Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman, Regulation, 2012

The Secretary,
DERC, Viniyamaki Bhawan, C-Block,
Malvya Nagar,
New Delhi.

Subject: Objections/Comments - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman, Regulation, 2012 (Draft Regulation)

Madam,

We thankfully acknowledge the invitation by Commission on CGRF Regulations, 2012. Well at the outset I wish to submit that the Regulation 7 is in contradiction to the Section 45(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (As amended up-to-date) (hereinafter referred to as the Act.. Further, I as communicated earlier as to under exercise of which section of the Act, the hearing on Draft Regulations has been clubbed with Revision of Tariff Slab. DERC after pronouncing an order becomes functous officio after passing tariff determination order.  As such revision of slabs would not be review of Order but amendment of Tariff order, therefore, cannot exercise powers conferred to it under Section 94 of the Act.

Further, the Draft Regulation 7 is diametrically opposite to mandate of Section 61 of the Act as well as its working lacks transparency and also would fail to protect consumer’s interest as envisaged under section 61. By restricting the scope after excluding the issues covered under section 126, 135-to 139, 161 and section 161, the CGRF shall be reduced to a body to support all  the illegal actions committed by the DISCOMS and the consumer is left with no Grievance Redressal mechanism, which is contrary to the spirit of Act as well as the purpose for which the CGRF are created.

Without prejudice to the submissions made above, I wish to submit as under:-

A.        Composition of the Forum:

It is our experience that the members that are appointed are former employees of the erstwhile DVB or DISCOMS or Government employees who had been associated with the DOSCOMS. However, such members have their loyalties towards DISCOMS and do not serve the basic purpose for which they are appointed. Therefore, ex employees of erstwhile DVB or DISCOMS should not be appointed. Instead the CGRF should constitute members from Civil society and Ex-Servicemen.

B.        Delivery System and Time Frame: A time bound delivery system should be evolved to address the Grievances of Public. Procedural delays and complicated procedures coupled with multiple visits put mental and financial burden on consumers. The complaint handling procedure should simple without involvement of lawyers.

C.        Punitive Penalties on officials/DISCOMS: In the past it has been brought to our notice as well as pointed out by us and brought to the notice of Commission from time to time that frivolous cases are booked by the Enforcement teams and also the enforcement teams use coercive tactics to exaggerate claims and inflate the  recovery claims. This is primarily done extract money from the Consumers by indulging in underhand dealings and corruption.  Punitive Penalties should be imposed on officials and DISCOMS in for booking frivolous cases that are dropped. It has been noticed that DISCOMS slap notices of recoveries three to four times of the actual amount shown as recoverable leading to recovery of one third or one fourth of the amount of claim. This is an indicator of booking of frivolous cases leading to long delays. Therefore, the consumer should be compensated for trauma and the same be recovered from the salary of the official.

As communicated earlier the Commission should hold a Public Hearing exclusively for the Revision of Tariff schedule and also on Supply Code and Performance Standards as conveyed by the Commission during the Public hearing.

--

Anil Sood
Hony President - CHETNA

Member State Advisory Committee (DERC)