Punjab state power corporation limited




Yüklə 37.72 Kb.
tarix27.02.2016
ölçüsü37.72 Kb.


PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES OF CONSUMERS

P-1 WHITE HOUSE, RAJPURA COLONY, PATIALA
Case No. CG-83 of 2012
Instituted on : 17.09.2012
Closed on : 30.10.2012
M/S Malwa Ice Factory,

Nathana Road, Near Gaushala,

Bhagta Bhaike, Teh. Rampuraphul,

Distt. Bathinda.. Petitioner

Name of the 'Op' Division: Bhagta Bhaike


A/C No. MS-92/28

Through

Sh.S.R. Jindal, PR




V/s



PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. Respondent
Through
Er. V.K. Bansal, Sr.Xen/Op. Divn. Bhagta Bhaike
BRIEF HISTORY
The appellant consumer is having a MS category connection bearing Account No. MS-92/28 for sanctioned load of 59.27 KW. The connection is running under AEE/Op. Bhagta Bhaike Sub Divn..
The connection of the consumer was checked by Sr.Xen/Enf.II Bathinda jointly with SDO/Op. Bhagta Bhaike Sub Divn. in the presence of the representative of the consumer on dt. 13.3.12 vide ECR No. 1&A1/1291 Enforcement agency checked the working of the meter and reported as under:-
whNo dh ekoie[;absk Jhnkon?; whNo Bkb ( n?bNh ;kJhv) 25H82 e/Hvpb:{ b'v s/ u?e ehsh ns/ whNo 29H92# xN ubdk gkfJnk frnk .fJ; T[gozs n?wH;hHphH dhnK ;hbK y'bD T[gozs whNo d/ g?ok whNo j/m fby/ nB[;ko foekov ehs/ rJ/ .

V1 6219.32 V A1 = R = 3.013A

V2 6161.83 V A2 = Y = 2.679A

V3 6224.92 V A3 = B = 000. A


fJ; fJB;g?e;aB s' gsk ufbnk fe Bhb/ c/i dk ;hHNhH ezNohfpT[N Bjh eo fojk j? . chvo pzd eotkT[D Tgozs ;hHNhH d/ nkT[N g[N NowhBb s/ ekopB dh n;zek Bz{ fXnkB ftu oyfdnK j'fJnk NowhBb u?e ehs/ rJ/ ns/ NkJhN ehs/ rJ/ . gqzs{ d[pkok ;gbkJh ubke/ b'v gkT[D T[gozs d/fynk fe Bhbk c/ia dk ;hHNhH ezNohfpT[N Bjh eo fojk . fi;s' ;knc ikjo j? fe fJ;dk Bhbk c/ia dk ;hHNhH yokp j' frnk j? .


