BEFORE THE
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
World Trade
Centre, Centre No.1, 13th floor, Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
Mumbai 400 005.
Case No.11 of
2003
IN THE
MATTER OF
Rectification of excess billing by Maharashtra State
Electricity Board (MSEB)
in the case of Shri M.G. Chile.
Shri
P. Subrahmanyam, Chairman
Dr. Pramod Deo,
Member
ORDER
Dated –
September 10th, 2003
1. In his Petition filed on 5.5.2003, with Maharashtra State
Electricity Board (MSEB) as Respondent, Shri M.G. Chile has sought directions
to MSEB to rectify excess billing in respect of his domestic connection at
Vashi, to refund the excess amount paid by him, and to exempt him from paying
the instalment due on 19.05.2003. The
Petition was heard for admission on 25.08.2003.
2. With his Petition, Shri Chile has enclosed electricity
bills to indicate the large increase in units consumed as alleged by MSEB, and
the corresponding increase in charges during the period from February to April,
2001. He has stated that he and his
family were in Nagpur for some time upon his transfer. From February, 1999, MSEB had been sending
him so-called 'reject' bills, which have been fully paid. He submitted that, in March 2001, the person
he had allowed as a caretaker in his flat had installed a small air
conditioner. It was removed after two
months as soon as high bills were received.
That extra use has been treated by MSEB as if it were from February,
1999, and they have billed accordingly.
On many occasions from May, 2001 onwards, Shri Chile had submitted
representations at various levels without effect. Since the additional amount was not paid, MSEB effected permanent
disconnection in October, 2001. Shri
Chile returned to Mumbai on transfer from July, 2002. Thereafter, he paid some amounts upon which a new meter was
installed in December. Local MSEB
engineers have taken actual readings in January and February, 2003 and
recommended to their superiors that the bill for the whole period should be
adjusted accordingly, but this has not been done. Inspite of further efforts, Shri Chile was asked to pay the
balance amount in instalments.
3. In their reply
dated 6.6.2003, MSEB have submitted that Shri Chile was billed as per the meter
reading upto February, 2000. However,
thereafter, due to improper reading, he was billed under 'rejection' status
till February, 2001. During this
period, there was higher consumption because of the use of air
conditioners. The accumulated
consumption appeared in April, 2001 when the correct reading was available and
was fed to the computer. After April,
2001, the meter recorded correct consumption till the disconnection in October,
2001. MSEB have admitted that
consumption was not correctly billed from April, 2000 to February, 2001. However,
since the meter was recording correctly, the recorded consumption was
spread over and adjusted in August, 2001.
Permanent disconnection was effected from August, 2001 to February, 2002
and supply was restored on payment of the instalments granted to Shri Chile for
arrears. In conclusion, MSEB have
submitted that the ultimate billing after adjustment was correct, and Shri
Chile was also allowed to make payments in instalments. Disciplinary action has been initiated for
incorrect readings for the above period against the concerned meter reader.
4. At the time of
hearing, Shri Chile set out his case, quoting from a further written submission
given the same day. He stated that he
has been a consumer of MSEB at Vashi for the last 17 years in a flat comprising
2 rooms and a kitchen. He had never
used electric geysers, irons or any other equipment which are
energy-intensive. Since February, 1999,
MSEB have been issuing so-called 'reject' bills which have been duly paid. He submitted that causing the inspection of
reject/ faulty meters by Electrical Inspectors is the duty of MSEB under
Section 55 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003, corresponding to Section 26(6) of
the Indian Electricity (IE) Act, 1910.
He pointed out that, in the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board v/s
Samprakash (1995), it was held that, if the meter was functioning but was not
recording the consumption, then Section 26(6) would apply. He also cited the judgement of the Supreme
Court in the case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. in which the Court had held
that a correct meter is to be installed and maintained by the licensee in the
premises of the consumer so that consumption is computed on the basis of meter
reading. The IE Act provides that, if
either of the parties disputes the correctness of the meter, the matter is to
be resolved by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6), and it would be
incumbent on the licensee/ utility to repair or rectify the defective meter and
replace it if necessary rather than merely contend that it had become faulty at
a particular time. Shri Chile also
submitted that, inspite of his written requests, the meter was not shown to him
and he was merely told that it had been sent to the Kalyan godown as
scrap. Further, before effecting
permanent disconnection, MSEB did not issue him any notice.
