ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

Case No. : EOR - 191/2014

In the matter of representation filed before the Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan, Jaipur by
M/s Idea Telecom Ltd
c/o Indus Towers Ltd.,
G- Business Park, 3rd Floor,
D- 34 Subhash Marg, C- Scheme,
Jaipur -302 001

Appellant

v/s
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath,
Jaipur 302 005
Represented by
Appellant:
Respondent:

Respondent

Shri Arun Soni

XEN (BD), Jaipur
Shri B. S. Ajatshatru, Advocate

Heard on 28.7.14 in presence of

Appellant:
Jitendra Singh
Respondent:

XEN (BD), Jaipur

Shri B. S. Ajatshatru, Advocate
Coram
D. R. Mathur
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan

Award

Date:4.8.14

Registration of the case

1. The Appellant filed the representation on 7.5.14 before the Electricity
Ombudsman, Rajasthan which was registered at Case No. EOR 191/2014
on 8.5.14.
1

Brief of the case

2. The Appellant is an LT consumer (a/c no. 1606-0384) under Non Domestic
Service (NDS/LT-2) category with connected load of 18 kW for his unit
under (O&M) sub-division of the Respondent at Mundawar under Alwar
Circle. The minimal facts leading to this representation are narrated
hereunder:
1) The Appellant was having a billing dispute against the recovery of
dues claimed by the Respondent for disconnected period and
meter stop period.
2) The Appellant approached the Corporate Forum of the Respondent
at Jaipur (Forum in short) for redressal of his grievance. The decision
of the Forum was not acceptable to the Appellant.
3) Aggrieved by non redressal of grievance by the Forum, the
Appellant filed the representation before the Electricity Ombudsman
for redressal of his grievance.
Representation
3. The representation along with documents submitted by the Appellant
stated as under:
1)

The Appellant stated that the stopped meter was not changed and
average bills were being issued without any basis by the Discom,
whereas as per TCS, average of correct meter period should be
taken i.e. from Jan09 to Sept09. In May10 the Nigam found
accumulated reading in stopped meter and thereafter the meter
was shown defective. Because the bills issued in past were not
correct and the Appellant was not using the connection, it was
requested for disconnection of the connection and deposited Rs.
150000 on dated 6.7.12.

2)

The Appellant was assured by the AEN that the balance amount
shall be adjusted while correcting the past bills and in the security
amount. Instead of correcting the bills the Nigam continued to send
the bills which were not deposited because the connection was
lying disconnected.

3)

The Appellant represented that whatever bills were issued for

defective meter period, 5% rebate be allowed on all such bills. In
July13 a bill of Rs. 420540 was issued but the Appellant did not agree
to that.

4)

The Appellant filed an application before the Forum on 4.10.13. The

case was heard on 10.3.14 but the Forum did not redress the
grievance and decided against the Appellant.
2

5)

As per decision recorded in the Forum meeting, the connection was

disconnected on 29.12.13. The readings of the defective meter could
not be retrieved due to display out and meters could not be sent to
laboratory for further testing. The Forum offered to charge average
for entire defective period (July10 onwards) on the basis of actual
consumption recorded during 21.8.09 to 2.5.10.

6)

The Appellant intimated the Forum that the connection was

disconnected since July12 and not using the same therefore
charging amount for period July 2012 (date of disconnection as per
consumer) to 29.12.13 (date of disconnection as per Nigam) cannot
be agreed to. The date of disconnection was disputed and can be
verified by the meter data downloaded in the laboratory of the
Nigam or of manufacturer.

7)

As per Reg. 17 of RERC (metering) Regulations 2007; the disputed

meter on account of display out should be tested in the laboratory.
The Discom did not test the meter nor got the MRI data downloaded
from the manufacturer, therefore the reading recorded were
disputed and cannot be considered as base for charging of entire
period.

8)

The Appellant filed the representation on following grounds:

a) The Forums proposal was not consistent with regulations 29, 30
and 31 of Supply Code.
b) The disputed meter was not tested and data downloaded
before coming to the conclusion that reading are correct.
Meter test report and MRI data of disconnected meter is
required to ascertain the date of disconnection and use of
connection.
c) Copy of binder and ledger from date of connection should be
provided for further scrutiny of case.
d) As per Reg.38 of Supply Code Regulations the licensee could
have disconnected the supply for non-payment of dues/bills
but he did not disconnect because the connection was
already disconnected in July12 and not in use at all.
e) The bills issued from July12 to Dec13 were for disconnected
period and therefore not payable.

9)

Relief sought from the Electricity Ombudsman:

i. The bills issued from July12 to Dec13 should be set aside.
ii. 5% rebate should be allowed in the charging of defective
period as per regulation 31 of Supply Code.
iii. Meter should be got tested in the laboratory and data
downloaded from the manufacturer for correct consumption
recorded in the meter and bills be revised accordingly or base
for charging should be from 1/09 to 9/09.
3

iv.