1H ;hHNhH$ghHNhH :{fBN s[ozs pdbh ehsk ikt/ ns/ whNo dh fJe n?wHJhH ;hb N[Nh j'D eoe/ whNo th pdbh ehsk ikt/ . ;hHNhH$ghHNhH :{fBN ns/ whNo ygseko dh jkioh ftu fiT[ dh fsT[ ;hb g?e eoe/ nzdo{Bh iKu gVskb ns/ ;hbK dh ;[Xsk u?e eoB bJh n?wHJhH b?p fty/ ygseko ns/ fJBc'o;w?N dh jkioh ftu u?e eotkfJnk ikt/ .
The CT/PT unit and meter was replaced vide MCO No.194/5153 dt. 14.3.12 effected on 13.4.12. The replaced meter along with CT/PT unit was sent to ME lab. for checking vide store challan No.1 dt. 11.6.12 where it was checked by ASE/Enf. and Sr.Xen/ME Lab. along with other officers in the presence of the consumer's representative and reported as under:-
;hHNhH$ghHNhH :{fBN$ whfNfozr g?Bb Bz{ ygseko dh jkioh ftu y'b e/ u?e ehsk frnk CT Unit Bz{ RYB c/iK s/ 6 A (100#) load gke/ nkT[N r'fJzr bhv s/ efbg nkB whNo Bkb eozN u?e ehsk nko ns/ tkJh c/ia d/ ;hNhH ezNqhfpT[;aB mhe gkJh rJh gzas{ ph c/ia dk ;hNh ezNohfpT[N Bjh eodk gkfJnk frnk fJ; s' ;kc ikjo j? fe ph c/ia dk ;hNh yokp j? ns/ whNo Bz{ fJe c/ia(ph c/ia) ;hNh dh e'Jh ezNohfpT[;aB Bjh j' ojh .
whNo dh ekoie[;absk u?e eoB bJh ;?N T[go brkfJnk frnk ns/ whNo d/ Bshi/ ;hwk ftu gkJ/ rJ/ .
DDL of the meter was also carried out and as per print out of DDL current failure of blue phase was observed from 12.8.10 onward. As per the report of Enforcement the account of the consumer was overhauled from 8/2010 to 4/2012 and charged Rs. 3,23,877/-. The consumer did not agree to it and challenged the disputed amount in ZDSC by depositing 20% i.e. Rs.64775/- on dt. 14.5.12.
The ZDSC heard the case in its meeting held on 16.8.12 and decided that:-

fJj e/; T[g w[Zy fJzi$tzv jbek, pfmzvk tb' ew/Nh ;kjwD/ ftukoB fjZs g/;a ehsk frnk ygseko d/ B[wkfJzd/ ti ';qh;kX{ okw fizdb ew/Nh ;kjwD/ nkgDk gZy g/;a eoB bJh jkfio j'J/ . ghHTH B/ ew/Nh Bz{ df;nk fe ygseko dk whNfozr nfeT[gw?N u?fezr fog'oN nB[;ko ;hHNh$ghNh ftu B[e; j'D ekoB 29H92# j'bh ubdk gkfJnk frnk ;h ns/ vhHvhHn?bH dh N?go fog'oN nB[;ko fJj B[e; fwsh 12H8H10 s' ub fojk ;h ns/ fog'oN nB[;ko T[-; fwsh s' ygseko dk yksk ;'fXnk frnk j? . ghHTH B/ fJj th df;nk fe yksk ;'XD t/b/ ;b'B; c?eNo 29H92# Bkb e?be[b/;aB ;jh Bjh ehsh rJh ns/ n;b oew 4,62,156$^ o[L pDdh j? fJj ;hNhghHNh :{fBN ns/ whNo n?wHJhH b?p pfmzvk ftu fwsh 11H6H2012 Bz{ w'fVnk frnk ns/ n?wHJhHb?p pfmzvk dh fog'oN BzL 14$35 fwsh 11H6H12 d/ w[skfpe Bhb/ c/ia dk ;hNh ezNfofpT[N Bjh eodk gkfJnk frnk ;h ns/ whNo dh ekoie[;absk ;hwK ftu gkJh rJh ;h ns/ fJ; soK n?wHJhH b?p pfmzvk dh fog'oN ns/ ;kJhN dh fog'oN nkg; ftu w/b yKdh j? ygseko d/ B[wkfJzd/ B/ fejk fe jdkfJsK w[skfpe 6 wjhB/ s' tZX dk yksk Bjh ;'fXnk ik ;edk . fJ; bJh T[; Bz{ 6 wjhB/ dh oew jh ukoi eoBh pDdh j? . ew/Nh tb' ygseko ns/ ghHTH dhnK dbhbK ;[DD s' pknd ns/ foekov dh x'y gVskb eoB s' gkfJnk frnk fe fJ; e/; ftu Bhb/ c/ia dk ;hNh ezBNohfpT[N Bjh eodk ;h ns/ vhHvhHn?b d/ ftu fJj ;hNh fwsh 12H8H10 s' ezNqhfpT[N Bk eoB pko/ foekov j'fJnk j? ns/ 6 wjhBnk bJh yksk T[BK e/;K ftu ;'XDk pDdk j? fiE/ f;oc whNo jh yokp j't/ fJ; bJh ew/Nh tb' c?;bK ehsk iKdk j? fe ;hNh ezNqhfpTN Bk eoB dh fwsh 12H8H10 s' jh yksk ;'XDk pDdk j? ns/ ygseko Bz{ g?D tkbh oew Bz{ gqh nkfvN eoB T[gozs ukoi ehsk ikt/ ns/ ekog'o/;aB dhnK jdkfJsK w[skfpe pDdk ftnki$;oukoi t;{bhnk ikt/ .


