ਵਿਵਾਦ ਨਿਪਟਾਰਾ ਕੇਸ

ਵਿਵਾਦ ਨਿਪਟਾਰਾ ਕੇਸ

ਕੇਸ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੰਬਰ :
ਕੇਸ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੰਬਰ: H1212
1.  ਕੇਸ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੰਬਰ H1212
1.  ਉੱਪ ਮੰਡਲ ਦਫਤਰ KHANNA/DS (SPL)DIVN.M/GOBIND GARH/COMM. SPL. S/DIV M/GOBIND GARH
2.  ਖਪਤਕਾਰ 61313 of Sh/ Ms Punjab Steels
3.  ਕੇਸ ਦਾਖਲ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਮਿਤੀ 2012-09-06
4.  ਵਰਨਣ Difference of SCC
5.  ਫੈਸਲਾ The history of the case as explained by the P.O. is as follows:- The petitioner was initially having an electric connection of 2199.933 KW/2500KVA catered at 11KV supply voltage. In compliance to the CC.No.36/2002 dated 26-07-2002, the petitioner applied for conversion from 11KV to 66KV alongwith extension of 3699.82 KW/4204 KVA load vide A&A form No.51167 dated 20-08-2004. A demand notice No.4202 dated 04-11-2004 was served upon the consumer to deposit the total cost of 66KV service line, cost of bay and service connection charges totaling to Rs 4667699/- that was deposited by the consumer. The detail of total charges deposited by the consumer is as follows:- (i) Cost of 66KV service line Rs 24,72,624-00 (ii) Cost of bay (on proportionate basis) Rs 14,88,785-00 (iii) Cost of common line from 220KV Grid to 66KV S/Stn.Tooran.(on proportionate Basis) Rs 5,67,540-00 (iv) Higher capacity transformation charges: Rs 1,38,750-00 Total: Rs 46,67,699-00 The extension of load was finally released on 30-01-2008. On 22-05-2009, the petitioner applied for further extension of 2349.924KW/2462 KVA, totaling to 8249.973KW/9166KVA and demand notice for depositing Rs 22,15,800/- as service connection charges was issued to the petitioner vide memo.No.5265 dated 03-12-2010. On the request of the petitioner Rs 4,33,824/- were adjusted and demand notice was modified in view of the Para-(iv) of CC.No.36/2002 that “if such consumer comes forward for extension of load within a period of 5 years, he shall pay the difference of service connection charges worked on KW basis applicable from time to time for the total load including extension in load and the cost of line deposited at the time of release of original load” The modification of the demand notice from Rs 22,15,800/-to Rs 17,81,976/- was objected by the audit vide their half margin No.29 dated 13-07-2012. According to their view point, the old instrutions on the basis of which the demand notice has been modified are now deleted and now this case is covered under ESIM, which is applicable w.e.f. 04-02-2010 and they advised for recovering the balance amount of Rs 4,33,824/- from the petitioner. Accordingly, a fresh notice No.2884 dated 28-08-2012 for depositing Rs 4,33,824/-alongwith surcharge totaling to Rs 4,77,206/- was issued to the petitioner, which he challenged before the ZDSC and it was allowed by the office of CE/Op, Central zone, PSPCL, Ludhiana vide memo.No.9556 dated 06-09-2012. The case was heard in ZDSC meetings dated 3.10.2012, 26.10.2012, 16-11-2012, 03-12-2012 and finally decided on dated 02-02-2012. The petitioner submitted his detailed petition in the meeting dated 03-10-2012 in which he represented that the amount charged to him is illegal and unjustified. He further submitted that he was having electric connection at 11KV supply voltage with SL of 2199.933 KW and CD of 2500 KVA. As per Boards instructions, all the LS connections above 2500 KVA CD were required to covert their supply voltage to 66KV from 11KV. As per CC.No.36/2002, the actual cost of 66KV line, Bay charges, T/formation charges were to be borne by the consumers which were to be adjusted against the SCC applicable for extension in load in a period of 5 years. He agreed for the conversion from 11KVsupply to 66KV and also applied for extension of load of 3699.821 KW and CD of 4204 KVA vide A&A No.51167 dated 20-08-2004 and deposited the line charges, Bay cost and T/f charges etc. as demanded by the department. He further submitted in his petition, the detail of the charges deposited by them from time to time as under:- 1. Earnest Money Rs 30,000/- 2. Individual 66KV line charges Rs 23,29,260/- 3. Common 66KV line charges Rs 1,43,364/- 4. Cost of line from 220KV mother S/Stn To feeding 66KV Grid. Rs 5,67,,450/- 5. Higher capacity T/f charges Rs 1,38,750/- Total: Rs 32,08,824/- 6. Applicable SCC @ Rs 750/- Rs 27,75,000/- 7. Excess Amount deposited: Rs 4,33,824/- He clarified that the above amount of Rs 4,33,824/- is to be adjusted of the extension of load is taken within 5 years period and charges of higher capacity of T/f are also not leviable, which needs to be refunded. So after deducting the excess amount already deposited Rs.4,33,824/- an amount of Rs 17,81,976/- was deposited instead of Rs 22,15,800/-. He has requested in his petition to withdraw the amount raised to him keeping in view CC.No.36/2002 and refund the excess amount already