1

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road),

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377

Email : tnerc@nic.in Web site : www.tnerc.gov.in

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI

Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman

Appeal Petition No.43 of 2014 Tvl. A. Mahabu & A. Jinnah, Partners, Sara Tex Unit II, S.F. No. 64/2, Sakthi Co-operative Industrial Estate, Udumalpet, Tirupur District – 642 126 9. . . . . . Appellant (Rep by Thiru. E.Abdul Kadar)

Vs

The Superintending Engineer, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), Eripalayam, Tiruppur Road, Udumalpet – 642 126 9. . . . . Respondent (Rep by Thiru. M. Subramanian, Executive Engineer/Udumalpet)

Date of hearing : 26-8-2014

Date of order : 27-10-2014 The appeal petition dated 5-7-2014, filed by Thiruvalargal A. Mahabu &

A. Jinnah was registered as Appeal petition No. 43 of 2014. The above appeal

petition came up for final hearing before the Electricity Ombudsman on 26-8-2014.

Upon perusing the above appeal petition, the counter affidavit and after hearing both

sides, the Electricity Ombudsman passes the following order.

2

ORDER

1. Prayer of the Appellant:

The Appellant prayed to issue necessary order for complete withdrawal of the

penalisation in the name of short levy and any other orders as deemed fit.

2. Brief history of the Case:

2.1 The Appellants are running a small textile unit in the name of “SARATEX

UNIT II” inside Sakthi Co-operative Industrial Estate, Udumalpet and the Electricity

service connection number for the above unit is 302-001-1594. It is a LT CT service

connection charged under Tariff III B with a sanctioned load of 112 KW.

2.2 Based on the BOARD Audit remarks the Appellant was requested to pay a

short fall amount of Rs.7,16,625/- for the meter defective period from 6/2011 to

1/2012. However, the amount was reduced to Rs.6,13,734/- by the Executive

Engineer / Udumalpet as it was ascertained that the meter is in good condition

during 6/2011 as per Daily Energy Report.

2.3 The Appellant filed a petition before the CGRF of Udumalpet Electricity

Distribution Circle. The CGRF in its order dated 16-6-2014 reduced the short fall

amount to Rs.4,59,566/-.

2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the CGRF, the Appellant filed a petition before the

Electricity Ombudsman. As the Appellant has not deposited 25% of the short fall

amount as ordered by the CGRF with the licensee, the Appellant was requested to

deposit the amount with the licensee vide this office letter dt. 8-7-2014. The

Appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,14,892/- and filed a copy of the receipt on 9-7-2014.

Accordingly, the petition was registered as AP 43 of 2014.

3. Contentions of the Appellant

3.1 The Appellants have contended the following in their appeal petition. (i) They are running a small Textile unit in the name of “SARATEX UNIT II”

inside Sakthi Co-operative Industrial Estate, Udumalpet.

(ii) Due to heavy loss and seasonal set back the production in the mill was

stopped temporarily. Accordingly the production in the mill was reduced during

3

9/2011 and subsequently production stopped from 10/2011 to 02.01.2012. They

were unable to run the mill due to various reasons viz. High rate of cotton price and

very low rate of yarn price, Power cut, Labour shortages etc & an unbearable

monitory loss occurred in the said period. In this circumstances they stopped their

cotton process and thought of lease letting or going for synthetic processing.

(iii) The fact of proposed reduction of production and stoppage of mill and the

date of restarting of the mill were intimated to the concerned TNEB Junior Engineer

in writing in the following dates.

i) 10.09.2011

ii) 01.10.2011

iii) 01.11.2011

iv) 28.11.2011

v) 02.12.2011

vi) 02.01.2012

(iv) The fact of stoppage of mill was inspected by the Junior Engineer,

TANGEDCO, confirmed the stoppage and acknowledged.

3.6 The TANGEDCO Junior Engineer took monthly readings every month in the

following dates.

For 9/2011 on 26.09.2011

For 10/2011 on 25.10.2011

For 11/2011 on 25.11.2011

For 12/2011 on 25.12.2011

(v) The energy consumptions were recorded by him in the “WHITE METER

CARD” every month and demand of C.C. Bill raised. Current consumption bills were

paid every month without lapse and there is no dues to the TANGEDCO till date.

(vi) In the mean while the J.E. TANGEDCO forwarded the Letter No.

186/Dt.10.07.2013 stating that the TANGEDCO Audit wing raised an Audit for the

L.T.C.T. service and estimated on arrears of Rs.7,16,625/- for the period 6/2011 to

1/2012, as the meter is defective. It is strange that, after 24 months the TANGEDCO

department send a shocking letter that the meter is defective.

(vii) It is a known fact to all the area Engineers of TANGEDCO that the mill

production stopped partially from 9/11 and stopped thereafter upto 01.01.2012. The

4

letter given to the TANGEDCO are proof for non running of the mill and non usage of

TANGEDCO power.

(viii) The unlawful Audit was protested and objection letters were given to the

TANGEDCO Exe. Engineer O & M, Superintending Engineer, UEDC, Asst. Exe.

Engineer/Udt Town and the Jr. Engineer/Gandhi Nagar, with a request to arrange for

complete waiver of the unlawful audit arrear amount.

(ix) In response to their protest letters, the Exe. Engineer, O & M on perusal made

a reduction of Rs.1,02,891/- and communicated vide Lr. No. 357/14 dt.17.03.2014

and insisted to pay Rs.6,13,734/- immediately. In the above letter it was stated that

their representation letters were sent to the audit wing. Moreover the Exe. Engineer,

O & M disposed their application based on the letter of Audit wing, but not

considered the points raised by them. So it is clear that the Exe. Engineer/ O&M

had shirked from his responsibility vested with him under clause 11(6) of Tamil Nadu

Electricity supply code and the report of the Exe. Engineer is not a speaking order

but it seems to be a predetermined judgement. Hence the letter of the

Executive Engineer/O&M dt.17.03.2014 is not a valid one for the purview of the

Honourable “OMBUDSMAN”. As a matter of fact, the Exe. Engineer O & M has

reported that he reduced the short levy to a tune of Rs.1,02,891/- but the detailed

working sheet were not furnished.