As per decision of ZDSC the account of the consumer was overhauled and charged Rs. 4,62,622/-. Not satisfied with the decision of ZDSC. The consumer made an appeal in the Forum, Forum heard the case on 4.10.12, 17.10.12, and finally on 30.10.12.when the case was closed for passing speaking orders.
Proceedings of the Forum:

1. On 4.10.12, Representative of PSPCL submitted four copies of the reply vide memo no. 4453 dt. 1-10-12 and the same has been taken on record. One copy of the same handed over to PR.



2. On 17.10.12, Representative of PSPCL submitted authority letter in his favour duly signed by Sr.Xen/Op, Divn, Bhagta Bhaike, and the same has been taken on record.
Representative of PSPCL stated that reply submitted on 04-10-12 may be treated as their written arguments.
PR submitted four copies of the written arguments and the same has been taken on record. One copy thereof has been handed over to the representative of PSPCL.
Representative of PSPCL is directed to supply copy of checking report dated 13-03-12 of enforcement, complete printout of DDL dated13-03-12 along with other documents regarding any checking/DDL carried out during period 12-08-10 to 13-03-12 on the next date of hearing.
3. On 30.10.12, PR submitted authority letter in his favour duly signed by Manager of the factory and the same has been taken on record.
In the proceeding dated 17-10-12 representative of PSPCL was directed to supply copy of checking report dated 13-03-12 of enforcement, complete printout of DDL dated13-03-12 along with other documents regarding any checking/DDL carried out during period 12-08-10 to13-03-12 on the next date of hearing. Representative of PSPCL have supplied the requisite data and taken on record. One copy of the same handed over to the PR.
PR contended that Petitioner is having Ice Factory for a load of 59.270 KW at Bhagta Bhai Ka . That the connection of the petitioner was checked by Enforcement Wing on 13-03-2012 who reported meter running slow by 29.92% and simultaneously DDL of the meter was recorded on 3-4-12 who reported in their tempered data that defect was from 12-08-2010. The DDL does not show that it was recorded on 3-4-12 where as it is up to 13-3-12.
That the account of the petitioner was overhauled from 8/2010 to 4/2012 for 21 months which is beyond the rules of PSPCL, in view of supply code clause 21.4 (g) the account should be overhauled for maximum period of 6 months.
That the checking report has not been jointly signed by the operation staff in view of ESR clause 112.4.2.
That if there was variation in the consumption due to the defect why not the verification of low/high consumption was investigated in view of ESIM clause 102.7.
That the checking of connection has not been made half yearly by the AE/AEE/Xen/Op, in view of ESR clause 112.2.2.
That in case of Sh. Raman Mahajan in case No. CG-46 of 2012 forum approved the charges levied for 6 months in view of supply code clause 21.4 (g), whereas the defect was of 719 days 8 hours 45 minutes old from the date of checking (5.3.2011) .
That in the calculation HT rebate of 3 % has not been allowed since the supply converted on HT side in view of CC No. 14/2004 dtd 11-3-04.
That there is no fall in the consumption after 12-8-2010 even the consumption rise in the month of Sept., Oct., Nov., 2010 it clearly shows that there was some snag in the meter/ report.
That under what instruction amount of 21 months has been charged be supplied to the forum.
That the amount has been beyond rules for 21 months be withdrawn in the interest of justice along with H.T. rebate.
Representative of PSPCL contended that connection of the petitioner was checked by Enforcement on 13-3-12 and DDL of the meter was recorded on 13-3-12 which shows the date of defect was from 12-8-10 as per temper report which was dumped on PC on 3-4-12 .
The clause 21.4 (g) (i) is not applicable as this is not a case of in accurate meter rather it is a case of non-contribution of (1) blue phase of CT/PT unit. Account has been overhauled as per ESIM 59.4.
Checking has been signed jointly by the operation staff and Enforcement Staff .
Due to shortage of Staff it may not verified but petitioner cannot escape from this in view of non-investigation .
It is not mandatory on the part of AEE/AE to check the connection half yearly.
3% rebate has been allowed /given as the amount has to be pre audited.
Uniformity in the consumption pattern does not corroborate the facts that the meter and its equipment's are functioning correctly.
PR further contended that in the brief history submitted along with reply has stated that DDL was taken on 3-4-2012 where as now respondent denied the facts. The account cannot be overhauled beyond 6 months as in case of forum has already decided case no. CG-46/12. Shortage of Staff as stated by respondent is no excuse because as per rules variation consumption must be verified. It is also wrong that it not mandatory to check the connection by the competent authority half yearly. Moreover the HT rebate of 3% is due from the date when the supply was converted against CC No. 14/2004. In view of the above the amount is not chargeable.