5. According to Shri
Chile, MSEB have alleged that air conditioners were used in his flat from
April, 2000 to February, 2001. First of
all, if air conditioners were used for such a long period without prior
permission, MSEB should have issued a notice to him. Secondly, considering the electrical fittings in his small flat,
it is not possible to use air conditioners of the type and to the extent
claimed by MSEB. He admitted, however,
that a friend whom he had kept as a care taker in his flat had used a small air
conditioner for two months, i.e. from March to April 2001, which was
disconnected immediately upon receipt of the high bill.
6. In these
circumstances, Shri Chile urged that the Commission direct MSEB to take into
consideration the average common household consumption for the disputed period
of one year, and refund the remaining amount within 15 days. The present consumption may be considered
for computing the quantum for the disputed period. Shri Chile submitted that the concerned Asstt. Engineer, MSEB had
inspected and certified the consumption in January, 2003, and reported it to
his superiors for adjustment of the bill as per the present consumption. In his written submission, Shri Chile has
also suggested a compromise formula on the basis of which he claims a refund of
around Rs 57,000/- as against the payment made by him of Rs 65,000/-.
7. Ms. Deepa Chawan,
Counsel for MSEB submitted that she had personally interacted with Shri Chile
and sought to clarify the position. In
this matter, MSEB had suspended an official.
The fact is that, for sometime, Shri Chile's lessee had used air conditioners
in his absence. The meter was not
faulty and the consumption was recorded.
However, MSEB did not explain to him that this was spread over 14
months. It had been shown to Shri Chile
that, even during the undisputed period, there was considerable variation from
month to month. The problem arose
because of a period of two months. As
far as the 'reject' billing is concerned, MSEB Counsel stated that this is on
account of the default setting of the computer billing software.
8. Counsel for MSEB
stated that, after permanent disconnection was effected in August 2001, the
position was reflected in October, 2001.
The meter was replaced and the old meter taken to the Kalyan
godown. She pointed out that the MSEB
website had a guidance module for consumers to check their own bills, which
indicated the electricity consumption of different types of gadgets. Shri Chile had also been advised to approach
the MSEB grievance redressal forum.
9. The Commission
observed that such specific consumer disputes were within the day-to-day
administrative domain of MSEB, to the extent that they were outside the purview
of the Electrical Inspector, and the ambit of Section 22(2)(e) of the
Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act could not be stretched to the extent of
encompassing such specific consumer disputes for resolution by the Commission. As such, admission of the Petition is
declined.
10. However, although
the Commission is not the appropriate forum for this Petition, such cases point
to the need to establish a more credible, multi-level grievance redressal
system pending the formulation by the Commission of guidelines under Section
42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which would take some more time. It seems clear from this, and other cases
and communications received by the Commission from time to time that the
existing mechanism for grievance redressal in MSEB is not functioning
effectively. In their letter dated
19.8.2003, MSEB have set out their existing system, which is entirely in-house
and has no outsiders. The extent to
which MSEB's Circular instructions to their officers in this regard are
implemented, and the manner and extent to which redressal of grievances is
monitored has also not been spelt out.
The Commission is of the view that pending issues of guidelines under
Section 42(5) of the new Act, MSEB should immediately establish fora for
redressal of consumer grievances and disputes which should be headed by and/or
include credible, independent outsiders, atleast at the Circle level and
monitor their functioning. The
Commission notes the commitment made by MSEB Counsel at the time of hearing
that, in the meantime, Shri Chile's case would be reviewed at the level of the
Chief Engineer.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr
Pramod Deo) (P.
Subrahmanyam)
Member Chairman, MERC
Sd/-
(A.M. Khan)
Secretary, MERC
|