CENTRAL REGION (Formed Under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act 2003) 220 Kv Substation Compound, HMT Colony P.O

CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM CENTRAL REGION (Formed under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act 2003) 220 kV Substation Compound, HMT Colony P.O. Kalamassery, Pin – 683 503 Phone No. 0484-2556500 Website: cgrf.kseb.in, Email: [email protected], CUG No. 9496008719

Present (1) Smt.Soudamini B Chairperson (2) Smt. S.N.Sheeba. Member (3) Sri. Jefrin Manuel Member

Petitioner Sri. V.J. George, AIS Road, Schoolppady, Vadassery House, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

Respondent 1) The Asst.Exe. Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Central, Ernakulam

2) The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEBL, Vaduthala

======No.CGRF-CR/OP No.34/2020-21/297 Date :17-11-2020

O R D E R Background of the case: The petitioner, Sri.George V.J., Vadassery (H), AIS Road, Vaduthala P.O., Kochi – 682023, is a domestic consumer under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Vaduthala. The petitioner had registered for solar plant on 19-03-2020 and received feasibility report from KSEBL on 29-04-2020. Thus the petitioner submitted an application to register his solar plant and received an acknowledgement on 07-05-2020. On completion of installation, the petitioner submitted an application and received its confirmation on 18-05-2020 to test and connect the plant to grid. The consumer states that on 04-06-2020, Smt.Smitha, AEE, informed him about the inspection to test the plant on 05-06-2020 and fixed time at 10 am (+ / - 15 min). Hence the petitioner arranged the technician 2 by 9:30 am. Thus the technician waited till 10:30 am and left for an urgent call a couple of minutes before the arrival of AEE. When the AEE arrived and enquired for technician, the petitioner replied that he will be back in a minute. But the AEE did not wait and returned back. Thus the petitioner called the AEE for her next convenient time; but got an arrogant reply that it could be at mid-day or evening. Thus the petitioner requested the AEE to inform before she comes to the site so that he could arrange the technician. But the AEE reached the site at 12 pm without any intimation and enquired for technician, who was not present. Thus the AEE left the site without conducting the inspection.

On 03-07-2020, the petitioner again visited Electrical Section, Vaduthala, and informed through letter that the solar plant has not yet tested. Thus the Assistant Engineer informed that they are not informed about the site visit and advised the petitioner to contact the office of the AEE where she reports. On 07- 08-2020, the petitioner sent a letter with Regd. AD to Electrical Section, Vaduthala; but no reply was received from that end. The petitioner states that he received a call from Smt.Sajila, Assistant Engineer, informing about the test on 08-08-2020 at 9:30 am. In this connection, a letter was received from Electrical Section, Vaduthala, on 17-08-2020 informing that the solar plant test was over and that to execute the agreement and net meter. The petitioner states that he was keeping a track of solar testing around his premises and understood that the Assistant Executive Engineer has been testing other solar plants around his premises and thereby purposefully ignored testing his solar plant. The petitioner claims that the Assistant Executive Engineer was trying to block him so that his solar plant not to get tested causing heavy loss amounting to Rs.45,637/- to him. Thus the petitioner demands to settle his reasonable claim at the earliest. List of damage:- Delayed days from date of approval to test – 86 Bill at present tariff of Rs.5.95/- - Rs.4195/- Rate of unused units - Rs.948/- Interest @ 8.50% - Rs.5494/- Legal fee paid - Rs.10000/- Humiliation and mental torture - Rs.25000/- Total - Rs.45637/- 3

Subsequently, statement of facts was called for and the same was submitted by the respondent on 13-10-2020. The Forum afforded an opportunity to hear the Petitioner and Respondent on 20-10-2020. Both the petitioner and the respondent were present for hearing.