(x) During the enquiry of the C.G.R.F. meeting they insisted the copy of the

parameters down loaded every months from the LTCT service for the period in

question. But the officers of the TANGEDCO have not supplied the Down Loaded

particulars and the Honourable CGRF also not insisted the TANGEDCO officials to

supply the Down Loaded Parameters for the period in question. However, the

Honourable CGRF further reduced a sum of Rs.1,54,168/- and ordered for the

payment of short levy of Rs.4.59,566/-. In this regard they wish to submit that as per

the orders “Circular Memo of Member (Distribution) dt.03.07.2003 illustrates that the

Down loaded parameters of all the LTCT services is a mandatory for the filed officers

while taking monthly reading of the respective service and review the same by the

concerned Exe. Engineer every month and report sent to the Higher Officials.

(xi) The Officers of TANGEDCO should have followed the instruction definitely

without any omission and therefore they are clear that officers of TANGEDCO Down

loaded the parameters from their LTCT service without fail. Now being availability of

such scientific methods to ascertain the condition of the meter within a month, the

5

reply of the officers of TANGEDCO for the said defective period 07/2011 to

02/01/2012 is not acceptable one. Moreover the Exe. Engineer/O&M/Udumalpet in

his Lr. dt.17.03.2014 had stated that the meter was in good working condition upto

01/07/2011 as per the Down loaded parameters.

(xii) The LTCT meter in their service was said to be defective on 01/07/2011

though the LTCT services are also to be treated on par with HT services, the officers

of TANGEDCO took six months to replace it with a healthy meter. Under the above

circumstances it is clear without any doubt that the officers of TANGEDCO down

loaded the parameters through CMRI form their service as per memo of member

(Distribution) dt. 03.07.2003 and now hiding the Down loaded parameters for the

reason to establish and to safeguard the Audit Branch who initiated the unlawful

penalisation in the name of short levy.

4. Contentions of the Respondent:

4.1 The Respondent has contended the following in the counter.

(i) The Appellant is producing yarn in Saratex Unit I SC. No. 302-001-754, 112

KW and Saratex Unit II SC. No. 302-001-1594, 112 KW.

(ii) The BOARD audit has audited the SC No. 302-001-754 of Saratex Unit-II on

8.3.2013. The audit party levied a short fall amount of Rs.7,16,625/- for the period

from 6/2011 to 1/2012 as it observed the meter is defective. The average for the

above meter defective period was calculated taking into account of the consumption

recorded during 1/2011 to 4/2011 as per TNERC's Supply Code provisions.

(iii) A demand notice was served to Saratex on 24.5.2013 to pay the audit

shortfall amount. The Appellant made a representation stating that they need not

pay the shortfall amount. On examination of the Daily Energy Report, as it was

observed that the meter was in good condition, the shortfall amount claimed for

6/2011 and upto 1.7.2011 in 7/2011 assessment was reduced from the already

claimed amount and Appellant was informed to pay the revised amount of

Rs.6,13,734/-

(ix) The Appellant without paying the above amount filed a petition before the

CGRF and obtained the order of CGRF on 16.6.2014.

(v) In the CGRF Order, the consumption recorded in 5/2011, 6/2011, 7/2011 and

8/2011 were taken for arriving the average consumption. In the above, the

consumption of 7/2011 itself is an average value. Hence, it cannot be considered for

6

arriving the average consumption. In view of the above, the CGRF’s order to reduce

the shortfall amount by Rs.1,54,168/- is not acceptable.

(vi) In regulation 11(2) & 11(5) of the Supply code, the assessment of billing in

case of meter is defective has been stipulated. In case of not possible to adopt the

above regulations, then only, the concerned Engineer in-charge of the section will

assess the consumption as per regulations 11(6) of the Supply Code. But the

assessment made by the audit as per regulation 11(2) & 11(5) is correct.

(vii) The consumer is having another service connection No. 754. The

consumption recorded in the above unit for the year 2011 is detailed below:-

1/2011 9968.4 units 7/2011 9280 units

2/2011 10083.6 units 8/2011 9112 units

3/2011 8836 units 9/2011 3164 units

4/2011 9356 units 10/2011 9084 units

5/2011 8176 units 11/2011 8016 units

6/2011 9164 units 12/2011 8424 units

(viii) The output of Saratex unit I is utilised in unit II and finally came as yarn for

selling in the market. When unit I is running continuously through out the year 2011,

there is no possibility that unit II was not in service.

(ix) As per MRT’s report, the meter was scroll lock (i.e) even though the current

passed through the meter the same cannot be displayed in dial of the meter and it

stands still. The consumption recorded in the meter before the defective period and

after changing the meter were furnished below:-

Before the defective period After changing the new meter on 2.1.2012 6/2011 14190 units 1/2012 16360 units

7/2011 39084 units 2/2012 22432.1 units

8/2011 26696 units 3/2012 19561 units

9/2011 38990 units 4/2012 20567.6 units

(x) The Appellant gave letters on every month about non functioning of the

factory. But an examination of the above consumption, it is presumed that to

substantiate his claim of non functioning of the factory in the defective period only he

gave such letters. But immediately on changing the meter on 2.1.10212, the factory

starts functioning it shows that the factory was running previously also.

7

5. Rejoinder of the Appellant:

5.1 The Appellant filed the rejoinder to the counter of the Respondent. The

arguments furnished in the rejoinder are furnished below:-

(i) If the respondent is not satisfied with the orders of CGRF, Udumalpet, he

ought to have appealed to the Ombudsman within 30 days as described in that

order. The respondent failed to appeal in time and on seeing their appeal petition,

he objected the orders of CGRF as a second thought to stand on his wrong

assessment of Rs.6,13,734/-.

(ii) The respondent reported that the Section Officer of that area is the competent

person to fix the utilization of energy for the meter defective period as per supply

code 11(2) and 11(5). But the respondent had not furnished the report of the section

officer, either at any time or during the enquiry of CGRF. But now the respondent is

informing this clause means, he might have been manipulated it to corroborate to his

wrong assessment of Rs.6,13,734/-

(iii) The respondent reporting that the appellant gave letters on 10-09-2011, 01-

10-2011, 01-11-2011, 02-12-2011 and 02-01-2012 to create evidences as planned to

avoid billing during the meter defective period. The Engineers of TANGEDCO were

not able to identify the defects of the meter fixed in the service for six months even

though, they inspected the service frequently. The imagination of the respondent is

astonishing to note that the consumer identified the defect in the meter in advance

and planned to give letter to avoid billing, while the Engineers of TANGEDCO were

not aware of the defect for six months. Hence the imagination of the respondent in

this regard to be set aside.

