BEFORE THE
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th floor,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005.
Case No.12 of 2003
IN THE MATTER OF
Improper billing and rectification
procedures, metering issues and other matters relating to the functioning of
Mumbra Sub-Division of Maharashtra State Electricity Board.
Shri P. Subrahmanyam, Chairman
Dr. Pramod Deo, Member
ORDER
Dated – September 8, 2003
Under his Petition filed on 2.6.2003,
Shri Yusuf Mohseen Thanawala, Member, All India Welfare Association, Dist.
Thane has raised a number of issues relating to Maharashtra State Electricity
Board (MSEB)'s functioning in their Mumbra sub-division. In his Petition, Shri Thanawala contends
that the staff in the Mumbra sub-division is inexperienced and arbitrary
decisions are taken. Applications for
verification of faulty / reject bills take 4 to 6 months to dispose. The provisions of Section 26(6) of the
Indian Electricity (IE) Act are not followed in the process of such
rectification of bills. Where the meter
is shut, billing is done on an average basis, resulting in higher bills. Local MSEB officers take the stand that
bills can be rectified only for a period of upto 6 months, as per the orders of
the Chief Engineer. Even where houses
or shops are closed, bills are raised on an average basis for as long as four
years. Inspite of complaints from
consumers, no decision is taken except with regard to the six months
period. On the other hand, according to
a judgement of the Delhi High Court, under Section 26(6) of the Indian
Electricity Act, the State Electricity Boards can levy charges only for six
months in such cases because the repair or replacement of meters is their
responsibility. However, it takes six
months just to obtain approval for this from the Kalwa Division. In case of those consumers who do not
receive bills and approach the sub-division office, there is no system for
immediately giving duplicate bills, and there is also no provision at that
level for approving part payments.
Getting new meters installed involves a great deal of paper work and
running around by the consumer between the division and the sub-division
offices. This acts as a disincentive to
metering and encourages theft of electricity.
2. According
to the Petition, CPL are not made available to the consumers at the Mumbra
sub-division office. The reasons for
this are not clear. This is a personal
bill ledger which is necessary to enable consumers to check their
accounts. Further, the meter inspection
reports prepared in connection with bill rectification are not made available
to the complainants. Shri Thanawala
contends that the proportion of wrong billing is around 80% and there are long delays
in rectification. He queried as to how
consumers can pay in these circumstances.
For a change of name, a deposit is taken again from the consumer, but
the change is effected only after one or two years.
3. Shri
Thanawala's Petition contends further that there is rampant theft in Diva and
22 other villages in the Mumbra sub-division, and no recovery. Recovery is effected only from the
Mumbra-Kausa area. In the latter area,
Service Line Charges (SLC) are recovered at the time of fixing meters for
laying of underground lines but, in fact, supply is provided through
over-ground poles.
4. Shri
Thanawala submitted that electrical contractors are allowed access everywhere
else, but not in the Mumbra sub-division office. Consumers are generally ignorant of the procedures and whom to
approach and contractors, who are technical persons familiar with MSEB's
working, are in a position to assist them.
5. Shri
Thanawala submitted that it is indicative of the state of affairs in the Mumbra
sub-division that the largest number of officials have been suspended and
charged with corruption there, and he has listed several cases. His general prayer, in the light of the
foregoing, is that the Commission intervene to rectify the working of officials
of Mumbra sub-division as per the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and
other relevant statutes. The Petition
is accompanied by various documents and copies of bills in support of his
contention.
6. MSEB
have submitted their reply dated 5.7.2003.
With particular reference to one of the documents submitted as an
Exhibit by the Petitioner, MSEB have denied that their Chief Engineer had
admitted that transformers are overloaded in the Mumbra-Kausa area. It is the practice that, where transformers
are overloaded, the process of giving new connections is stopped. SLC charges are levied for provision of
infrastructure such as transformers, feeder poles, etc., and these are
applicable all over the State. MSEB
have clarified that it takes four months for the issue of the first bill to new
consumers. They have admitted that
there is delay when supply reports are inadvertently not received by the
billing section in time in a very few cases.
In such cases, payment is allowed in instalments.
7. According
to MSEB, complaints regarding 'reject' bills, average billing, etc. are
rectified quickly. In cases where such
rectification is not within the powers of the sub-divisional officials,
proposals are sent to the Executive Engineer and the facility of payment to
that extent is given to the concerned consumers for the intervening
period. MSEB have claimed that most
consumers are billed according to actual meter reading, and that instructions
have been given to all staff for speedy disposal of consumers' complaints. MSEB have also submitted that, in cases
where consumers would not be using electricity for a prolonged period and have
informed them accordingly, they are billed only to the extent of minimum demand
charges.
8. With
regard to bill rectification, MSEB's reply states that their Circular No. 202
dated 5.4.2002 sets out the powers delegated to various levels. Accordingly, the sub-divisional officer has
powers upto six months and bills of upto Rs 10,000/-. Executive Engineers have powers upto 12 months and Rs
50,000/-. Beyond these limits, bill
rectification powers are with the Chief Engineer. This is applicable to the whole State and not to the Mumbra area
alone. Bills are rectified only after
verification of technical reports submitted by the field staff on the use of
meters and electricity consumption.
9. MSEB
have submitted that they have received no complaints from consumers or noticed
unauthorized absence or habitual late coming by officers and staff. If any such allegations are found to have a
basis, appropriate action would be taken.
There is sufficient clerical staff in the Mumbra sub-division.
10. With
regard to the availability of material, MSEB have stated that all the material
required for maintenance is purchased by the Head Office or Circle Office, and
is provided according to their requirements to the sub-divisional offices. MSEB have submitted that a large number of
theft cases have been filed in the Mumbra sub-division, and they would take
action against any staff colluding in such theft if such instances are pointed
out.
11. In
their reply, MSEB have also stated that they have taken up a programme of
replacing old and out of order meters, and are following the directives of the
Commission in this regard. The cost of
new meters after replacement is recovered from the consumers in monthly
instalments alongwith bills. In the
case of PD consumers, there is no question of average bills being issued. However, where a meter has been removed and
that fact is not fed into the computer, then rectification is carried out in
respect of that consumer's bill. Wrong
billing arising out of such technical errors has been rectified and action has
been taken against the staff responsible.
12.
In his rejoinder-dated 16.7.2003, Shri Thanawala has sought to rebut
MSEB's contentions regarding overloading of transformers by enclosing a
letter-dated 22.08.2003 from the Chief Engineer, Bhandup Circle. He has also stated, inter alia, that
contrary to MSEB's averments, an investigation of the Mumbra office would show
that a large number of applications by new consumers for first bills are lying
undisposed, and that the statements regarding the manner in which they deal
with 'reject' and average billing, etc. are not correct. He has reiterated that incorrect bills have
been issued for upto four years without rectification except for a period of
six months, and set out in detail the practice and movement of papers actually
followed in the Mumbra sub-division, which are contrary to the provisions of
law as well as the statements made in MSEB's reply. He has also cited the instances or demonstrations against the
Mumbra sub-division office, which indicate the public anger at the state of
affairs there. He has also reiterated
other contentions made in his Petition, and enclosed a further set of Exhibits
consisting of complaint letters, copies of bills, etc.
13. At the hearing for
admission held on 7.8.2003, Shri Thanawala (assisted by Shri Shaikh Mohammed
Ayub) reiterated that there were acute billing and maintenance problems in the
Mumbra sub-division, and referred to the material accompanying his Petition and
his rejoinder-dated 16.7.2003. He
stated that there were a large number of faulty, 'reject' and average billing
cases. There were also repeated cable
faults and fusing in this area. He
submitted that the billing must be done as per the meter reading and drew
attention to several bills that he had submitted to illustrate his contention
that this was not the case. He pointed
out that this was not so in the surrounding sub-divisions.
14. Shri Thanawala
stated that he was at a loss to understand the concept of 'reject' bills when
billing has to be done as per meter reading.
Adjustments are made to the meter-read bills through the computer
system, and it takes six months to one year to rectify these. In one case of a residential consumer, for
example, a computer bill of Rs 99,000/- had been received.
15. Ms. Deepa Chawan,
Counsel for MSEB drew attention to the references in the Petition to the role
of contractors, and contended that it seems that it is really a plea on their
behalf. She raised the question of the
provisions of law under which the Petitioner has approached the
Commission. She also pointed out that
action had been taken against several local MSEB officials, some of which have
been cited in the Petition.
16. Counsel for MSEB
submitted that, in the Mumbra sub-division, the practice of entertaining agents
has been completely stopped, although consumers can approach the office in
certain circumstances through representatives with an authority letter. She submitted that the Petition deals very
much with that issue inasmuch as it seeks to give a role to such agents or
contractors. Counsel for MSEB also
submitted that, after examining some of the specific cases that were cited, in
one instance it was found that there had been a mistake in entering figures
which was corrected subsequently.
17. Shri Thanawala submitted that he had
cited several instances of corruption cases filed against Mumbra officials to
show the prevailing state of affairs.
As far as the role of agents is concerned, he stated that, for billing
and other complaints, consumers have to run from pillar to post and do not know
what to do. In these circumstances,
they have no option but to seek help from agents, and these agents are able to
get a response from the officers. Shri
Thanawala agreed in principle that the system of agents should be stopped but,
when the consumer has no other recourse, it is difficult to expect them not to
approach brokers. If MSEB do not solve
billing problems and keep them pending for a year, the consumer is forced to
take such assistance. Drawing attention
to the references in his Petition to the role of electrical contractors, Shri Thanawala
stated that they are registered with PWD and/ or MSEB and have a certain status
as license holders, apart from being knowledgeable. Therefore, while removing the intermediary of dalals, MSEB should
allow licensed electrical contractors some role in this process. He gave several examples of cases from 1997
in which, for many years, complaints were not rectified inspite of the
intervention of fora such as on the 'Lokshahi Diwas' under the District
Collector. Shri Thanawala also pointed
out that the Mumbra sub-division comprises 65,000 consumers, but the MSEB
office is grossly under-staffed and is ill-equipped to handle them. As far as maintenance is concerned, the
sub-division has no material even for fuses.
18.
In the Commission's view, even apart from those allegations and complaints
cited by Shri Thanawala in which the aggrieved consumers could have taken
recourse to the Electrical Inspector or to the Consumer Courts empowered to
deal with them, the nature of the other complaints were essentially within the
administrative domain of the day-to-day functioning of MSEB. As such, it would be inappropriate and
untenable to stretch the import of Section 22(2)(e) of the Electricity
Regulatory Commissions Act to deal with these matters in respect of a
particular MSEB sub-division. On the
other hand, the persistence of a large number of complaints of this nature
indicates serious deficiencies in the grievance redressal mechanism in
MSEB. Any effective mechanism for
redressal of consumer complaints should have been able to deal with the situation
said to obtain in Mumbra sub-division to a considerable extent. In a separate submission dated 19.08.2003,
MSEB have summarized their system for redressal of consumer grievances, and
forwarded their Circulars in this regard.
The mechanism basically envisages periodic meetings, interactions with
consumers and tours to be conducted by officers at various levels. The extent to which the instructions are
implemented in the field, and the manner in which the disposal of complaints is
monitored, both qualitatively and quantitatively, has not been mentioned. The manner in which MSEB has sought to
address the various complaints compiled by the Petitioner through this system
has also not been elaborated upon by MSEB in the course of these
proceedings. Therefore, while declining
to admit the Petition, the Commission is of the view that MSEB need to
establish and monitor a far more effective decentralized system, with
appropriate representation of independent outsiders, for redressal of consumer
complaints in a time-bound manner, pending the formulation of guidelines which
are to be issued by the Commission for the purpose under the provisions of
Section 42(5) of the new Electricity Act, 2003. Subsequent to the filing of his Petition, along with his rejoinder
and during the hearing itself, Shri Thanawala has submitted papers relating to
various specific and general consumer complaints in the Mumbra
sub-division. Copies of these would be
sent separately to MSEB, and all these and other complaints pending in the
Mumbra sub-division should be redressed or otherwise decided at a sufficiently
senior level within a period of three months, and a report submitted to the
Commission.
The Commission disposes of the
Petition with these observations.
| Sd/- | Sd/- | ||
| (Dr Pramod Deo) | (P. Subrahmanyam) |
||
| Member | Chairman, MERC |
||
Sd/- |
|||
| (A.M. Khan) | |||
| Secretary, MERC | |||
|
|||