Version of the Respondent: The electric connection with consumer number–16528 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Vaduthala, was given to Sri.George V.J., Vadassery House, Vaduthala, under LT 1A tariff with a connected load of 4500 Watts. The petitioner submitted an application on 19-03-2020 for feasibility certificate in order to install a 3 kWp solar plant in his premise. The feasibility certificate was issued to the petitioner on 30-03-2020. The petitioner then submitted an application for registration of solar plant in Electrical Section, Vaduthala on 07-05-2020. He also remitted a registration fee of Rs. 3,000/- on the same day. After the installation of the solar plant, the petitioner submitted an application at Electrical Section, Vaduthala, for testing the solar plant on 18- 05-2020. As per the KSEB Circular No.C.E. (E.R.S)/Projects/AEE-6/Solar- General/16-17/766(1)/dated 09-09-2016, the testing is to be completed within ten days from the date of application from the consumer. As per the directions in this circular, the application for the testing was submitted to Electrical Division, Ernakulam on 19-05-2020 for arranging the testing. The details of the consumers for solar plant testing are intimated to the Meter Testing Sub Division, Kalamassery from the Electrical Division. The schedule for the testing is decided by the testing team of Meter Testing Sub Division, Kalamassery and is intimated to the concerned Assistant Engineers of the respective Sections and the consumers in advance. In the present case, the details of the consumer was sent to Meter testing Sub Division, Kalamassery on 27-05-2020 from Electrical Division, Ernakulam.

As per the information received from the AEE, Meter Testing Sub Division, Kalamassery, the testing of this consumer was arranged on 05-06- 2020. Out of the 15 nos. of testing arranged on that day, this was the second test. The testing team reached the site at around 10:15 am but the Solar Technician was not present in the site. Without the help of the Technician, it was not possible to check the safety settings of the plant. As there were many other solar plant testing pending for the day, the testing team went to other sites 4 for testing. The testing team again returned to the site at around 12:30 pm but the Technician was still not present in the site. As all the testing was to be completed before the sunset, the testing team went to other sites. So the testing could not be completed as scheduled.

The petitioner then gave a written complaint to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vaduthala on 03-07-2020 for testing the solar plant. The same was submitted to Electrical Division, Ernakulam. The Executive Engineer of that Division directed to arrange the testing after properly intimating the consumer in advance. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Sub Division, Kalamassery has submitted an explanation letter to the Executive Engineer for the pendency of testing. But due to the hectic schedule of the testing team, the testing could not be scheduled. On 11-08-2020, the AEE, Meter Testing Sub Division, Kalamssery informed that they have scheduled testing of solar plants under Electrical Section, Vaduthala, the very next day on 12-08-2020. The same was intimated to the consumer and solar technician in advance. The solar testing was completed on 12-08-2020. The net meter was installed and solar plant was commissioned on 15-08-2020.

The respondent states that the testing team had reached the site two times on 05-06-2020 for testing the solar plant. But on both these occasions, the Technician was not present on the location. The presence of the Technician was very essential in checking the safety settings of the plant. Due to the increasing numbers of new solar plant installations, the schedule of the testing team is very tight. It may please be noted that there were 15 nos. of testing arranged on 05- 06-2020 itself. Considering the fact that the testing hours are limited by the availability of sunlight, the testing team can not waste much time in a single premises.

The respondent has stated that as per Section 57 of the Electricity Act 2003, the power to fix the rate of compensation to be paid to a consumer rests with the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The rates of compensation to be paid are as per Schedule-1 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standard of Performance of Distribution Licenses) 5

Regulations, 2015. But this Schedule-1 does not have the rate of compensation in case of failure to test the solar plant in the stipulated time frame. Thus the calculation of damages by the petitioner is without legal basis and KSEBL is not liable to pay this damages as demanded by the petitioner.

Analysis and findings:

Having examined the petition in detail, and the statement of facts of the respondent, considering all the facts and circumstances in detail, and perusing all the documents of both sides, the Forum comes to the following observations, conclusions and decisions thereof

The petitioner has a complaint with OP No. 21/2020-21 filed before this Forum and the complaint pertain to the delay and subsequent compensation for this subject case referred in OP No.34/2020-21.