(iv) As per the supply code provisions, they gave letter every time about non

running of the factory to the Section Officer / Gandhi Nagar and the Asst. Executive

Engineer/Udumalpet town. The concerned officers inspected the service based on

their application and confirmed about the removal of machineries and motors where

in progress. In addition, the Section Officer took the reading and at that time also,

the machineries and Motors were removed from the supply main. The respondent

simply hided the action taken based on their letters by the Officers and himself but

now, acting to establish his faulty assessment as correct.

(v) On 02-01-2012, they gave a letter that they propose to run the factory.

Immediately the Officers of TANGEDCO inspected the service and informed after

8

inspection that the meter seems to be defective and requested them to run the

factory after replacement of the defective meter. Accordingly the factory was run

after replacement of the said defective meter and so, the consumption in the above

service after 02/01-2012 was due to normal running of the factory. Hence they

submit that the respondent reported his imaginary unlogic view to add additional

points for his unlawful wrong assessment.

(vi) It is confirmed that the respondent must have the down loaded parameters

with him for the period in question which may speak the actual condition of the

factory as stated by them. The respondent hiding the above datas so as to establish

his wrong assessment as correct.

(vii) During the enquiry of CGRF, the respondent raised the status of Unit I & II,

but not raised this query while disposing their appeal with him. The Unit II was

closed, but unit No. I was leased from 15-09-2011 for 11 months, to meet the fixed

expenses of the factory with conditions that the Leasee should leave the factory

unconditionally as and when required by the appellant. The lease agreement was

entered with “SRI IYAPPAN YARN TWISTING”, 4/137 Goundypalayam, Thokavadi

Post, Tiruchengode.

(viii) The Officers who took the reading and reviewed the consumption of the

service might have definitely raised this point even at that time itself, provided the

Unit II was running. If Unit II was running as started by the respondent during the

period in question they may immediately inspect the Unit II and recommended for the

replacement of the defective meter. But the machineries and motors in Unit II were

removed from the supply main during the period in question and also during the

visits of officials and confirmed non utilization of energy in Unit II. This faulty attitude

of the respondent is a second thought to have additional evidences to establish his

unlawful wrong assessment.

6. Hearing held by the Electricity Ombudsman:-

6.1 To enable the Appellant and the Respondent to putforth their arguments in

person, a hearing was held before the Electricity Ombudsman on 26.8.2014.

6.2 Thiru E. Abdul Kadar represented the Appellant and putforth his arguments.

Thiru M. Subramanian, Executive Engineer / O & M attended the hearing on behalf

of the respondent.

9

7. Argument of the Appellant:-

7.1 Thiru E. Abdul Kadar attended the hearing on behalf of the respondent. He

reiterated the contents of the appeal petition and rejoinder.

7.2 The Appellants representative argued that unit II was temporarily stopped

from 10/2011 to 2.1.12012. He informed that due to various reasons like High rate of

cotton price, low rate of yarn price, power cut, etc, the above unit was under shut

down.

7.3 The stoppage of mill was informed to the Junior Engineer in letters dt.

10.9.2011, 1.10.2011, 1.11.2011, 28.11.2011, 2.12.2011 & 2.1.2012. He also

argued that the Junior Engineer while taking the reading on every month has noticed

the factory condition. Hence argued that if the units were in operation, he would

have checked the meter.

7.4 The Appellant representative also informed that they have leased out the

unit-I to Sri Iyappan Yard twisting from 15.9.2011 to 14.8.2012. But, cancelled the

agreement on 15.1.2012. Hence, he argued that the contentions of the respondent

that Unit II shall also be in service as Unit I has to depend on the output of Unit II is

not correct.

8. Argument of the Respondent:-

8.1 Thiru M. Subramanian, Executive Engineer / O & M, Udumalpet attended the

hearing on behalf of the Respondent.

8.2 He reiterated the contents of the counter.

8.3 The Executive Engineer argued that the Appellant is having two textile units

and the output of Unit-II only processed in Unit I. As Unit I was having consumption,

throughout 2011, the argument of the Appellant that Unit II was shut down from

10/2011 to 2.1.2012 is not maintainable.

8.4 The Executive Engineer also informed that leasing of Unit I was not informed

before and the lease document was also not produced before.

8.5 The Executive Engineer also citing difference in the colour of the ink used for

recording the readings and for the remarks, argued that the entries made in the

meter cards are doubtful.

8.6 The Executive Engineer also pointed out that the consumer has given two

letters about no production in their factory during 12/2011 and the proposal to

commence the production on 2.01.2012. Both the letters are dt.2.12.2011. But in

10

one letter it was recorded as received on 2.12.2011 and inspected the factory on

5.12.2011 and remarked as factory locked. In another letter dt.2.12.2011 the Junior

Engineer initialled the paper on 3.12.11 and remarked as inspected the factory on

3.12.2011. As there are different versions on the letter dt.2.12.2011, the Executive

Engineer argued that the documents could not be relied upon.

8.7 The Executive Engineer also informed that the manufacturers of the meters

have also informed that the data could not be retrieved from the meter released from

the Appellant’s service connection and furnished the email received from the

company in this regard. The Executive Engineer also furnished the copies of the

letter submitted by the Appellant.

9. Issues for Consideration :-

9.1 I have heard the arguments of both Appellant and the respondent and

perused the documents furnished. On a careful consideration of the submission of

both the parties, I find the following as issues.

(i) Whether the meter is defective?

(ii) Whether the contention of the Appellant that his factory was not in service from

10/2011 to 2.1.2012 is correct ?

(iii) Whether any relief could be given to the Appellant.