Any other relief as EOR may think fit in the interest of justice.

Processing of the case

4. The notices were served on dated 8.5.14. A copy of the representation
received from the Appellant was forwarded in terms of the Regulation
7(1) of the RERC (Settlement of Disputes by Electricity Ombudsman)
Regulations, 2010 (Electricity Ombudsman Regulations in short), to the
Respondent and the Forum for sending reply / comments/ factual report,
so as to reach to the Electricity Ombudsman by 16.6.14 along with
necessary supporting documents and the proof of serving a copy of the
same to the Appellant.
5.

The Appellant was also asked to furnish his comments, if any, on the
Respondents reply, to the Electricity Ombudsman by 30.6.14 along with a
proof of serving a copy of the same to the Respondent.

Replies, comments and arguments

6. The Respondent furnished the reply to the representation on 17.6.14
along with a proof of serving a copy of the same to the Appellant.
7.

No reply/ comment on the Appellants representation were received

from the Forum.

8.

The Appellant furnished the comments on the Respondents above reply

on 27.6.14 along with a proof of serving a copy of the same to the
Respondent.

9.

The case was heard on 28.7.14 in presence of authorised representatives

of both the parties, listed above.

10. The Respondents reply along with the Appellants comments thereupon
and arguments during the hearing, have been summarised as under:
1)

The meter of the Appellant was functioning properly till June10,

thereafter; it did not display any reading. Consequently, the
Respondent issued average bills as per Rule 27 of the TCS, 2004.

2)

The defective meter number 164188 was changed and installed a

new meter no. 18045404 in the month of Nov12. However, the new
meter also did not display any reading, therefore, the Respondent
issued bills on average bills as per Rule 27 of the TCS, 2004. Further this
meter also seemed defective, thus, the Respondent further changed
the meter and installed a new meter no. 5461569 on 19.10.13.

3)

As per the said Regulation 27(1) if a meter stops working for any
reason, the consumption of electricity for the period with stopped
meter for the consumers except seasonal industrial or agricultural
4

categories, shall be assumed as the same for the corresponding

period of the previous year or the average consumption of the
previous six months; whichever is higher.
4)

In the present case the Respondent calculated the average

consumption of the corresponding period as it was higher than the
consumption of preceding six months and accordingly charged the
Appellant. The Appellant failed to produce any documents before
the settlement committee to support their contentions of issuing
incorrect bills.

5)

It is also denied that the Appellant requested the AEN to disconnect

the connection. The connection can only be disconnected after
following the procedure laid down in the TCS. It is also denied that
the Appellant was not using the electricity since July12.

6)

That in the light of the abovementioned facts, it is clear that there

are no merits in the instant representation; therefore, the same
should be dismissed with heavy cost.

7)

In reference to the Respondents above reply, the Appellant stated

that the connection remained disconnected and electricity was not
used from 7/12 to 12/13, which can be verified by downloading the
meter data. The Respondent considered that to be meter display
out. In fact the tower was not in use and finally was abandoned.

8)

The Appellant further stated that on one hand meter reading record
showed meter stopped from 9/09 to 3/10 and suddenly there was a
reading which the Respondent called accumulated reading. A
consumer cannot be made to suffer because of inefficiency of the
supplier by not getting the meter tested. In case of a dispute, Meter
Testing is a must as mandated in Regulation 17 of the RERC
(Metering) Regulations, 2007, which was not complied with by the
Respondent.

Settlement by Conciliation
11. Both the parties were explained about the factual position of the case
within the framework of the Act/ Rules and the Regulations made there
under and were advised in view of the Regulation 7(2) of the Electricity
Ombudsman Regulations, to reach some settlement of the
representation but no settlement could be reached. They furnished a
written statement in this regards. The Electricity Ombudsman, therefore,
analysed the case and accorded the decision as hereunder.
Analysis of the case
12. Based on the written statements / documents provided by both the
parties, arguments made during the hearing and considering the
5

applicable provisions of the Act, Rules, relevant Regulations, TCS etc., the
case has been analysed as under:
Decision of the Forum
1) Average bills of 1821 units and 1784 units were issued to the
consumer in the billing month of Jan10 and Mar10 on lock and
faulty bill basis respectively. Further, in the month of May10 bill of
accumulated reading for consumption of 9671 units was issued to
the consumer.
Subsequently, meter become defective and
average bills were issued to the consumer by the billing agency.
The XEN (O&M), Behror submitted that due to outstanding amount
towards the consumers bills, the connection of the consumer was
disconnected on dated 29.12.13.
Further, the readings of
defective meters could not be retrieved due to display out of these
meters and these meters could not be sent to the meter Lab for
further testing.
2)

The consumer represented that their defective/stopped meter was

not changed by the AEN (O&M), Mundawar, due to which they
received bills of excess amount on average basis. It was further
represented by the consumer that the average charged in their
bills was not as per provisions of TCS and they were not agreed with
the outstanding amount levied in their bill.

