CASE No. 27 of In the matter of. Coram. Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.

Transkript

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: merc.gov.in CASE No. 27 of 2017 In the matter of Petition of Smt. Mumtaj Amrut Mane regarding non-compliance of Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai s Order dated in Representation No. 104 of 2016 by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Coram Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member Smt. Mumtaj Amrut Mane V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd..Petitioner..Respondent Appearance: For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: For Authorized Consumer Representative:..Shri. Amrit Rama Mane..Shri.A.P.Huvale..Shri.N.P.Waghmare..Dr.Ashok Pendse, TBIA ORDER Dated: 19 December, Smt. Mumtaj Amrut Mane, Heer, Mujawar Plot No.7, House No. 114/467/0, CTS No. 466/2, Dakshin Shivajinagar, Sangli, has filed a Petition dated 27 January, 2017 regarding non-compliance of the Electricity Ombudsman (EO), Mumbai s Order dated 24 October, 2016 in Representation No. 104 of 2016 by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL). The Petition cites Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act (EA), Order in Case of 27 of 2017 Page 1 of 7

2 2. In her Petition, Smt. Mane has prayed as follows: 1) ÃÖÖê»ÖÖ Öæ ü Ö»ÆüÖ, ÖÖêÆüÖêôû ŸÖÖ»ÖãÛúÖ, ÖÖî Öê Ö üö Öæ ü (ÃÖÖê) ÝÖ ü ÛÎú. 252/2/ µöö ÖêŸÖÖŸÖᯙ ÖÆüÖ ¾ÖŸÖ üþö Ö Ö»µÖÖ üö üß µöö µööê Ö ÖêŸÖæ Ö ê Ö¾Öêôûß Ö üöüö üµöö µöö»öýö ÃÖê ¾Öß Öê Öê ÜÖÖÓ²Ö ÃÖ Ö 2005 Ö µöê ŸÖ ü Öê üöûæú Ö ÖêŸÖß Ûú üþµööãö Ûêú»Öê»ÖÖ ü ÖôûÖ ¾Ö ÝÖî ÃÖÖêµÖ æü ü Ûú üþöêãööšüß ÜÖÖÓ²Ö Ö¾Öôû µöö ²ÖÖÓ ÖÖ¾Ö ü üöê ü»öýöÿö Æü»Ö¾Öæ Ö ÖôûÖ¾Öê. 2) ÃÖ Ö 2005 ÖÖÃÖæ Ö Ö ÖŸÖÖÝÖÖµÖŸÖ Ö Ö Öê ÖêŸÖÖŸÖ ¾Öß Ö ÜÖÖÓ²Ö üöûæú Ö Ö Ö Öß ÖÖ ¾ÖÖ Ö ü Ûêú»ÖÖ, ŸµÖÖ µöö ÖÖê²Ö ü»öö ÖµÖ ÖÖ ÖãÃÖÖ ü ÖôûÖ¾ÖÖ. 3) ÖÆüÖ üöâ Òü üö µö ¾ÖªãŸÖ ¾ÖŸÖ üþö ÛÓú Ö Öß ÖµÖÖÔ üÿö, ÖÖêÆüÖêôû ¾Ö ÖãÜµÖ ÛúÖµÖÖÔ»ÖµÖ ÃÖÖê»ÖÖ Öæ ü µöê Öᯙ ¾Öß Ö ÖÛúÖ üß ( ÁÖß æü ÖÞÖê ¾Ö ÁÖß Öü ê ) µööó Öß ÖÖ Öê ¾Ö ÖÓŸÖßÛú êü»öõö ü»öê ÖÖÆüß ÆüÞÖæ Ö ŸµÖÖÓ ÖÖ ÛúÃÖæ ü Öœüôû»µÖÖÃÖ ¾Öß Ö Ö ÖµÖ Ö 203 Ûú»Ö Ö 142 ¾Ö 146 Öê ÖµÖ ÖÖ ÖãÃÖÖ ü ÛúÖµÖ êü Öß ü ÛúÖµÖÔ¾ÖÖÆüß Ûú üö¾öß. 3. The Petition states that: (1) The Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land at Gat No.252/2/A, Shirpur, Taluka Mohol, Dist. Solapur since 1992, but had settled in Sangli since Her husband was in the Police service and posted in various Districts, and retired in Thus, neither the Petitioner nor her husband could pay attention to the land. (2) In 2012, the Petitioner started undertaking measurement and planned to undertake cultivation. In 2013, during levelling and clearing of the land, the arm of the JCB machine came into contact with the conductor of a line which was found to be passing through her land. Since the power supply was off, no one was electrocuted. (3) Upon inquiring about the poles erected on the land and the line passing overhead, it was found that this 11 kv line was tapped from Bibidarphal feeder emanating from Akolekathi Sub-Station. The Petitioner also found that MSEDCL s contractor, while executing an electrification scheme in 2005 under Mahavitaran Aplya Dari, had deviated from the planned alignment because of objections of neighbouring farmers. In the original survey, the poles of the 11 kv line were to be erected on the boundary of the Petitioner s farm. However, in view of the deviation in the alignment and the consequent shortage of poles with the contractor, 3 poles were instead erected on her land without any intimation. (4) Since these 3 poles are obstructing the agricultural activities of the Petitioner, MSEDCL was repeatedly requested to relocate the poles towards the boundary. However, there was no response from MSEDCL. (5) Hence, the Petitioner approached the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC). However, by its Order dated 4 May, 2016, the IGRC ruled as follows: Order in Case of 27 of 2017 Page 2 of 7