deposited with interest. PO submitted his reply on the petition of the petitioner in which he clarified that there is no provision in ESIM 4/2010 and 04/2011 to adjust the amount of SCC on the basis of which the audit party has raised the amount of Rs 4,33,824/-. After going through the history of the case, audit note and petition submitted by the petitioner, reply by the P.O. and replication of the petitioner, the Committee deliberated the whole issue as follows:- The committee observed that the petitioner applied for conversion of 11KV supply to 66KV supply alongwith extension in contract demand from existing 2500 KVA to 6704 KVA vide A&A form dated 20-08-2004, and which was finally allowed on 30-01-2008 after completing the work of conversion from 11KV to 66KV and the total cost of conversion whatsoever, deposited including the cost of service line, the proportionate cost of bay, proportionate cost of line from the mother station to feeding sub station etc. has been deposited by the consumer and that issue has been finally settled on 30-01-2008. Now, the consumer further applied for extension in load from 6704 KVA to 9166 KVA i.e. extension of 2462 KVA on 22-05-2009. By this date, the Electricity supply code and related matter Regulations-2007 came into force vide Notification dated June 29, 2007 and the instant case of further extension which is now the matter of dispute is covered by the instructions, rules and regulations laid down in the supply code-2007 (amended up to date). The committee feels that this case is fully covered under Regulations 9.1.2 (c) of the Supply code-2007 so far the payment of charges for this extension is concerned. So, according to Section 9.1.2 (c ), it is laid down that:- “In case of a consumer with supply voltage of 33000 volts and above, the consumer will only be liable to pay the cost of the service line and proportionate cost of back-up/common line (33000 volts or above ) including bay, if any. Provided that where a HT/EHT consumer having a sanctioned load/contract demand exceeding 500 KW/500 KVA who has paid the actual cost of HT or EHT service line or feeder, requests for additional load and such load can be fed from the same line without any augmentation, then the HT consumer would be liable to pay only the proportionate cost of HT main and feeding sub station. An 33000 volts or EHT consumer would be liable to pay only the proportionate cost of back up/common line (33000 volts or above) up to the feeding sub station including bay.” The above clause is further amended/clarified vide CC.No.25/2012 dated 22-08-2012 by adding the following lines “ that charges payable for the additional load as above shall not be less then those computed on per KW/KVA basis for total load payable for existing load “. But this amendment is not applicable to this case being effective from its date of issue. The committee observed that for the grant of additional demand of 2462 KVA applied on 22-05-2009, PSPCL had not to carry out any additional work and load has been released from the same existing feeder without any augmentation for which the actual cost of EHT service line and proportionate cost of common main has already been paid by the consumer. So, under these circumstances, the petitioner has now to pay only proportionate cost of back up/common portion of 66KV line, upto the feeding sub station which already belong to the petitioner, being his private sub station which is to be calculated as follows:- A) Total length of common portion of line B) Size of conductor which is 0.2 sq inch in this case (to be confirmed by the concerned ASE) C) Cost of 66KV line to be taken as per cost data circulated vide CC 68/2008. D) Capacity of line having 0.2SQ.INCH conductor size in MVA. E) Additional demand applied in instant case in MVA. So the charges payable now are:- (C X A) Rs. ---------- X E D The revised notice may be served to the consumer accordingly. The balance amount recoverable / refundable, be recovered / refunded from / to the petitioner alongwith interest / surcharge as per instructions of PSPCL.
6.  ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦੀ ਮਿਤੀ 2013-02-02
ਸੁਣਵਾਈ/ ਪੇਸ਼ੀਆਂ
Page 1/1
 
Sr Noਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਦੀ ਮਿਤੀਵਰਨਣ
1 Fri 16, Nov 2012  Sh. B C Shiv appeared before the committee on behalf of the consumer. The data desired by the committee in the last meeting was supplied by P O and discussed in detail. To further study the case some more information was asked from P O to supply. The case is deferred.

ਜਰੂਰੀ ਸੂਚਨਾ: ਇਹ ਸੁਵਿਧਾ ਸਿਰਫ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਹਿੱਤ ਹੈ, ਉਪਰੋਕਤ ਆਰਟੀਕਲ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਸਲਾਹ ਨਾ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ, ਸਹੀ ਅਤੇ ਪੂਰੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਸਬੰਧਤ ਦਫਤਰ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਕਰੋ ਜੀ|