Before the
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th floor,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005.
Tel. No.022 22163964/65/69 – Fax 022 22163976
E-mail mercindia@mercindia.com
Website: www.Mercindia.com
CASE No. 27 of 2003
In the matter of
Implementation of safety measures, and regarding terms and
conditions of supply.
Shri P. Subrahmanyam, Chairman
Shri Jayant Deo, Member
Dr Pramod Deo, Member
ORDER
Dated:
10th November, 2003
The Petition dated
12.08.2003 of Shri B.R. Khedkar of Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat (ABGP), Pune
has the following prayers:
1.
That the Pune unit of MSEB having
failed to remove the Electric poles jutting on the public street in accordance
with provisions of law, suitable action be taken against the guilty.
2.
The responsibility in regard to abrupt
interruption of supply for period of two days on 9th and 10th
June 2003 be fixed and the Hon. Commission be pleased to award punishment to
the guilty.
3.
The Hon. Commission be pleased to award
punishment for not updating the Booklet of “Conditions of Supply and
Miscellaneous Charges”.
4.
The Hon. Commission be pleased to order
investigation in regard to the manner in which theft cases are filed and
conducted by MSEB.
2. In his Petition, Shri Khedkar contends
that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) have failed to comply with
obligations under the erstwhile Indian Electricity (IE) Act, 1910 and the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and similar provisions in the Electricity Act
(EA), 2003 by not taking timely action to remove hazardous electricity poles
jutting on the public road in Pune area, consequent upon road widening,
resulting in several accidents recently.
These accidents have cost valuable human lives. These acts of omission are in contravention
of various statutory provisions. He has
enclosed a press cutting from the Times of India (Pune) dated 7.5.2003
reporting the accidents.
3. Shri Khedkar's Petition also states that
the Kothrud area of Pune was plunged into darkness and was deprived of
electricity for two days on 9th and 10th June, 2003, apparently because of
falling of tree branches on the overhead lines following pre-monsoon rains,
regarding which an article in The Times of India, Pune dated 11.6.2003 is
enclosed. The plight of the residents
in the area can be imagined from the public commotion reported in the
press. Shri Khedkar submitted that this
pointed to default on the part of MSEB employees in not maintaining continuous
supply vis-à-vis. the clear provisions of law which he cited. MSEB had not taken proper care in arranging
the requisite pre-monsoon pruning of tree branches so as to avoid such
eventualities.
4. In his Petition, Shri Khedkar has
submitted that MSEB have not updated their booklet containing "Conditions
of Supply & Miscellaneous Charges" after 31.7.1998, despite clear
Orders contained in para 15 of the Commission's Order dated 3.4.2002. This is likely to mislead the consumers and
is liable to penal action under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. Shri Khedkar's Petition is accompanied by
a copy of a judgement dated 8.3.2002 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class
(JMFC), Saswad (Dist. Pune) (RCC No.93/2001) in a matter of theft of energy
under Section 39 and 44 of the IE Act, 1910.
According to Shri Khedkar, the judgement exposes the lack of valid
evidence and grounds on which the accused (an ice factory owner) was charged. He submitted that there are a number of such
cases filed without prima-facie evidence and, therefore, many decisions go
against the Board. Given this state of
affairs, Shri Khedkar has urged the Commission to order investigation into the
abuse of powers by MSEB in terms of Section 128 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
6. The Petition was heard on 22nd
October, 2003, when it was also admitted.
At the hearing, Shri Khedkar stated that the Petition had been prompted
because of the 48 hour disruption in the supply of electricity due to lapses on
the part of MSEB in undertaking pre-monsoon maintenance in certain areas of
Pune. He submitted that MSEB are not
following their own norms for maintenance and implementing safety measures, due
to which fatal accidents have been taking place. For example, poles are not being colour coated, and the extent of
earthing is not adequate. He regretted
the neglect by MSEB’s local officials of such issues related to public safety
and interest.
7. Shri Khedkar further submitted that MSEB
have not re-located transmission poles jutting into public roads in Pune and
drew attention to the photographs that he had also submitted. In general, MSEB are neither following their
own norms and regulations with regard to safety and maintenance nor the norms
prescribed by Government of India (GoI), Central Board of Irrigation and Power
and the relevant statutes. Small
short-term savings are leading to hazard, loss of life and large losses in the
longer term. Simple things such as
checking transformers and oil, keeping substation doors locked, and maintaining
distribution boxes are neglected.
8. Shri Khedkar submitted further that MSEB
have not updated their 'Conditions of Supply & Miscellaneous Charges'
booklet, as required by statute and under the Commission’s Order dated 3rd
April, 2002, nor made it available to consumers and their own field
officers. Shri Khedkar submitted that,
in his own individual capacity, he was denied a copy of the booklet. He pointed out that some of the charges
levied under MSEB’s existing conditions of supply did not correspond to the
actual expenditures incurred or the requirements of the IE Act and other
relevant statues.