10. Finding on the First Issue:-

10.1 In order to find whether the meter fixed by LTCT SC. No. 1594 ESI

Distribution of AE / O & M, Gandhinagar is defective, we have to refer the Assistant

Executive Engineer /MRT’s report dt. 13.3. 2012. The relevant para of the said letter

is extracted below:-

“From To Er. V. Jayaprakash, BE., The Assistant Exe. Engineer Assistant Exe. Engineer O&M/UEDC Meter& Relay Tests, Town/Udumalpet UEDC/Udumalpet AEE/MRT/UEDC/UDT/F.LTCT.1594/D.664/2012, dt.13.3.2012 Sir, Sub : Elecy – UEDC – LTCT SC No.1594, ESI distribution of AE/O&M/Gandhinagar section –MRT Report – Sub-Reg Ref : TM From AEE/O&M/Town/Udumalpet dt.2.1.2012 ***********

11

With reference to the above, LTCT SC No.1594, ESI distribution of AE/O&M/Gandhinagar section was inspected by MRT on 2.1.2012. During inspection seals found intact. The existing Genus make meter found scroll lock. Hence, the existing meter declared as defective. The existing meter was replaced by a tested L&T Static trivector meter. Necessary load check conducted and the performance of newly fixed meter and existing CT coils found satisfactory. Initial reading and seals provided details are furnished below : Meter Details: Released Meter: II. Fixed Meter : Make : Genus Make : L&T Type : O3C Type : ER 300P Sl.No. : 3070562 Volts : 3x240V D.No. : UZ36717 Amps : - / 5A P.O.No. : 32/dt.22.2.2009 Sl.No. : 05391739 D.No. : UZ36148 P.O.No. : 165-01/05 16.6.05 III. Final Reading of Released Meter Final Reading couldn’t be taken due to released meter’s Display Found “ Scroll Lock” IV. xxx xxx xxx xxx V. xxx xxx xxx xxx VI. xxx xxx xxx xxx VII. Billing Recommendation : Bills may be revised based on the filed condition as per the Tamil Nadu Supply Code for the defective period. Yours faithfully Sd/ xxx xxx Asst. Executive Engineer Meter & Relay Tests/UEDC/Udumalpet ” 10.2 On a careful reading of the said letter, it is noted that Genus make meter

fixed in SC No. 1594 found scroll lock and the MRT has declared the meter as

defective. It is also noted that final reading of the released meter could not be taken

as the meter display found scroll lock. The MRT has not specified any defective

period also.

10.3 The Assistant Executive Engineer / MRT in his letter dt. 13.9.2013 has also

confirmed that the Genus company confirmed that the defective meter backup data

could not be retrieved from the factory end while repairing.

12

10.4 Hence, from the MRT report it is noted that the meter is defective but no

back up data could not be retrieved from the meter. Hence, the date from which the

meter becomes defective could not be ascertained.

11. Findings on the Second Issue:-

11.1 The Appellant argued that they have given letter about the reduction of

production and stoppage of mill in their letters dt. 10.9.2011, 1.10.2011, 1.11.2011,

28.11.2011, 2.12.2012 and the Junior Engineer has duly inspected the factory on

receipt of such letters.

11.2 He also argued that information about commencement of production was

given in letter dt.2.12.2011 and the commencement of production on 2.1.2012 was

also informed on 2.1.2012.

11.3 The Appellant also argued that the concerned Junior Engineer has taken the

monthly readings in the above service and recorded the consumption in the meter

card. If the mill was in operation, the Junior Engineer would have noted that the

consumption is not in commensurate with the usage and taken the necessary action

to record the meter as defective. But, Junior Engineer has not recorded the meter as

defective on those days.

11.4 The Appellant also argued that the Respondent have not shown the down

loaded details to establish the meter is defective from 9/2011. He also cited the

Member (Distribution) Circular Memo dt.3.7.2003 and argued that down loading of

meter reading is mandatory and the down loaded readings are to be reviewed by the

concerned Executive Engineer every month. But, this has not been done by the

respondents.

11.5 Further, the Appellant also informed that their Unit I was under lease with Sri

Iyappan Yard Testing, Tiruchengode from 15.9.2011 to 15.1.2012 and hence,

argued that running of unit I during the disputed period was by the lease agreement

holder and hence, the argument of the respondent that as Unit I was in running

condition the Unit II also be in service is not maintainable. He also produced a copy

of the lease agreement. But the lease agreement was not a registered one.

11.6 As per the lease agreement dt.1.5.9.2011, M/s. Saratex have leased out the

building at Plot No. 47, 48 & 49, Sakthi Industrial Estate, Elayamuthu Road,

Udumalpet with the machineries and Electricity Service connection to Sri Iyyappan

13

Yarn Testing for a period of 11 months from 15.9.2011 to 14.8.2012. But the lease

agreement was terminated by M/s. Sri Iyyappan Testing on 15.1.2012. In the above

agreement, the service connection number of the Electricity Service was not

mentioned.

11.7 The respondent argued that the Appellants are having two units for their

industrial activities. The output of Saratex Unit No. 1 (Sc. No. 754) is the input for

Unit-II. Hence, while the Unit I was continuously in service, the argument of the

Appellant that the Unit-II was not in service is not acceptable.

11.8 The Executive Engineer argued that after changing the meter on 2.1.2012 the

consumption recorded shows that there was normal production in the factory.

Hence, the argument of the Appellant that the production commenced only after

changing the meter is only to use the above data in his favour.

11.9 The Executive Engineer informed that the Appellant has given letters about

the stoppage of production. But, the remarks of the Junior Engineer on the two

letters dt.2.12.2011 are varying. In one letter it was recorded as received on

2.12.2011 and inspected the factory on 5.12.2011 and on the other letter

dt.2.12.2011, the Junior Engineer initialled the paper on 3.12.2011 and recorded as

inspected the factory on 3.12.2011. As there are different remarks on the letters

dt.2.12.2011, submitted by the Appellant, the Executive Engineer argued that the

documents are not reliable.

11.10 The Executive Engineer also argued that in the meter card also the entry of

readings and the remarks are in different ink. Hence, he argued that the entries in

meter card cannot be considered for finalising the issue.

11.11 The Executive Engineer also informed that the no data could be downloaded

from the meter. He also informed that as per the manufacturer’s of the meter, no

backup data could be retrieved from the meter.