Both the parties have nothing more to say and submit and the case was closed for passing speaking orders.



Observations of the Forum:

After the perusal of petition, reply, proceedings, oral discussions and record made available, Forum observed as under:-


The appellant consumer is having a MS category connection bearing Account No. MS-92/28 for sanctioned load of 59.27 KW. The connection is running under AEE/Op. Bhagta Bhaike Sub Divn..
The connection of the consumer was checked by Sr.Xen/Enf.II Bathinda jointly with SDO/Op. Bhagta Bhaike Sub Divn. in the presence of the representative of theconsumer on dt. 13.3.12 vide ECR No. 1&A1/1291 Enforcement agency checked the working of the meter and reported as under:-
whNo dh ekoie[;absk Jhnkon?; whNo Bkb ( n?bNh ;kJhv) 25H82 e/Hvpb:{ b'v s/ u?e ehsh ns/ whNo 29H92# xN ubdk gkfJnk frnk .fJ; T[gozs n?wH;hHphH dhnK ;hbK y'bD T[gozs whNo d/ g?ok whNo j?m fby/ nB[;ko foekov ehs/ rJ/ .

V1 6219.32 V A1 = R = 3.013A

V2 6161.83 V A2 = Y = 2.679A

V3 6224.92 V A3 = B = 000. A


fJ; fJB;g?e;aB s' gsk ufbnk fe Bhb/ c/i dk ;hHNhH ezNohfpT[N Bjh eo fojk j? . chvo pzd eotkT[D Tgozs ;hHNhH d/ nkT[N g{N NowhBb s/ ekopB dh n;zek Bz{ fXnkB ftu oyfdnK j'fJnk NowhBb u?e ehs/ rJ/ ns/ NkJhN ehs/ rJ/ . gqzs{ d[pkok ;gbkJh ubke/ b'v gkT[D T[gozs d/fynk fe Bhbk c/ia dk ;hHNhH ezNohfpT[N Bjh eo fojk . fi;s' ;knc ikjo j? fe fJ;dk Bhbk c/ia dk ;hHNhH yokp j' frnk j? .