9. To an observation of the Commission, Shri
Khedkar stated that he was pointing out that, because small maintenance expenditures
were not incurred as per the requirements, power was disrupted for a long
time. MSEB have not followed guidelines
for maintaining their facilities, as evidenced by the Times of India article
submitted by him. It was reported that
irate citizens blocked the Paud road as electricity supply was not restored
even after 24 hours in Kothrud after transmission wires and poles were
damaged by tree branches in a
thunderstorm. The supply was restored only after three days. This was because
pre-monsoon pruning of tree branches had not been done, in violation of MSEB’s
statutory obligations under Rule 59(2) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956
read with Section 18 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 that requires MSEB
to operate and maintain in the most efficient and economical manner the
generating stations, sub-stations, transmission & distribution lines,
etc.
Rule 59(2) of the IE Rules provides that “the supplier shall
take all reasonable precautions to avoid any accidental interruption of supply,
and also to avoid danger to the public or to any employee or authorised person
when engaged or any operation during and in connection with the installation,
extension, replacement, repair and maintenance of any works.
These provisions are
also consistent with the framework of EA, 2003.
10. Shri Khedkar pointed out that there were
several instances where MSEB had alleged that some consumers had stolen power,
and filed cases. He alleged that many
such cases filed against consumers, for instance in the ice, dairy, and plastic
industries, were fraudulent and used to extort funds from the consumers
concerned. On a query from the
Commission, Shri Khedkar cited the case of M/s Phadke Dairy in Pune, but
submitted that the situation was widely prevalent. It also resulted in heavy legal expenses and harassment of
innocent consumers.
11. Dr.
Pendse of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) (consumer representative) intervened to
say that it needs to be seen as to how many such cases have been disposed and
with what results. Such analysis would
reduce legal expenditure, and allow focused investigations. He also mentioned the position of theft
cases in Bhandup and Vashi. He pointed
out that B-80 forms are not signed by the concerned Executive Engineers in view
of threats.
12. Dr. Pendse further submitted that the issue
of the Conditions of Supply has been pending for a long time. He noted that the MSEB loses 800 million
units substantially owing to failure
and non-availability of the distribution network. He also pointed out that MSEB spends
proportionately much less on operation and maintenance as compared to TPC or
BSES.
13. Shri Khedkar suggested that the “Conditions
of Supply” booklet should not be a voluminous tome but a legible, easy to
understand document for existing and prospective consumers. What MSEB are trying to do is to regularize
all their past irregularities through a compilation of Commercial Circulars,
without observing the statutory stipulations under the Indian Electricity
Rules, 1956.
14. It
was submitted on behalf of MSEB by Shri A.G. Kulkarni, Technical Director
accompanied by other officials, that time be given to rectify the situation,
and to file their reply. The Commission
observed that MSEB had initially been given 2 weeks to respond vide its letter
dated 23.9.2003. The date of hearing
was also intimated at that time.
However, even after nearly a month, MSEB had not filed their reply.
15. In
the light of the above, the Commission disposes of the present Petition with
the following observations and directions with regard to the prayers:
(a) Insofar as the matters referred at prayers (1) and (2) are
concerned, it seems prima-facie that there have been defaults and acts of
omission and commission by MSEB which have resulted in danger and loss to life
and property, and also to a serious disruption in the supply of power in
contravention of MSEB's obligation to supply which, it appears, could have been
prevented. Chairman, MSEB should,
therefore, designate a senior officer not directly concerned with the Pune area
to investigate and report on the facts of both matters, the specific lapses,
the persons responsible, the action initiated or proposed to be taken against
them and the systemic measures being put in place to minimize or rectify such occurrences. The report should be submitted to the
Commission within a period of one month, on affidavit. If MSEB had already conducted inquiry for
any of the incidents occurred 5 months back, it should file the inquiry report
within seven days of this order, on affidavit.
(b) In its Order in Case No. 27 of 2001 dated 3.4.2002 of M/s Rani
Sati Oil Mills which has been referred to in the Petition, MSEB had been
directed to initiate an action plan to update its booklet of terms and
conditions of supply, ensure that it is properly worded, is in conformity with
the law, and make it available to all its field officers and interested
consumers. MSEB have not shown that
these directions have been complied with.
MSEB having failed in their challenge in the High Court to the
jurisdiction of the Commission with regard to the terms and conditions of
supply, a proposal has been received by the Commission, which is being
considered separately. Under Section 50
of the EA, 2003, the Commission is in the process of framing Regulations which
would specify an Electricity Supply Code.