The petitioner had submitted a request before the respondent for testing the solar plant installed in the premises, vide letter dated 18-05-2020. On experiencing much delay in the energisation as well as the testing of the plant, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Forum on 23-07-2020 and the solar plant was inspected and tested by the respondent on 12-08-2020. Even though the case No. 21/2020-21 was considered by this Forum on 20-10-2020, it was revealed that the plant was tested and already commissioned. Therefore the grievance of the petitioner viz. non–testing of the solar plant as per OP No. 21/2020-21 does not exist at present and the Forum found that the grievance was redressed by the respondent.

However vide this OP No. 34/2020-21, the petitioner filed another complaint before the Forum on 14-09-2020 demanding compensation for the damages occurred to him by way of the delay in testing the solar plant. The petitioner stated that even though the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery visited the premises on 05-06-2020, the testing was not carried out on that day due to the reason that the concerned technician was not present on time. The respondent has furnished a submission from Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery dated 10-07-2020 that on 05-06-2020, she had visited the premises with prior intimation to the petitioner 6 and making necessary communication to the extent of 2 times insisting to ensure the presence of the technicians at the spot. But when the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery arrived at 10.15AM, the technician was not present there. Due to the reason that other such solar consumers are waiting for the testing, she had to leave the site without conducting the testing. As per the version of the petitioner, the technician came to the site at the very same moment when the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery left the spot. On seeing her vehicle, the technician followed it, making noises but that vehicle left the site. Thereafter at 12.20 PM on the same day, the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery returned the spot, but as the technician was still not there, she left the site without carrying out the testing. Thereafter a delay of 86 days has occurred for testing the equipments till 12-08-2020. Therefore the petitioner is demanding compensation for this delay counting from the date of approval till the date of test as below:-

List of damage:- Delayed days from date of approval to test – 86 Bill at present tariff of Rs.5.95/- - Rs.4195/- Rate of unused units - Rs.948/- Interest @ 8.50% - Rs.5494/- Legal fee paid - Rs.10000/- Humiliation and mental torture - Rs.25000/- Total - Rs.45637/-

On gathering the details from the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery, the Forum analyzes the fact as below:- 1) The Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery is bound to carry out the testing of meters attached to power houses and substations pertaining to 2 districts namely Ernakulam & Idukki. 2) The testing of solar meters in these districts is being attended by her in addition to the testing of meters of power houses and sub stations. 3) The scope of work is testing of substation meters – 79 Nos. Average testing of solar meters per month – 97 Nos. The above hectic schedule 7

make the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery at a stringent position to carry out the work in a strict time schedule manner. 4) The fact that the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery came to the premises on 05-06-2020 at the pre-fixed time or a little bit late of 30 minutes is not to be marked as a great omission considering the tight schedule of works assigned to this post. 5) The petitioner is not seen to have made a call to the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery, on 05-06-2020 intimating the arrival of the technician after she left the spot. Moreover the petitioner is seemed to have failed in ensuring the presence of technician (without whom the safety settings is not feasible to inspect) even though the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery returned at 12.30 PM on 05-06-2020. 6) As per the records, it is noticed that the application of the petitioner was forwarded to Ele. Division, Ernakulam on 19-05-2020; the very next day of receiving the application. However, the communication to Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery is seen forwarded only on 27-05-2020, indicating that a delay of six working days has occurred in the Ele. Division, Ernakulam in this process. Also it is noted that the testing was arranged by Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery, on the 6th working day from 27-05-2020. On going through these details, the delay from the side of Ele. Division, Ernakulam is predominant while perusing the issue in view of the circular dated 09-09-2016, Clause 8 which is stated as below:-

Clause – 8:- The solar plant should be tested within ten days from date of receipt of application. The test should be conducted by the Electrical Inspector and the official of KSEBL. The date of test should be informed earlier to the applicant. For that, a letter is to be sent to the concerned Executive Engineer by the Assistant Engineer.

As per this, a delay of 10 days is permissible from the date of receipt of application till the date of testing. Here, a lapse is seen to have occurred on the part of the respondent in sticking to the time schedule. 8

Again it is seen that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Asst. Engr., Ele. Section, Vaduthala, on 03-07-2020 and the Exe. Engr., Ele. Division, Ernakulam directed to arrange the testing after properly intimating the consumer in advance. Finally, on 11-08-2020, the AEE informed that the testing will be arranged on 12-08-2020 and it was carried out on 12-08-2020 itself. The Reg. 62 and 63 of Electricity Supply Code 2014, stipulates the standard of performance to be observed by the licensee.

Reg. 62:- Standards of performance.- Standards of performance of the licensee shall be in accordance with the provisions of Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Licensees’ Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2006, as amended from time to time.

Reg. 63.Exemption from timelines and standards of performance.-

(1) The time lines and standards of performance as specified in this Code shall remain suspended during force majeure conditions such as war, mutiny, civil commotion, riot, flood, cyclone, earthquake, fire, lightning, lockout, strike etc., affecting the installations and activities of the licensee.

(2) Non-compliance of the time lines and standards of performance due to reasons in sub regulation (1) above shall not be treated as a violation and the licensee shall not be required to pay any compensation to affected consumer on account of such non-compliance.

(3) The licensee shall not be required to pay any compensation to affected consumer on account of any non-compliance with the time lines and standards of performance if such non-compliance is due to any failure in the transmission system of the State Transmission Utility or Central Transmission Utility or grid failure or on account of instructions given by State Load Dispatch Centre, over which the distribution licensee has no reasonable control.

Again Reg. 77, 78 and 79 of Electricity Supply Code, 2014 states that the defects noticed if any during the inspection in the premises by the licensee is to be rectified by the consumer before giving sanction.

Reg. (77) Inspection of the premises of the applicant by the licensee.- 9

(1) The licensee shall, at the time of receipt of application form with the application fee, stipulate a date for inspection of the premises of the applicant in consultation with the applicant, underwritten acknowledgment. (2) The date of inspection shall be scheduled within five working days from the date of receipt of application form. (3) If the applicant wishes, he can get the inspection scheduled on a holiday for the licensee or a day specified by the consumer, on payment of an inspection fee approved by the Commission in the Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges as per schedule 1to the Code. (4) On the appointed date for inspection, the licensee shall inspect and test, in the presence of the applicant or his authorised representative and the concerned licensed electrical contractor, the installation of the applicant and shall maintain a record of test results in the format given in the Annexure-6as required of him under the provisions of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010, as amended from time to time. (5)During the inspection, the licensee shall:- (a) fix, in consultation with the consumer, the point of supply and the place where the meter and the associated equipment shall be installed in such a manner that they are protected from sun, rain etc. and are easily accessible, without getting the premises unlocked or opened for the purposes such as inspection, meter reading and maintenance; (b) align the service line along an accessible route upto the entry point of the premises; (c) determine and record the connected load of the consumer in accordance with the method given in Annexure -7to the Code;

(d)verify and record the correct full address of the premises and note down landmarks near the property and the number of the pole or the details of the distribution pillar from where service connection is proposed to be given; and (e) verify all other particulars mentioned in the application form, as required.

Reg. (78) Rectification of defects found in the inspection.- (1)If on inspection, the licensee finds any defect in the installation of the applicant, the licensee shall intimate, in the format given at Annexure -6 of the Code, the defects to the applicant on the spot under proper acknowledgement. (2) The applicant shall get all the defects rectified within ten days from the date of receipt of the intimation of defects as specified in subregulation (1) above and inform the licensee in writing under acknowledgement. (3)In case the applicant fails to rectify such defects or fails to inform the licensee about the rectification of defects, the application form shall be kept in abeyance and the applicant will lose his priority: Provided that the licensee may grant additional time to the applicant for completion of the works without any defects, in case the applicant submits a written request for the same, within ten days from the date of receipt of intimation regarding defects.

Reg. (79) Re-inspection of the premises after rectification of defects.- (1)On receipt of information from the applicant about the rectification of defects, the licensee shall on the spot stipulate a date for re-inspection of the premises of the applicant in consultation with the applicant, under written acknowledgment and the re-inspection shall generally be conducted within five working days. (2)If on re-inspection, the defects pointed out earlier are found to persist, the licensee shall again record the facts in the format given in Annexure-6to the Code and the application form shall then stand lapsed. (3)The applicant shall be informed of the result in writing under acknowledgement with copy of the report on re-inspection.

As the present case is related to solar power being extended to the network of the licensee, ensuring safety is crucial in the present situation. The Forum finds that the introduction of solar power plants are on the initial stage as far as KSEBL is concerned; many issues shall be detected at this premature stage and the ways to step out of this contingency is to be formulated by the licensee in due course. The very fact that the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery approached the petitioner on the date and time 11 noticed (05-06-2020) makes her out of the question of causing failure in the performance of duties. But the delay of 6 days from 19-05-2020 to 27-05-2020 occurred in the processing of file is a deviation while considering the circular issued by the licensee dated 09-09-2016. The fact that the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery has taken a time of 86 days from 18-5-2020 to 12-08-2020 is evaluated by the Forum from the report furnished by the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery on 04-11- 2020 as below:-

The meter testing wing visited the Vaduthala Section in the following dates. (1) 05-06-2020, (2) 24-06-2020 and (3) 02-07-2020 for conducing the testing on priority basis. But the testing of the petitioner’s premises could be arranged only on 12-08-2020 as it was a retest and all the re-testings could be scheduled by August 2020 following the relaxation granted. But the details of tests conducted on these two days viz. 24-06-2020 and 02-07-2020 were not furnished to the Forum. Therefore it is not possible to verify the number of tests conducted on those days and verify whether the testing at the petitioner’s premises could have been conducted on these days. As per the version of the petitioner, the application for re-test was submitted by Regd. Post on 07-08- 2020 to the respondent and the re-test was conducted on 12-08-2020. Hence the Forum comes to the assessment that the Asst. Exe. Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery, was able to conduct the re-testing only on 12-08-2020 because of the peculiar nature of the work which depends on many factors and requires pre-scheduling. The Forum finds that it is justified under Reg.79 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014 as the re-testing was done within five days.

As narrated above, the work of the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery is pre-scheduled and it require early adequate arrangements sufficiently as it involves the requirement of presence of the custodians of meters, technicians as well as power supply re-arrangements along with sufficient sunlight. This contingency situation has arisen out of the vast area of jurisdiction combined with hectic tight schedule. Hence the Forum finds that the delay occurred on the part of the Asst. Executive Engineer, Meter Testing Unit, Kalamassery cannot be considered as a deliberate failure and therefore does not come under the purview of standard of performance. 12

Moreover, the respondent has also stated that the commissioning of solar plant is not coming under the timelines fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission and the petitioner had not furnished any documents to the effect of realizing compensation for the delay in solar power plant energisation. In fact, the licensee has framed a time schedule vide the circular dated 09-09-2016 to regulate the commissioning of solar power plants. But no compensation is also mentioned in this circular related to the time failure. It is true that a delay of 6 days has occurred in the process as mentioned earlier. Under this circumstance, the Forum comes to the following assessment as below.

DECISION: Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Forum issues the following orders. 1) The petition is dismissed due to lack of merit. 2) The respondent is directed to stick on to the timelines as framed in the circular dated 09-09-2016. 3) No cost ordered.

The petitioner is at liberty to file appeal before the State Electricity Ombudsman, Charangattu Bhavan, Building No.36/895, Mamangalam - Anchumana Road, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024 (Ph: 0484 -2346488) within 30 days of receipt of this order, if not satisfied with this decision.

Dated this 17th day of November 2020

1) Smt. B. Soudamini Sd/- (CHAIRPERSON)

2) Smt. S.N.Sheeba. Sd/- (2nd Member)

3) Sri. Jefrin Manuel Sd/- (3rd Member)

Endt. On CGRF-CR/OP No.34/20-21

Sri. V.J. George, AIS Road, Schoolppady, Vadassery House, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

Copy to: - (1) The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, KSEBL, Ernakulam (2) The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, KSEBL, Ernakulam (3) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, ESD, KSEBL, Central, Ernakulam (4) The Asst. Engineer, Ele. Section, Vaduthala.