HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SCO 180, SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA - 134 109, HARYANA

 CASE NO. HERC/PRO – 7 OF 2003

 Date of Hearing: 02.09.2004

 Date of Order: 18.10.2004

In the matter of petition filed by Smt. Suman Sharma, W/o Sh. J.K. Sharma, 655/42, Shanti Kunj, Jawahar Colony, N.I.T. Faridabad in respect of non compliance of HERC’s Complaint Handling Procedure, billing problems, disconnection & reconnection of power supply, conspiracy, harassment, physical threats, cheating, extortion etc. against Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL); a subsidiary of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) -- the Licensee for Distribution & Retail Supply Business of electricity in Haryana.

  ORDER

This petition has been filed by Smt. Suman Sharma, W/o Sh. J.K. Sharma, 655/42, Shanti Kunj, Jawahar Colony, N.I.T. Faridabad in respect of non compliance of HERC’s Complaint Handling Procedure, billing problems, disconnection & reconnection of power supply, conspiracy, harassment, physical threats, cheating, extortion etc. against Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL); a subsidiary of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) – the Licensee for Distribution & Retail Supply Business of electricity in Haryana.

1.      The petitioner has stated that: -

1.1    She informed the S.D.O. Operation, Jawahar Colony, Faridabad on 30.01.02 that her three phase meter had burnt. The ibid complaint was neither recorded on a complaint register nor a receipt thereof was given. On requesting to do so, she was told to forget about the formalities if work was important. Sh. S.P. Bhatia JE was ordered (by SDO) to ‘check & report’ who, in turn, asked the AFM to visit the site & report. AFM inspected the site & submitted his finding / observation to the JE on the reverse side of the complaint. Thereafter JE submitted it to the SDO in compliance of his direction.

1.2       On 04.02.2002 SDO ‘OP’ marked the complaint for recording the past consumption. The complaint was placed before the SDO ‘OP’ again after the needful was done by the dealing hand in the Sub-Division. She retained a photocopy of the same as neither the complaint was entered in the complaint register nor any receipt thereof was given to her.

1.3        SDO ‘OP’ informed that no meter was available at present & MCO will be issued on receipt of meters. When no satisfactory action was taken, she suggested a meter be bought from the market & to issue a demand notice. Nothing was done by the S.D.O. However she paid Rs. 1007.00, vide receipt no.34, book no. 10896 dt. 7/2/2002, on a/c of bill dated nil payable before 13.02.2002.

1.4       SDO ‘OP’ failed to clarify the issuance of bills on Monthly Minimum Consumption (MMC) basis in view of complaint dt. 30.01.2002 and meter reader’s record. Since she was not provided with any electricity/services she was not oblige to pay the MMC. She had no desire to meet the corrupt intentions of the staff.

1.5        Departmental staff visited her premises to remove the meter and service line but did not produce the orders of the Competent Authority even on her request. Police complaint dt. 17.10.2002 was lodged against the departmental staff for causing harassment and threat to disrupt Domestic Connection. Photocopy of the PDCO No. 93/58 dt. 04.10.2002 (issued by S.D.O ‘Op’) against a/c no. 24 SP 238, leaving the column pertaining to reasons for disconnection blank, was given to her at the Police Station. Her husband filled “Meter Burnt” in the said column and returned it along with the burnt meter to AFM on 18.10.2002. AFM also removed the cable. SDO ‘OP’ and JE, instead of taking any action to remove her grievances, threatened her for filing complaint with the police during her further follow up.

1.6    She lodged a complaint, dt. 19.12.2002, with Executive Engineer, requesting him to waive MMC from Feb. 2002 onwards, install meter & restore supply but no response was received even after 24 days. The staff had been subjecting her to mental and physical torture for the last 2 months.

1.7    On 09.11.1998 a complaint regarding disconnection of her power connection by Sh. S.P. Bhatia, J.E. without any justification on 21.10.1998, was lodged with SDO ‘OP’.  The supply was restored after two months i.e. on 07.12.98, after the complaint was lodged with M.D./DHBVNL through Haryana Electricity Consumer Welfare Society. As such they remained without power for almost two months and their business suffered.

1.8    Sh. S.P. Bhatia J.E. & Sh. Balbir Singh Lineman were harassing her even at night as she refused to oblige them by paying monthly collection (bribe)

2            The respondents have stated that: -

2.1       Admitted that the petitioner submitted the complaint dt. 30.1.2002, regarding burnt meter, which was marked to the concerned J. E. It has been alleged that the original complaint was taken away by the petitioner as it was not available on record of the Sub-Division. As such SDO ‘OP’ failed to take appropriate action resulting in to raising of bills on MMC basis & issuance of PDCO due to default in payment by the petitioner from Feb 2002 to Oct 2002 as per the norms.

2.2       Regarding misbehaviour & slapping of petitioner’s son on 17.10.2002 by the respondent’s staff, the issue might have been settled by the Police, considering it a minor incident in view of petitioner’s complaint to SHO Saran Thana, Faridabad. In such cases exchange of hot words, by both sides, are very likely. The petitioner had not made any complaint on this issue to any of the officers’ vis-à-vis SDO/Executive Engineer/Superintending Engineer stationed locally.

2.3        It is hard to believe that, under the given circumstances, the petitioner had remained without electricity from January 30, 2002 to 17.10.2002. During the above period, the complainant never approached any of the Offices or Officers stationed at Faridabad and also the petitioner never mentioned in any of her complaints upto October 2002 that she was without power supply for such a long time. As such the grounds, on which the petitioner had suffered extensive mental agony, physical hardship, business & financial losses due to respondent’s deliberate conspiracy, unfriendly and irresponsible attitude towards the petitioner, are not clear.

2.4      The S.E. (Operation) DHBVNL Faridabad has submitted the requisite affidavit dated 07.09.04, confirming the information given orally by him, during the course of public hearing of the case on 02.09.04.

3        Commission’s view and Order

        After going through the record and hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents on 02.09.04, the Commission observes as under: -

3.1       Petitioner concealed the fact of availability of another single-phase meter (Domestic Connection corresponding to a/c No. 25DS-157) installed by the side of burnt three – phase meter corresponding to A/c No. 24SP-238.

3.2    It was natural & logical for the petitioner to make available three phase meter of the requisite specifications to the respondents for restoration of supply once the latter had informed her about non-availability of meter in its stores & particularly when the burnt meter too was owned by her.

3.3        Petitioner didn’t raise the issue of non-availability of electricity at her premises for such a long time in any of her complaints and, when queried about it during the public hearing, failed to justify it.

3.4    Based on the observations at 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3 the Commission felt that the petitioner was also partly responsible for the delay in redressal of her grievance. The Commission viewed it seriously but, took a lenient view to deal with the case.

3.5    Respondent’s line of defense for continued raising of bills (MMC) in the face of the fact that the supply to the premises was disconnected from the terminal pole on 30.01.2002 itself can’t be accepted. It is a classic case of systemic failure at the Sub-Division level and local level prejudice against the petitioner can’t be ruled out. The respondents are hereby directed to ensure that such lapses do not recur.

3.6    Delay of two weeks on the part of Sh. P.K. Singla, JE in effecting the Re-Connection Order (RCO) dated 20.05.2003 can’t be pardoned. The respondents are hereby directed that the Official may be proceeded against departmentally. 

3.7    Compliance report in respect of direction at 3.6 be submitted to the Commission within two months from the date of issue of order.

This order is signed, dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on 18.10.2004.

Dated: 18.10.2004
Place: Panchkula