The distribution licensee cannot impose additional fees for transformer losses on consumers billed at low tension rates, as per established tariff regulations.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SAHOO, J.

Brief Facts

1. The petitioner-distribution licensee has stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile distribution licensee represented through Executive Engineer (Electrical), Rayagada Electrical Division, Rayagada Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Limited (in short ‘TPSODL’).

The writ petition has been filed by the distribution licensee challenging the order dated 30.12.2019 by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Jeypore, Koraput in Consumer Complaint Case No. 151 of 2019. The earlier licensee had entered into agreement dated 20.05.2015 with the opposite party no.2-Consumer, a Petroleum Filling Outlet. The agreement was for supply of power for a contract demand of 25 KW, at 11 KV supply under General Purpose Low Tension (GPLT). The said agreement has been annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-2.

Proceeding before the GRF

2. The consumer complaint, i.e., C.C.No.151 of 2019 was filed before the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) by the consumer on 31.10.2019 pertaining to the billing disputes that arose between the licensee and the consumer. As mentioned in the consumer complaint, the following provisions were referred to be interpreted, i.e., clauses 54(3), 93(9), 86 of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004 (hereinafter, in short, Code 2004) and paragraphs 97(vii), 151(ix) of OERC Tariff Order, 2019, para-247 of Tariff order 2012-13 and para-328 of Tariff order 2018-19. The complaint before the Grievance Redressal Forum was filed stating that the amount of Rs.1,65,320/- claimed by the distribution licensee towards “transformer loss” for the period from 24.06.2015 to 30.06.2019 was not liable to be paid by the consumer.

The relevant copy of the Agreement between the parties and test report of the electricity meter etc. were submitted by the respondent-licensee in support of the demand of transformer loss. The respondent before the GRF stated that the claim of “transformer loss” is correct whereas on the other hand the complainant stated that the claim is not valid as bills are being paid on the basis of “metered consumption on LT Tariff.”

3. The licensee-respondent before the GRF, filed their written response that has been noted and discussed by the GRF. In brief, the response of the petitioner- distribution licensee is that “the petitioner- distribution licensee verified the records, field verification report and found the connection for electricity is GP LT, having 25 KW Contract Demand (CD). The respondent had stated that consumer is a petrol Filling Station availing supply at 11 KV. The supply was given on 24.06.2015, at High Tension (HT) and the consumer had provided 63 KVA transformer which is being maintained by him. Metering was done at LT side of the transformer due to non- availability of HT metering unit. The licensee has intimated that an amount of Rs.92,819/- has been estimated towards metering unit cost vide estimate no.17/15-16 dated 24/04/15 and paid by the complainant-opp. party-petitioner vide money receipt (MR) No.75146/779130 dated 07.07.2015 before power supply was effected.

As per the version of the licensee-respondent before the GRF, the billing was inadvertently made from the beginning i.e. from date of supply, without reckoning transformer losses which should have been added to the metered consumption as metering is being done at LT for a HT consumer.

Submissions

4. Heard Shri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajguru Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 at length. The learned counsel reiterated their submissions before the GRF as noted above. It is sub