1H ;hHNhH$ghHNhH :{fBN s[ozs pdbh ehsk ikt/ ns/ whNo dh fJe n?wHJhH ;hb N[Nh j'D eoe/ whNo th pdbh ehsk ikt/ . ;hHNhH$ghHNhH :{fBN ns/ whNo ygseko dh jkioh ftu fiT[ dh fsT[ ;hb g?e eoe/ nzdo{Bh iKu gVskb ns/ ;hbK dh ;[Xsk u?e eoB bJh n?wHJhH b?p fty/ ygseko ns/ fJBc'o;w?N dh jkioh ftu u?e eotkfJnk ikt/ .
The CT/PT unit and meter was replaced vide MCO No.194/5153 dt. 14.3.12 effected on 13.4.12. The replaced meter along with CT/PT unit was sent to ME lab. for checking vide store challan No.1 dt. 11.6.12 where it was checked by ASE/Enf. and Sr.Xen/ME Lab. along with other officers in the presence of the consumer's representative and reported as under:-
;hHNhH$ghHNhH :{fBN$ whfNfozr g?Bb Bz{ ygseko dh jkioh ftu y'b e/ u?e ehsk frnk CT Unit Bz{ RYB c/iK s/ 6 A (100#) load gke/ nkT[N r'fJzr bhv s/ efbg nkB whNo Bkb eozN u?e ehsk nko ns/ tkJh c/ia d/ ;hNhH ezNqhfpT[;aB mhe gkJh rJh gzas{ ph c/ia dk ;hNh ezNohfpT[N Bjh eodk gkfJnk frnk fJ; s' ;kc ikjo j? fe ph c/ia dk ;hNh yokp j? ns/ whNo Bz{ fJe c/ia(ph c/ia) ;hNh dh e'Jh ezNohfpT[;aB Bjh j' ojh .
whNo dh ekoie[;absk u?e eoB bJh ;?N T[go brkfJnk frnk ns/ whNo d/ Bshi/ ;hwk ftu gkJ/ rJ/ .
DDL of the meter was also carried out and as per print out of DDL current failure of blue phase was observed from 12.8.10 onward. As per the report of Enforcement the account of the consumer was overhauled from 8/2010 to 4/2012 and charged Rs. 3,23,877/-.
PR contended that Petitioner is having Ice Factory for a load of 59.270 KW at Bhagta Bhai Ka . That the connection of the petitioner was checked by Enforcement Wing on 13-03-2012 who reported meter running slow by 29.92% and simultaneously DDL of the meter was recorded on 3-4-12 who reported in their tempered data that defect was from 12-08-2010. The DDL does not show that it was recorded on 3-4-12 where as it is up to 13-3-12.
That the account of the petitioner was overhauled from 8/2010 to 4/2012 for 21 months which is beyond the rules of PSPCL, in view of supply code clause 21.4 (g) the account should be overhauled for maximum period of 6 months.
That the checking report has not been jointly signed by the operation staff in view of ESR clause 112.4.2.
That if there was variation in the consumption due to the defect why not the verification of low/high consumption was investigated in view of ESIM clause 102.7.
That the checking of connection has not been made half yearly by the AE/AEE/Xen/Op, in view of ESR clause 112.2.2.
That in case of Sh. Raman Mahajan in case No. CG-46 of 2012 forum approved the charges levied for 6 months in view of supply code clause 21.4 (g), whereas the defect was of 719 days 8 hours 45 minutes old from the date of checking (5.3.2011)
That in the calculation HT rebate of 3 % has not been allowed since the supply converted on HT side in view of CC No. 14/2004 dtd 11-3-04.
That there is no fall in the consumption after 12-8-2010 even the consumption rise in the month of Sept., Oct., Nov., 2010 it clearly shows that there was some snag in the meter/ report.
That under what instruction amount of 21 months has been charged be supplied to the forum.
That the amount has been beyond rules for 21 months be withdrawn in the interest of justice along with H.T. rebate.
Representative of PSPCL contended that connection of the petitioner was checked by Enforcement on 13-3-12 and DDL of the meter was recorded on 13-3-12 which shows the date of defect was from 12-8-10 as per temper report which was dumped on PC on 3-4-12 .
The clause 21.4 (g) (i) is not applicable as this is not a case of in accurate meter rather it is a case of non-contribution of (1) blue phase of CT/PT unit. Account has been overhauled as per ESIM 59.4.
Checking has been signed jointly by the operation staff and Enforcement Staff .
Due to shortage of Staff it may not verified but petitioner cannot escape from this in view of non-investigation .
It is not mandatory on the part of AEE/AE to check the connection half yearly.