3)

The Forum perused the records and after detailed discussion and
deliberations, the Forum offered to charge average for entire
defective period (July10 onwards) on the basis of actual
consumption recorded by the meter during 21.8.09 to 2.5.10.

4)

The consumer was not agreed to the above proposal, as such, no

settlement could be arrived at.

Date of disconnection
5) The Respondent denied that the Appellant made any request to
the AEN to disconnect the connection. The Appellant could not
furnish any document in his support so as to prove any request to
the AEN to disconnect the connection.
6)

The connection cannot be said to be disconnected on the plea

that it was not in use, as contended by the Appellant. Moreover,
the Respondent also denied that the Appellant was not using the
electricity since July12.

7)

The provision for disconnection of a connection under Regulation

38 of the Supply Code Regulations, as referred by the Appellant,
reads as under:
6

38. Disconnection of supply

(1) A licensee shall be entitled to cut off supply of electricity to any person after
giving not less than fifteen clear days notice in writing to such person if such
person neglects to pay charges for electricity supplied or any other sum due from
him to the licensee.

Similar provisions are appearing under the Clause 46(1) of the TCS,
published by the Respondent.
8)

Under the aforesaid provision of the Regulation 38, the Respondent

disconnected the connection on 29.12.13. Thus, the date of
disconnection shall be considered as 29.12.13, as also decided by
the Forum.

Assessment of energy
9) The meter of the Appellant was functioning properly till June10;
thereafter it did not display any reading. The meter was changed
in Nov12 and Nov13 but the meter could not record any correct
reading till date of disconnection; as also revealed from the Meter
binder data, furnished by the Respondent with the reply. Further,
the meter readings of the meters could not be retrieved.
10) From the copy of the original meter binder, furnished by the
Respondent at the time of hearing, it was revealed that actual
meter reading taken on 21.8.09 was 17335 and thereafter the
actual reading was taken on 2.5.10 as 27006. Subsequently the
meter was stopped at the reading of 27360. As such, the
accumulated consumption from 21.8.09 to 2.5.10 as 9671 units
(27006 17335) cannot be said to be incorrect.
11) In view of the above facts, the Forums offer to charge average for
entire defective period (July10 onwards) on the basis of actual
consumption recorded by the meter during 21.8.09 to 2.5.10; was
genuine.
Rebate of 5%
12) The Appellant requested for allowing the rebate of 5% on the total
bill, on the plea that the stopped / defective meter was replaced
after two months. The Respondent did not allow such rebate and
also did not indicate any reason for the same.
13) The relevant provision is appearing under the Regulation 31(2) of
the Supply Code Regulations, dealing with replacement of meter,
which reads as under;
31. Replacement of meter
(2) In case a stopped/defective metering system is not replaced within a period of two
months of its detection, a rebate of 5% on the total bill of the consumer prepared
under clause 29, excluding electricity duty shall be allowed from third monthly bill in
case of monthly/fortnightly billing and second bill in case of bimonthly billing after
such detection till the meter is replaced.
7

14) Accordingly, the Appellant was entitled for the rebate @ 5% on the
total bill, as per above provision.
Award on Representation
13. Based on the analysis of the case as above, the Electricity Ombudsman
hereby pass the award under Regulation 8 of the Electricity Ombudsman
Regulations, as under:
1) The Respondent is directed to comply the Forums decision dated
10.3.04 and recast the bills by assessing the energy consumed by the
Appellant for the entire stopped meter period from July10 to date of
disconnection 29.12.13 on the basis of actual consumption recorded
by the meter during 21.8.09 to 2.5.10. The Respondent shall however,
also allow 5% rebate on the bill amount as per Regulation 31 of the
Supply Code Regulations.
2) Any excess amount recovered from the Appellant shall be refunded
with interest at RBI rate, as per the Regulation 37 of the Supply Code
Regulations, payable from the date of recovery till the date of
refund. However, short amount if any, shall be recovered from the
Appellant along with DPS as per Tariff provisions.
3) The amount as per (1&2) above shall be credited or debited, as the
case may be, in next electricity bill issued by the Respondent, just
after the acceptance of this award by the Appellant.
4) No order as to costs.
Compliance of Award
14. The Appellant may furnish to the Respondent within a period of fifteen
days from the date of receipt of this award, a letter of acceptance that
the award is accepted in full and final settlement of his claim. A copy of
such acceptance may also be forwarded to the Electricity Ombudsman.
15. The Respondent shall comply with this award within fifteen days of the
receipt of the acceptance letter otherwise it shall be deemed to be a
contravention of the provisions of the Electricity Ombudsman
Regulations. The Respondent shall also intimate the compliance to the
Electricity Ombudsman.
16.

If the Appellant does not intimate the acceptance, the award shall not
be required to be implemented by the Respondent.
(D. R. Mathur)
Electricity Ombudsman,
Rajasthan