11.12 As the Appellant has informed that he has given letters about the stoppage of

mill in advance, the true extract of the letters dt.10.9.2011, 1.10.2011, 1.11.2011 &

2.12.2011 are furnished below :-

“ Ref.. . . . . . SC No.1594 ESI bgWe® ehŸ : 10/09/2011 Ïsä‹bgh¿ahs®, j.ä.th., fhªÂ ef® ÃçÎ, cLkiyng£il Iah,

14

bghUŸ- S.C. No.1594 ESI – 9/2011 ä‹ Âw‹ Fiwªj cgnahf« F¿¤J gŠR éiy ca®Î, üš éiy rçÎ fhuzkhf bgU« eZl« V‰g£ljhš ãiyikia rç brŒa nt©o j‰fhèfkhf c‰g¤Â ãW¤j¥g£L kuhk¤J¥gâfŸ k£L« (machinery maintenance) brŒa¥gLtjhš ä‹ cgnahf« Ï«khj¤Âš Fiw¡f¥gL»wJ v‹gij¥ gâÎl‹ bjçé¤J¡bfhŸ»nw‹. e‹¿Íl‹ c©ikaŸs for Sara Tex Sd/xxx xxx Partner

“ Ref.. . . . . . SC No.1594 ESI bgWe® ehŸ : 1/10/2011 Ïsä‹bgh¿ahs®, j.ä.th., fhªÂ ef® ÃçÎ, cLkiyng£il Iah, bghUŸ- S.C. No.1594 ESI – 9/2011 &10/2011 ä‹ Âw‹ Fiwªj cgnahf« F¿¤J gh®it- vkJ foj v©.-/ehŸ 10-9-11 gŠR éiy ca®Î, üš éiy rçÎ fhuzkhf bgU« eZl« V‰g£ljhš ãiyikia rç brŒa nt©o j‰fhèfkhf c‰g¤Â ãW¤j¥g£l égu« gh®itæš f©l foj« _ykhf¤ bjçé¤J¡ bfhŸs¥g£lJ. _y¥bghUë‹ éiy ãytu« f£Lgoahdjhf Ïšyhjjhš 10/2011 KGtJkhf c‰g¤Â ãW¤j« brŒa¥g£L, äÁ‹fŸ kuhk¤J¥ gâfŸ k£L« brŒa c¤njÁ¡f¥g£LŸsJ. vdnt, ä‹ cgnahf« 10/11 khj« KGtJ« Fiw¤J kuhk¤J gâfŸ k‰W« (test run) M»ait k£Lnk brŒa¥g£L tU»wJ v‹gij¥ gâªJ bjçé¤J bfhŸ»nw‹. Û©L« c‰g¤Â 1/11 -2011 Kjš Jt§» c¤njÁ¡f¥g£LŸsJ vdΫ bjçé¤J¡bfhŸs¥gL»wJ. e‹¿Íl‹ c©ikaŸs for Sara Tex Sd/xxx xxx Partner

efš- cjé¢ bra‰bgh¿ahs® TNEB, cLkiy/l΋ mt®fë‹ fåthd

gh®it¡fhf gâªJ mD¥g¥gL»wJ.

for Sara Tex Sd/xxx xxx Partner

“ Ref.. . . . . . SC No.1594 ESI bgWe® ehŸ : 1/11/2011 Ïsä‹bgh¿ahs®, j.ä.th., fhªÂ ef® ÃçÎ, cLkiyng£il

15

Iah, bghUŸ- S.C. No.1594 ESI – 9/2011 &10/2011 & 11/2011 ä‹ Âw‹ Fiwªj cgnahf« F¿¤J gh®itæš f©l foj§fë‹ _ykhf, gŠRéiy gŠR éiy V‰w«, üš éiy FiwÎ-bgU« eZl« fhuzkhf j‰fhèfkhf c‰g¤Â ãW¤j« brŒa¥g£lJ. ãiyik Óuhdhš 1/11-11 Kjš c‰g¤Â bjhl®tJ vd 1/10-2011 foj¤Âš bjçé¡f¥g£lJ. khwhf bjhl®ªJ eZl ãiyna Úo¤jikahš 1/11-2011 Kjš c‰g¤Â bjhlu Ïayéšiy. vdnt, 30/11-2011 tiu c‰g¤Â ãW¤j« bjhl®ªJ brŒtbjd c¤njÁ¡f¥g£LŸsJ vd¥ gâªJ bjçé¤J bfhŸs¥gL»wJ. e‹¿Íl‹ c©ikaŸs for Sara Tex Sd/xxx xxx Partner efš- cjé¢ bra‰bgh¿ahs® TNEB, cLkiy/l΋ mt®fë‹ fåthd

gh®it¡fhfΫ gâªJ mD¥g¥gL»wJ.

c©ikÍŸs for Sara Tex Sd/xxx xxx Partner “ Ref.. . . . . . SC No.1594 ESI bgWe® ehŸ : 2/12/2011 Ïsä‹bgh¿ahs®, j.ä.th., fhªÂ ef® ÃçÎ, cLkiyng£il Iah, bghUŸ- S.C. No.1594 ESI – 9/2011 &10/2011 & 11/2011, 12/2011 ä‹ Âw‹ cgnahf« brŒahjJ F¿¤J gh®it- vkJ foj v©.-/ehŸ 1/10-11, 1/11-11, 28/11-11. gh®itæš f©l foj§fë‹go vkJ ãWtd¤Âš c‰g¤Â j‰fhèfkhf ãW¤j« brŒa¥£l égu§fŸ gâªJ bjçé¤J¡ bfhŸs¥g£lJ. nkY«, vkJ 28/11-11 njÂæ£l foj¤Â‹go 30/11/11Ïš Û©L« c‰g¤Â bjhl§f V‰ghLfŸ brŒa¥g£lJ. Mæ‹ v®ghuhj tifæš “ ntiyah£fŸ _‹W khj Ïilbtë¡F¥Ã‹ cldoahf ntiy¡F tu Ïiraéšiy. 12/2011 Koa ntiy¡F tuKoahj Nœãiy ÏU¥gjhfΫ, kh‰W ntiy¡F¢ br‹w Ïl¤Âš r«gs« br£oš brŒJ th§»é£L 2/01/2012 Kjš ntiy¡F tUtjhf x¥ò¡bfh©LŸsh®fŸ. vdnt, 12/2011 KGikÍ« äš Ïa¡f« brŒa Koahkš ãW¤Â it¡f¥g£LŸsJ v‹gij¥ gâªJ bjçé¤J¡ bfhŸs¥gL»wJ. ntiyah£fŸ, 2/01/2012 Kjš ntiy¡F tu x¥ò¡ bfh©LŸsgoahš Û©L« m‹W Kjš äš Ïa¡f« brŒa cŸsJ v‹gij¥ gâªJ bjçé¤J¡ bfhŸs¥gL»wJ. e‹¿Íl‹ c©ikaŸs

16

for Sara Tex Sd/xxx xxx Partner ” 11.13 On a careful reading of the Appellants letter dt.10.9.2011 it is noted that the

Appellant has informed the Junior Engineer about the temporary suspension of

works in SC No. 1594 due to rise in cotton price and decrease in the price of yarn.

He also informed that there will be reduction in consumption. The Junior Engineer

has received the above letter on 10.9.2011 and remarked as below on the above

letter.

“Factory not running”

11.14 The Junior Engineer / Gandhinagar has also wrote a letter in this regard to

Assistant Accounts Officer vide letter dt.1.11.2011, wherein he has informed that on

inspection, it was noted that there was reduction in consumption due to yarn price

and shortage of work man (gçÓè¤jš flªj 9/2011 Kjš üš éiy k‰W« M£fŸ

g‰whFiwæš 10.9.2011 Kjš ä‹ cgnahf« Fiwthf ga‹gL¤JtJ

f©l¿a¥g£lJ.)

11.15 On a careful reading of the letter dt.1.10.2011, it is noted that, the Appellant

has informed that during 10/2011, it is proposed to stop the production completely

and do the maintenance works on the machineries and test run alone being

conducted. It was also informed that from 1.11.2011 onwards, it was proposed to

commence the production. The above letter was received by the Junior Engineer on

1.10.2011. The Junior Engineer remarked as below on the above letter.

“Inspected on 25.10.2011. Factory not running.”

11.16 On a careful reading of letter dt.1.11.2011, it is noted that the Appellant has

informed that the production was not commented on 1.11.2011 as informed earlier

and production was stopped upto 30.11.2011 on 1.11.2011, the Junior Engineer

remarked factory not running and closed and on 25.11.2011 he remarked inspected

on 25.11.2011, factory not running.

11.17 A copy of the above letter was forwarded to the Assistant Accounts Officer

with a covering letter dt.30.11.2011 wherein the Junior Engineer has furnished the

following.

“mD¥òe® bgWe® Ïsä‹ bgh¿ahs®, cjé fz¡F mYty® jäœehL ä‹ c‰g¤Â k‰W« g»®khd fHf«, tUthŒ ÃçÎ

17

fhªÂ ef®, cLkiy cLkiy ä‹g»®khd t£l«, cLkiy¥ng£il. foj v©.Ï.ä.bgh/Ï& g/fh.ef®/cL/nfh/äÏv©1594/m.v©.237/ehŸ 30.11.2011 mŒah, bghUŸ - ä‹rhu«-äÏv©.1594 – Åj¥g£o v©.IIIB Ï.v°.I g»®khd« - 11/2011 khj« Fiwªj ä‹ cgnahf« - ga‹gh£L – F¿¤J gh®it - ä‹ Ef®nthç‹ foj ehŸ 1.11.2011 ********* gh®itæš fhQ« ä‹ Ef®nthç‹ foj¤Â‹ ä‹åiz¥ò v©. 1594, Åj¥g£o v©.IIIB Ï.v°.I g»®khd MŒÎ brŒjš 1.11.2011 m‹W bjhê‰rhiyæš gŠR g‰wh¡Fiwæ‹ fhuzkhf eZlãiyikæ‹ ngçš ãW¤Â it¡f¥g£LŸsJ. nkY«, 25.11.2011 m‹W« MŒÎ brŒjš bjhê‰c‰g¤Â ãW¤j«, bjhl®ªJ Ïa§fhkY« ÏU¥gJ f©l¿a¥g£lJ. vdnt, Ef®nthçläUªJ bgw¥g£l foj efš j¡f nkš elto¡iffhf gâªjD¥g¥gL»wJ. sd/xxx xxx Ïsä‹ bgh¿ahs® jäœehL ä‹c‰g¤Â k‰W« g»®khd fHf« fhªÂ ef®/cLkiy

11.18 On a careful reading of the covering letter it is noted that the Junior Engineer

has inspected the factory and confirmed that the factory is not running and informed

the same to Assistant Accounts Officer.

11.19 On a careful reading of letter dt.2.12.2011, it is noted that the Appellant has

informed that they proposed to commence the production on 30.11.2011. But as the

workers are unable to come for the work after a gap of 3 months, the

commencement of production is proposed on 2.1.2012. There are two copies of

letter dt.2.12.2011. In both the letters there is no difference in the contents. One

copy was received by the Junior Engineer on 2.12.2011. It was remarked by Junior

Engineer on the above letter as below:-

“Inspected on 3.12.2011

In the other letter, the Junior Engineer has remarked as below :- Inspected on

5.12.11. Factory locked.

11.20 On an analysis of the letters dt. 10.9.2011, 1.10.2011, 1.11.2011 & 2.12.2011

of the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has informed about the reduction in

production during 9/2011 and stoppage of production in 10/2011, 11/2011 & 12/2011

in advance. The Junior Engineer of the concerned section also inspected the factory

18

and also informed about the lesser usage from 10.9.2011 and stoppage of

production upto 25.11.2011 during the month of 11/2011 to Assistant Accounts

Officer vide letter 12.10.2011 / 1.11.2011 and 30.11.2011. The remarks of the Junior

Engineer on the letters of the Appellant also confirming the version of the Appellant

that their production was stopped.

11.21 In letter dt.27.7.2013 addressed to AEE/Town Udumalpet while

recommending to drop the audit short fall , the Junior Engineer has stated the

following in para 2, of the said letter.

“ä‹ msÎ ÂU¤j¥g£l fhy« 09/2011 Kjš 1/2012 Koa ä‹ Ef®nth® 10/9/2011 m‹W gU¤Âæ‹ éiy ca®Î k‰W« üš éiy Åœ¢Áæ‹ fhuzkhf eZl« V‰g£ljhš 10.9.2011 Kjš bjhê‰rhiy j‰fhèfkhf c‰g¤Â ãW¤j¥g£L guhkç¥ò gâfŸ k£Lnk nk‰bfhŸtjhf foj« _y« bjçé¤jh®. mªj¡ foj¤Â‹ mo¥gilæš 10/9/2011 m‹W ä‹åiz¥ig eh‹ MŒÎ brŒjjš Ef®nth® Tw¥g£lJ c©ik vd¤ bjça tªjJ. g¢ir t©z m£ilæY« cgnahf« Ïšiy vd¥ gÂÎ brŒa¥g£LŸsJ. mj‹ Ë Ãu khj« 25M« njÂa‹W khjhªÂu ä‹f£lz fz¡ÑL brŒÍ«nghJ Ϫj¤ bjhê‰rhiyæš ä‹ x£l¤Â‰fhd nfßfŸ KGikahf Ïiz¥ÃèUªJ fH‰w¥g£L bjhê‰rhiy äÁ‹fis guhkç¥gJ k‰W« kh£LtJ ngh‹w gâfŸ k£L« brŒa¥g£L tªjJ cW brŒa¥g£lJ. ä‹ Ef®nthU« khjh khj« jdJ bjhê‰rhiyæš kuhk¤J gâfŸ k£L« eilbgWtjhf foj« _y« bjçé¤JŸsh®. x›bthU khjK« 10/11, 11/11, 12/11 ä‹ fz¡ÑL brŒÍ«bghGJ ä‹khåæ‹ brašghL e‹whfnt ÏUªJŸsJ. Ë ä‹ Ef®nth® 02.01.2012 m‹W foj« _y« m‹iwa nj Kjš bjhê‰rhiyia Ïa¡fΟsjhf bjçé¤jh®. mªj foj¤Â‹ mo¥gilæš Ïªj ä‹åiz¥ò MŒÎ brŒj nghJ ä‹ msé Scroll Lock M»æUªjJ bjça tªjJ. cldoahf cjé brŒwbgh¿ahs® ä‹ msé MŒtf« cLkiy mt®fS¡F bjça¥gL¤Â 2.01.2012 m‹W òÂa ä‹khå bghU¤j¥g£lJ. vdnt, 1/2011 khj¤Â‰F òÂa ä‹ mséæš gÂÎ brŒJŸsgo fz¡ÑL brŒJ ä‹f£lz« tNè¡f¥g£lJ. 9/11 Kjš 12/11 Koa ä‹ Ïiz¥Ãš ÏUªj ä‹ khåæš Scroll Lock v‹w òfh®jh‹ 2.01.2012 njÂa‹W f©LÃo¡f¥g£LŸsJ. 12/11 Koa Scroll rçtu Ïa§» ä‹ msÎ vL¡f¥g£lJ. ä‹ khåæš ä‹ msÎ gÂÎ jtwhfnt mšyJ gÂÎ Mtšiy v‹w òfhnuh Ïšiy. Ïjid cjé bra‰bgh¿ahs® ä‹ msé MŒtf« cLkiy mt®fŸ Ϫj ä‹ khåia MŒÎ brŒJ bfhL¤JŸs MŒÎ m¿¡ifæ‹ _y« bjëth»wJ. vdnt, 09/2011 Kjš 1/2012 Koa jâ¡if¥ ÃçÎ ÂU¤Â tNš brŒÍ«go nfhçÍŸsij KGikahf u¤J brŒa gçªJiu brŒÍ«go nf£L¡ bfhŸs¥gL»wJ.” 11.22 On a careful reading of the above, it is noted that the Junior Engineer has

stated that the while taking reading in every month, it was noted that the cables

connecting the machineries were removed from supply and maintenance works

were alone carried out. He also confirmed that the meter was in good condition

while taking reading for 10/11, 11/11 & 12/11 and also informed that scroll was

working alright upto 12/2011.

19

11.23 As the service is a LT CT Service, the readings are to be taken by the section

officers only. Hence, the copy of the meter card of the SC. No. 302-001-1594

furnished by the Respondent is also examined by me and observed the following:-

(a) The reading for 9/2011 was recorded on 26.9.2011. The readings were

recorded in Blue ink. The Junior Engineer put his signature in Black ink. The

remarks in Black ink is “Low Production”.

(b) The reading for 10/201 was recorded on 25.10.2011 and the entries are in Blue

ink. The remarks of Junior Engineer is “factory not running” in Blue ink and the

Junior Engineer signed on 25.10.2011 in Blue ink. The consumption recorded

is nil. There was another remarks as no usage. There was one more initial of

Junior Engineer in Black ink.

(c) The reading for 11/2011 was recorded on 25.11.2011 and the entries are in

Blue ink. The Junior Engineer remarked as “Factory Locked” and signed on

25.11.2011 in Blue ink. The consumption was “NIL” and there is another

remarks as “No usage”. One more initial of Junior Engineer in Black ink without

date is also available.

(d) The reading for 12/2011 was recorded on 25.12.2011 and the entries are in

Blue ink. There was a remark as “Factory Locked” in Blue ink. The

consumption was nil and there is another remarks “No usage” and the Junior

Engineer has put his initial in Black ink without date.

(e) On 2.1.2012, “Display Dead” is the remark in Blue ink with JE’s initials. The

another remarks as Meter Replaced due to scroll defect” in black ink with

Junior Engineer’s initials dated 2.1.2012 in Black ink.

11.24 The remarks of JE on the meter card shows that there was low production

during 9/2011 and factory was not running during 10/2011 and locked during

11/2011 & 12/2011.

11.25 Summarising the findings furnished in para 11.20 to 11.24, the following are noted :- (i) The appellant has informed about the lesser production during 9/2011

and stoppage of production during 10/2011, 11/2011 and 12/2011 vide letter

dt.10.9.2011, 1.10.2011 & 2.12.2011 respectively.