3% rebate has been allowed /given as the amount has to be pre audited.
Uniformity in the consumption pattern does not corroborate the facts that the meter and its equipment's are functioning correctly.
PR further contended that in the brief history submitted along with reply has stated that DDL was taken on 3-4-2012 where as now respondent denied the facts. The account cannot be overhauled beyond 6 months as in case of forum has already decided case no. CG-46/12. Shortage of Staff as stated by respondent is no excuse because as per rules variation consumption must be verified. It is also wrong that it not mandatory to check the connection by the competent authority half yearly. Moreover the HT rebate of 3% is due from the date when the supply was converted against CC No. 14/2004. In view of the above the amount is not chargeable.
Forum observed that the connection of the consumer was checked by enforcement on dated 13.3.12, and reported that one phase CT was not contributing. The meter along with CT/PT unit was replaced on dt. 13.4.12 and sent to ME Lab. vide store challan No.1 dt. 11.6.12 where the meter and CTs were checked by Sr.Xen/Enf. and Sr.Xen/ME in the presence of representative of the consumer. As per report of ME the blue phase CT was found not contributing whereas the CTs of other two phases i.e, R&Y were OK and meter was found running within permissible limits. Further as per print out of DDL carried out on 13.3.12 the defect in B phase CT was from dt. 12.8.10. As per temper report available for the period 1.1.12 to 13.3.12 the contribution of B phase remained Zero for the whole period for which data is available. Further the consumption of the consumer remained on the lower side for the period the B phase remained defective and it increased after change of meter and CT/PT unit accordingly. The account of the consumer has been overhauled for the period 8/2010 to date of change of meter.
As petitioners has quoted the case of M/S Raman Mahajan (CG:46/2012) that Forum approved the charges levied for six month. In this regard, it is observed that the facts of the case of M/S Raman Mahajan are different from the present case as there was no fixed date available in case of M/S Raman Mahajan from which the Y phase CT remained off and as per DDL print out( temper data) available for the period 24.1.11 to 5.3.11 which is about 1-1/2( One and half) months the Y phase CT remained generally almost off and the overall total failure of Y phase CT is 719 days during whole life of the meter, whereas continuous break of the current contribution is not available , so the account of the consumer was overhauled for only six months period by the concerned sub division prior to date of checking as per clause 21 of Supply Code. Forum has only uphold the previous decision of CDSC and the period recommended for overhauling was not altered even then the consumer has challenged the decision further in the court of SDM cum SDO/Civil Gurdaspur (Appellant authority). In view of the different factual grounds for each case decision of one case cannot be applied flatly on the another case.
The PR is also contesting that he is entitled to 3% rebate in his consumption because the supply of his connection has been converted to HT as per CC No. 14/2004. The respondents are directed to allow the rebate admissible to consumer as per rules and regulation of Board/PSPCL.
Decision
Keeping in view the petition, reply, written arguments, oral discussions, and after hearing both the parties, verifying the record produced by them and observations of Forum. Forum decides to uphold the decision taken by ZDSC in its meeting held on 16.8.2012. Forum further decides that the balance amount recoverable/refundable, if any, be recovered/refunded from/to the consumer along-with interest/surcharge as per instructions of PSPCL.

(CA Harpal Singh) (K.S. Grewal) ( Er.C.L. Verma )



CAO/Member Member/Independent CE/Chairman


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə