Under his Petition dated 4th March, 2004, Shri Shirish Narayan Deodhar, Director, M/s. Sameer Electricals & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (SEEPL), Pune had prayed as follows:

       The matter was heard on 6th May, 2004. Considering the statutory provisions and the submissions made, the Commission disposed of the Petition vide its Order dated 13th July, 2004 with the following directions:

     Under letter dated 8th February, 2005, SEEPL have stated that, inspite of the Commission's Order, Section 55(1) of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 and Regulation 14 of the Supply Code, MSEB have not yet instructed their field officials suitably, and are not able to supply enough meters themselves. He has, therefore, sought that MSEB issue directives immediately, failing which the Commission may hear the matter for contempt.

      In their Reply dated 9th March, 2005, MSEB have submitted that they have not committed any disobedience of the Commission's Order dated 13th July, 2004. MSEB have submitted that, pursuant to the Order, they initiated the process of revising their Circular to set out the procedure for purchase of meters by consumers from the open market and testing of such meters at Divisional level, as was directed by the Commission. The process has been completed, and two Circulars No. Dist/D-II/MERC/Meter/No. 7167 and 7216, both dated 9th March, 2005, have been issued in line with the Commission's Order. The Circulars were also distributed to Shri Deodhar and consumer representatives at the hearing held the next day.

      The Compliance Application was heard on 10th March, 2005. Shri Deodhar drew attention to the Commission's Order dated 13th July, 2004. He submitted that till date MSEB are not allowing consumers to procure meters from the open market, nor are MSEB able to provide them.

 Shri. A.D. Palamwar, TM (T&D) of MSEB submitted that MSEB had now complied with the Commission's Order, and also stated that testing of meters purchased by consumers could be done by MSEB at the Division level. He referred to MSEB's Circular No. Dist/D-II/MERC/Meter/No 7167 dated 9th March 2005 which provides as follows:

      Dr. Ashok Pendse of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) submitted that, in addition to buying of meters, the testing issue is also important. He submitted that there are three levels of educational institutions which can be considered for testing i.e. (i) ITIs at the District level, where wireman's training is given; (ii) Polytechnic (Diploma) and (iii) Engineering Colleges (Degree courses). He submitted that even ITIs, which have Electrical Supervisor Certificate courses, have the capability of testing meters, and suggested that the Commission and MSEB consider authorizing testing at all three levels of institutions.

     Dr. Pendse submitted that the meter manufacturers themselves can provide their certification, or certification from the accredited labs. used by them, which would obviate the need for further testing. As regards testing by MSEB, none of their testing facilities are accredited. Some of MSEB's own Division labs should acquire accreditation. This would be useful because, when the staff changes, problems arise and procedures vary. Accreditation would ensure standardization. He would try to submit details, but acknowledged that acquiring accreditation takes time. Hence, MSEB could start with a few Divisional labs. The Commission asked whether, in the meantime, the MSEB Circular met the immediate requirements.

      Shri. B.R. Khedkar of Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat (ABGP) Pune, who was permitted to participate, submitted that MSEB also purchases meters from the market, relying upon meters tested and sealed by the manufacturers. Therefore, in case of such meters, nothing further should be required to be done by consumers purchasing them. CEA Regulations are yet to be framed. He submitted that MSEB should not have any apprehensions or objections if their consumers purchase meters from the open market which are tested and sealed. Sample testing could be done if necessary.

      Shri. Deodhar responded that the question of sample testing did not arise in case of a single consumer. He submitted that the unconditional 5 year guarantee in Clause 4 was unwarranted. As per Clause 6, if the meter failed, MSEB could proceed. In any case, it is the consumer who has paid. Shri. A.D. Palamwar submitted that it would be impossible for MSEB to police meters at short intervals. No harassment of consumers is intended by way of the condition of guarantee as in Clause 4 of the Circular. However, Shri. Deodhar submitted that meters with guarantee of only 1 year were generally available in the market. MSEB are able to negotiate for 5 years because they buy in bulk. The Commission observed that the guarantee clause should not have the effect of negating the consumer's option to purchase. Generally, the guarantee available is for 1-2 years only, and MSEB should review this condition. Shri. Palamwar agreed to do so.

     Dr. Pendse queried as to why all these other conditions were necessary if MSEB were specifying the makes/ models.

      With regard to Clause 6, the Commission queried as to how the consumer could be responsible for "correct operation" of the meter, and observed that the provision was badly worded. Shri. Palamwar submitted that the earlier electromechanical meters became sluggish over time. In static meters also, there was a drift in some components. He submitted that when MSEB purchase meters, the procedure for testing is lengthy. Type testing is done by accredited laboratories, and ISI acceptance testing is done at the manufacturer's premises. After acceptance and receipt of meter, random sample testing is done in MSEB's Divisional labs. Finally, testing is again done before installation. He submitted that the clauses have been inserted in the Circular to give MSEB full confidence in the meters, including the guarantee provision, but that they would be reviewed. The Commission observed that the simple point is that if the consumer cannot easily buy a meter in the market with such a guarantee, then 5 years' guarantee cannot be insisted upon.

     Shri. Deodhar submitted that, apart from Clauses 4 and 6, other clauses also needed to be clarified and redrafted. The anomalies may have arisen because of the apparent hurry with which the Circular was issued, a day before the hearing. The Commission directed that a revised draft Circular should be submitted by MSEB in a weeks time. To this, representatives of MSEB submitted that Clauses 1, 3 and 6 would be withdrawn while doing so. The Commission also asked MSEB to examine the other suggestions made.

       Shri. Deodhar asked the Commission to note that if he had not pursued compliance, even these Circulars would not have been issued. Many connections were pending as a result. In Pune, a large number of meters are pending supply for 2-3 months. Meters are not supplied, nor are consumers allowed to procure meters from the open market on their own. Further, 3-phase meters are also not available. MSEB should give a time frame for supply. He submitted that compliance of the Commission's Order of July, 2004 is still pending. Instead, replacement of meters is going on, while no new meters are being provided, as a result of which connections cannot be given.

       Dr. Pendse submitted that priority should be given to supply of meters, rather than replacing old meters, and that a similar issue had come up in the Petition filed by Prayas recently regarding average billing. Shri. Deodhar pointed out that, for want of meters, the builder has no alternative but to use the main meter, for which he is then penalized, and stated that not a single CT-operated meter was presently available in Pune Urban Zone.

       Shri. Palamwar stated that earlier MSEB had restricted replacement to meters under APDRP, but this had now been relaxed, and meters were also being redeployed between Zones according to requirements. He acknowledged that the monolithic type of working of MSEB for the last 40 years would take time to change. He submitted that efforts were being made by MSEB to do so. Now, with these Circulars, consumers can also buy their own meters. At the same time, it is often difficult for consumers to obtain meters in mofussil areas, so MSEB should also be in readiness to provide them. He admitted that the testing procedure was elaborate. Perhaps MSEB could instal the meters first, and then proceed with testing so that there is no inordinate delay. In this context, he mentioned, however, that MSEB had a bad experience in the past. For instance, the top 10 defaulters in Bhandup were mostly builders, not commercial or industrial consumers, who complete the work and then walk away. The procedures are framed to take such instances into account, resulting in difficulties for others.