3 सदर ग ऱ ह ण य स दर त न र य द ण य स ह कक ष क यद य सक षम ह. (6) Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a grievance before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Baramati Zone. However, by its Order dated 27 August, 2016, the CGRF also rejected her grievance as follows:. 8. As regards any differences or disputes as to works of licensees appropriate commission has power to decide the said disputes under sub section (4) of section 67 of Electricity Act, 2003 it reads as under: WORKS OF LICENSEES 67. Provision as to opening up of streets, railways, etc.-(1). (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, determent or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. (4) Where any difference or dispute (including amount of compensation under sub section (3)) arises under this section, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. ORDER 1) The grievance of the consumer stands rejected with cost. (7) Being aggrieved by the CGRF Order, the Petitioner filed a Representation (No. 104 of 2016) before the Electricity Ombudsman (EO), Mumbai, who held as follows vide his Order dated -----: ९) अप ल र थ य स वर दरम य र ख ट स दर कर न दर स आर ल कक, प रनतव द मह पवतरर ल ल ई ट कत ब ध वर सरळ ट कर र क य ह त. म त र स ब धधत म लक च रव ग घ त र त मध आडव ख ब ट कण य त आल य र त करण य च त व र इच छ असत अडर थळ व ग रस य न म र झ ल ल आह. त य चप रम र त मध य ख ब असल य र त करर द ख ल ध क द यक आह. अप ल र थ द ख ब हलपवल य स अप ल र थ स र त करर स य च ह ईल. प रनतव द तर फ उ स ततर थ क ल ल उ क य क र अभर य त य आश व स ददल ल आह क, अप ल र थ स कम त कम खच त ख ब हलपवण य ब बत सव त र मदत करण य त य ईल. एक दर त ररस तर थत हत ख ब हलपवर र क य ह त असल य स, सदर तक र र जर ग ऱ ह ण य च य Order in Case of 27 of 2017 Page 3 of 7