(ii) The licensee’s officer (viz) the concerned Junior Engineer has

inspected the factory and recorded his observation on the appellant’s letter itself as

20

factory not running and also informed about the lesser usage from 10.9.2011 and

stoppage of production during 11/2011 to Assistant Accounts Officer.

(iii) The remarks of the concerned Junior Engineer on the white meter

card also confirms less production during 9/2011 and factory not running/Factory

locked during 10/2011, 11/2011 & 12/2011.

(iv) The concerned Junior Engineer while submitting the proposal to drop

the above audit short fall has also confirmed that the cable connecting the

machineries were removed from supply and maintenance works alone are carried

out in the factory. He also confirmed that the meter was in good condition while

taking reading for 10/2011, 11/2011 & 12/2011 and also informed that scroll was

working alright upto 12/2011.

11.26 As per the above paras, the Appellant has informed about the lesser

production during 9/2011 and stoppage of production during 10/2011 to 12/2011 in

advance. Further, the concerned Junior Engineer himself has remarked and

confirmed less production during 9/2011 and stoppage of production during 10/2011

to 12/2011 and also confirmed the working of meter as normal while taking monthly

reading for the months of 10/2011, 11/2011 & 12/2011. I cannot ignore the remarks

of the concerned Junior Engineer. Hence, I am of the view that the factory was not

running from 10/2011 to 12/2011 and there was less production during 9/2011.

12. Findings on the Third Issue:-

12.1 As per my findings on second issue, the Appellant has informed in advance

about the lesser production during 9/2011 and stoppage of production from 10/2011

to 12/2011 and the JE concerned has also inspected the factory and confirmed that

the factory was not working and has also forwarded his inspection report to Assistant

Accounts Officer of the concerned Division for less production during 9/2011 &

stoppage of production during 11/2011. The Appellant has also informed the

probable date of commencement of production as 2.1.2012 in his letter dt.2.12.2011.

The Appellant has also informed that he has commenced production on 2.1.2012 on

2.1.22012 and the JE has checked the meter and found it defective (scroll lock) and

the meter was changed on 2.1.2012 itself. Hence, I am of the view that the factory

was not in operation during the period from 10/2011 to 12/2011 and less production

during 9/2011.

21

12.2 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Appellant deserves relief.

Accordingly, I set aside the orders of CGRF of Udumalpet Electricity Distribution

Circle.

12.3 The Junior Engineer has also informed in his letter dt.27.7.2013 that upto

12/2011 that scroll was working and the meter reading was taken. The 12/2011

reading was taken on 25.12.2011. Hence, the meter is working alright upto

25.12.2011. The scroll defect was noted on 2.12.2012. Hence, the (scroll lock)

defect could have been occurred any time between 25.12.2011 to 2.1.2012. Hence,

I am of the view that the licensee could claim average consumption for the period

from 25.12.2011 to 2.1.2012

13. Conclusion:-

13.1 In view of findings in issues 2 & 3, furnished in para 11& 12 above,-

(a) The orders of CGRF of Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle levying a

short fall amount of Rs.4,59,566/- is set aside.

(b) The licensee can claim average consumption for the period from 26.12.2011

to 2.1.2012.

13.2 The sum of Rs.1,14,892/- paid by the Appellant towards 25% of the amount

as ordered by CGRF shall be refunded after deducting the average CC charges for

the meter defective period from 26.12.2011 to 2.1.2012 within 15 days from the date

of receipt of the order and a compliance report shall be sent within 30 days.

13.3 With the above findings, the Appeal Petition No.43 of 2014 is finally disposed

of by the Electricity Ombudsman.

(A. Dharmaraj) Electricity Ombudsman To 1) Tvl. A. Mahabu & A. Jinnah Partners, Sara Tex Unit-II, S.F. No. 64/2, Sakthi Co-operative Industrial Estate, Udumalpet, Tirupur District – 642 126

22

2) The Superintending Engineer, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), Eripalayam, Tiruppur Road, Udumalpet – 642 126 3) The Chairman, (Superintending Engineer), Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), Eripalayam, Tiruppur Road, Udumalpet – 642 126. 4) The Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO, NPKR Malaigai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 5) The Secretary Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 6) The Assistant Director (Computer) - FOR HOSTING IN THE TNEO WEBSITE PLEASE Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

23

11.24 As the Appellant has given advance information about the lesser production

during 9/2011 and stoppage of production in their factory during 10/2011,11/2011 &

12/2011 and remarks of the concerned JE on the letters of the Appellant and the

remarks of JE on the meter card and the recommendation of Junior Engineer in his

letter dt.27.7.2013 are also confirming the low production during 9/2011 and

stoppage of production during 10/2011 to 12/2011, I am of the view that the factory

was not running from 10/2011 to 12/2011 and there was less production during

9/2011.

Summarising the findings furnished in para 11.19 to 11.23, the following are noted :- (i) The appellant has informed about the lesser production during 9/2011

and stoppage of production during 10/2011, 11/2011 and 12/2011 vide letter

dt.10.9.2011, 1.10.2011 & 2.12.2011 respectively.

24

(ii) The licensee’s officer (viz) the concerned Junior Engineer has

inspected the factory and recorded his observation on the appellant’s letter itself as

factory not running and also informed about the lesser usage from 10.9.2011 and

stoppage of production during 10/2011 & 11/2011 to Assistant Accounts Officer.

(iii) The remarks of the concerned Junior Engineer on the white meter

card also confirms less production during 9/2011 and factory not running. Factory

worked during 10/2011, 11/2011 & 12/2011.

(iv) The concerned Junior Engineer while submitting the proposal to drop

the above audit short fall has also confirmed that the cable connecting the

machineries were remarked from supply and maintenance works alone are carried

out in the factory. He also confirmed the meter was in good condition while taking

reading for 10/2011, 11/2011 & 12/2011 and also informed that scroll was working

alright upto 12/2011.

(v) As the licensee’s officer the concerned Junior Engineer himself has

stated that remarked and confirmed the less production during 9/2011 and

stoppage of production during 10/2011 to 12/2011, I am of the view that the factory

was not running from 10/2011 to 12/2011 and there was less production during

9/2011.