single go.
7. With the above observations and directions, the complaint stands disposed.
Compliance be reported within 21 days after the receipt of the order falling which the
penalties may be imposed by Hon’ble JERC as per relevant sections of the
Electricity Act 2003.
“The Complainant, if aggrieved, by non-redressal of his grievance by the Forum may make a representation/appeal against this order, before the Electricity Ombudsman for JERC for the State of Goa and UTs, “Vanijya Nikunj”, HSIIDC Office Complex (2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon- 122016 (Haryana), Phone No.0124-2340954, Mob: 09871588333, E-mail id- [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. A copy of this order be placed on the main file for record. One copy be sent to the
office of XEN being the Nodal Officer with a copy to the consumer for compliance
wherever required. File be consigned to the record room after having it properly
numbered and indexed.
(J.S. SIDHU) (R.K.ARORA) MEMBER,CGRF CHAIRPERSON,CGRF