4 कक ष त य त सल तर अप ल र थ स आवश यक त सव सहक य व मदत कर व अस मह पवतरर ल स धचत करण य त य त आह व सदर अभर व द न क ल क ढण य त य त आह. (8) Thus, the IGRC, CGRF and EO ruled that they had no jurisdiction to decide this issue. However, they ignored the fact that the contractor for his convenience had deviated from the original survey alignment which affected the Petitioner. Also, none of them obtained the original survey and estimate from MSEDCL. The Petitioner had also sought the original survey and estimates from MSEDCL under the Right to Information Act, but MSEDCL has not provided them. (9) The Petitioner has suffered mental agony while pursuing the matter with MSEDCL. However, the poles are still not relocated. Also, from the safety point of view, the land cannot be used for any agricultural activity. The Petitioner has not sought any compensation till the present proceedings. (10) The pursuit of this matter has cost the Petitioner approximately Rs.15,000 which should be recovered from the local MSEDCL officer responsible. Further, an alternative solution was pointed out by some MSEDCL officials themselves, but the local MSEDCL officer is not inclined to proceed with it. 4. In its substantive Reply dated 30 May, 2017, MSEDCL has stated that: (1) MSEDCL is ready to comply with the EO, Mumbai s Order dated 24 October, 2016, if the Petitioner is willing to pay 1.3 % as supervision charges under the Dedicated Distribution Facility (DDF) scheme and execute the pole shifting work through a Licensed Electrical Contractor at her cost as there are no other provisions for execution of such works by MSEDCL. (2) It is difficult to shift the Line because of the following reasons: i) The 11 kv Line was commissioned in 2005 and is passing through the lands of several farmers, and was not objected to at that time. ii) iii) If the Line is shifted from the land of one farmer, other farmers may object to it, and it may become difficult for MSEDCL to serve its consumers. The Petitioner herself is a consumer connected on the DTC fed from this 11 kv Line. 5. At the hearing held on 30 May, 2017, Representative of the Petitioner (who is her husband) re-iterated the submissions in the Petition. He stated that, although MSEDCL had the option of laying the Line along the boundary of the Petitioner s agricultural land, its contractor, due to financial constraints, erected the poles on the Order in Case of 27 of 2017 Page 4 of 7

5 land itself. The Petitioner had asked MSEDCL to provide the approved plan of the works, but it did not do so. MSEDCL has erected the poles without taking her permission. Since farming activity on the land was affected, application was made to MSEDCL for shifting the poles. Instead of shifting the poles on its own, MSEDCL asked her to bear all the expenses of shifting and 1.3% supervisory charges under the DDF Scheme. The Commission asked what the Petitioner s course of action would be if there was no alternative for shifting the poles. Her Representative replied that the poles can be erected on the boundary of the land; and that MSEDCL has conducted a survey and informed that they could be shifted there. To another query, he stated that the Petitioner had not sought compensation, but only that the poles be shifted from her agricultural land. He stated further that, since he was preoccupied with his service away from the village prior to his retirement, the couple was not aware about these poles erected in To a query of the Commission, MSEDCL stated that the Petitioner did not object when these HT Line poles were being erected in 2005, and it was taken as implied consent. MSEDCL had complied with the EO, Mumbai s Order dated 24 October, 2016 by extending full cooperation to the Petitioner. MSEDCL had also prepared an estimate for shifting, but the Petitioner s consent to shift the poles at her own cost is still awaited. Commission s Analysis and Ruling: 6. In his Order dated 24 October, 2016, the EO, Mumbai, had ruled as follows: ८) कक ष तस च म च न व द य त अध ननयम च य कलम ६७ (४) तस च र कसस ऑफ ल यस न सच तरत द व च र त घ ऊन अव ल र थ न क ल ल तक र र, " ग ऱ ह ण " य कक ष त य त नसल य न फ ट ळल ल आह. कक ष तस च म च च सदर ननणसय य ग य असल य न, त य मध य बदल करण य च आ श यकत न ह. त य म ळ, अव ल र थ सच अभ दन म न य करत य त न ह. ९) अव ल र थ य न स न ण दरम य न र ख टन स दर कर न ननदर सन स आणल कक, प रनत द मह व तरणल ल ईन ट कत न ब र न सरळ ट कण र र कय ह त. म त र स ब ध त म लक च र नग न घ त र त म न आड ख ब ट कण य त आल य न र त करण य च त व र इच छ असत न अडर थळ ग रस य ननम सण झ ल ल आह. त य चप रम न र त मध य ख ब असल य न र त करण द ख ल क द यक आह. अव ल र थ न द न ख ब हलव ल य स अव ल र थ स र त करण स य च ह ईल. प रनत द तफ उ स ततर थ क ल ल उ क यसक र अभ य त य न आश सन ददल ल आह क, अव ल र थ स कम त कम खच सत ख ब हलव ण य ब बत स सत र मदत करण य त य ईल. एक दर त ररस तर थत हत ख ब हलव ण र र कय ह त असल य स, सदर तक र र जर ग ऱ ह ण य च य कक ष त य त नसल तर अव ल र थ स आ श यक त स स सहक यस मदत कर अस मह व तरणल स धचत करण य त य त आह सदर अभ दन ननक ल क ढण य त य त आह. 7. Thus, the EO, Mumbai reiterated the reference made by the CGRF (and IGRC) to Section 67(4) of the EA, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, and Order in Case of 27 of 2017 Page 5 of 7