At this juncture, therefore, updating the existing booklet would become
an infructuous and even misleading exercise.
The Commission expresses its dismay that even the existing booklet is
not easily available, even though such a booklet has been prepared as a
reasonably priced publication in the past.
In fact, copies of the latest booklet should be available on demand to
whoever asks for it across the counter at a reasonable cost uptil the sub-division
level in sufficient numbers, apart from being available with MSEB's own local
officials. MSEB are, therefore,
directed to do so and report compliance within a period of one month on
affidavit, along with their explanation for not having complied with the
Commission's directions so far, and the manner in which they have publicized to
the public the availability of the booklet.
(c) While it is imperative that effective action needs to be taken to
detect, prevent and prosecute cases of theft, and that MSEB should not be
fettered in this regard, it is also necessary to ensure that there is adequate
investigation and evidence and other compliance with law so that such action
does not give an opportunity to officials for harassment and extortion,
minimize legal expenditure and also ensure high rate of conviction in genuine
cases. At the Commission's request, Dr.
Pendse of MGP has suggested a reporting format to enable the Commission to
analyze certain types of cases and the manner in which they have been dealt with
by MSEB in 3 sample Circles of Bhandup, Vashi and Pune. The reporting format is at Annexure 'A' to
this Order, and the data should be furnished to the Commission within a period
of one month, on affidavit.
| Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | |
| (Jayant Deo) | (Dr Pramod Deo) | (P. Subrahmanyam) |
|
| Member | Member | Chairman, MERC |
|
Sd/- |
|||
| (A.M. Khan) | |||
| Secretary, MERC | |||
Annexure – A
Order dated 10.11.2003 in Case No. 27 of 2003.
|
S.No. |
DESCRIPTION
|
BHANDUP |
VASHI
|
PUNE |
METER TAMPERING
|
01 |
No of cases
booked for seal tampering of energy meter. Hence theft. |
|
|
|
|
02 |
No of cases
closed after adjudication of the above. |
|
|
|
|
03 |
The no. of claims
admitted from the consumer during the adjudication on a/c of
replacement of meter in less than 3 years time. |
|
|
|
|
04 |
No. of claims
admitted from the consumer during
the adjudication on account
of calibration of meter by the board in last one year |
|
|
|
|
05 |
No. of claims
admitted from the consumer during
the adjudication on a/c of of only one shift
being run by the consumer. |
|
|
|
|
06 |
No. of claims
admitted from the consumer during the adjudication on a/c of
lesser production by the consumer with central excise duty proof. |
|
|
|
|
07 |
The gross
value in Rs. of first demand notice of
all adjudicated cases |
|
|
|
|
08 |
The gross value
in Rs. ultimately settled of all the adjudicated cases. |
|
|
|
|
09 |
No. of
prosecution carried out in all the theft cases stated in item 1. |
|
|
|
CONNECTED LOAD
|
10 |
No. of cases
booked for Connected load violation. |
|
|
|
|
11 |
No. of cases
where connected load has been corroborated with the help of energy meter
for comparison |
|
|
|
|
12 |
The gross value
in Rs. of first demand notice of all adjudicated cases |
|
|
|
|
13 |
The gross value
in Rs. ultimately settled of all
the adjudicated cases. |
|
|
|
B-80 FORM
|
14 |
No. of complaints
regarding excess billing. |
|
|
|
|
15 |
No. of complaints
from the above figure where billing is more than 50% |
|
|
|
|
16 |
The gross value
in Rs. of all B80 complaints for any two months. |
|
|
|
|
17 |
The gross value
in Rs. after settlement of the same two months stated in item no 3. |
|
|
|
Annexure – B
to Order dated 10.11.2003 in Case No. 27 of 2003.
List of Persons / officials attended at the hearing on 22.10.2003
in Case No. 27 of 2003.
- Shri B.R. Khedkar,
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat
- Shri A.G. Kulkarni,
Technical Director (EHVP), MSEB.
- Shri C.N. Gadge,
Chief Engineer (Distribution), MSEB.
- Shri S.B. Deshmukh,
Chief Engineer, MSEB, Pune.
- Shri S.B. Puranik,
Executive Engineer, MSEB, Pune.
- Dr. Ashok Pendse,
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat.
|
|||||||||
Sd/- |
Sd/- | Sd/- | |||||||
| (Jayant Deo) | (Dr Pramod Deo) | (P. Subrahmanyam) |
|||||||
| Member | Member | Chairman, MERC |
|||||||
Sd/- |
|||||||||
| (A.M. Khan) | |||||||||
| Secretary, MERC | |||||||||
|