6 upheld the CGRF s ruling that the complaint did not constitute a grievance under the MERC (CGRF and EO) Regulations, 2006 and was hence outside its jurisdiction. However, the EO noted MSEDCL s statement MSEDCL s assurance that it would extend all assistance to the Petitioner to shift the poles to the boundary at the minimum cost. Considering the constraints to farming because of the poles and the assurance given by MSEDCL, the EO asked MSEDCL to extend all necessary assistance and co-operation to the Petitioner in this regard. 8. MSEDCL has stated that, in compliance with the EO s Order, it has co-operated with the Petitioner by way of providing a least-cost estimate for shifting of the poles by her under the DDF scheme, with 1.3% supervision charges. Hence, although the Petitioner has reiterated that she is not willing to have the poles shifted at her cost, the Commission finds that there is no non-compliance of the EO s Order. 9. By her own admission and the correspondence submitted, the Petitioner raised the issue for the first time only in 2013, 8 years after the work was executed in 2005, before approaching the IGRC. It is highly improbable that a land owner would be unaware of developments on the land for such a long time. The Commission also does not agree with the Petitioner that the poles would obstruct agricultural activities on all or most of her land. The site map shows that these are all single poles without any struts or stays. 10. The complaints filed before the IGRC and CGRF show that the Petitioner was aware of Section 67 of the EA, 2003 and the Central Govt. s Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, and the CGRF Order also quotes their provisions. The Government of Maharashtra has also notified the Maharashtra Electricity Works of Licensees Rules (MEWLR), 2012, which has similar provisions, under Section 180(2) (b) read with Section 67(2) of the EA, The relevant provisions read as follows : 3. (1) A licensee may (a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply Line or other works in, though, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land where on, where over or where under any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land; (b) fix any support of overhead Line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead Line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support: Provided that, in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Collector or Order in Case of 27 of 2017 Page 6 of 7

7 any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works: Provided further that, if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Collector or the officer authorized may by order in writing direct any such works, supports, stay or strut to be removed or altered: Provided also that, in case the District Collector does not issue a direction within fifteen days from the date of receipt of application or does not consent to the proposed works, the licensee may seek direction from the Commission. (2) When making an order under sub-rule (1), the District Collector or the officer so authorized, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier 13. Determination and payment of compensation to affected persons (1) Where the licensee makes default in complying with any of the provisions of these rules, he shall make full compensation for any loss or damage incurred by reasons thereof to the person affected, as may be determined by the District Collector or by any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, if not agreed mutually between the parties concerned. (2) Where any difference and dispute arises as to the amount of compensation determined under sub-rule (1), the matter shall be determined by the Commission. The Petitioner has not explained why, being aware of the dispensation available with regard to objections and compensation for such works, she did not take recourse to it. Whatever be the case, the Petitioner may apply to the District Collector, Solapur under these provisions for determining any relief and compensation payable with regard to the erection of the poles on her land, if she is still not willing to shift them at her cost under the DDF Scheme. The Petition of Smt. Mumtaj Amrut Mane in Case No.27 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Lad) Member Sd/- (Azeez M. Khan) Member Order in Case of 27 of 2017 Page 7 of 7