.....::::NEPRA::::....

MR. IMMADULLAH ABBASI vs MEPCO REARDING ARREARS IN THE BILL AMOUNTING TO RS. 121177/-

1. NEPRA received a complaint filed by Mr. Immadullah Abbasi S/O Mehmood Ul Hassan Abbasi Sakin Kahroor Pakka District Lodhran against MEPCO regarding 17 years old arrears bill amounting to Rs.121177/-.

2. In the complaint it was informed that MEPCO has issued a bill amounting to Rs. 121177/- in the name of Masha Allah Cotton Factory which pertains to the period 1990-1992. Complainant has purchased the factory two years back, therefore he is not responsible for the said 17 years old bill. MEPCO should withdraw the bill.

3. As per the procedure, the complaint was sent to MEPCO for report in the matter.

As per the report of MEPCO, the complainant has been charged fixed charges for year 1990-1991. Being a seasonal industry, waiver of fixed charges can only be allowed once. Accordingly the complainant’s connection is not being reconnected as the fixed charges for 1990-1991 (debited through Audit note) have not been paid by the complainant.

4. To resolve the issue, a meeting was called at NEPRA Head Office, Islamabad which was attended by both the parties i.e. the complainant & representatives of MEPCO. Both the parties submitted their point of view as under:

Submission of the Complainant

It was submitted by the complainant that they have purchased the factory two years back. All dues of the factory were cleared at the time of the purchase of the factory. They applied for RCO [being seasonal industry] in 2007 but it was informed that an Audit note of 1990-1991 remained pending and RCO can only be made upon payment of this amount. How can MEPCO raise such an old bill after 17 years, it is illegal and unjustified. Since they have purchased the factory therefore MEPCO may approach previous owners of the factory for the payment of the bill.

Submissions of MEPCO

As per the rules, seasonal factory can avail fixed charges concession facility once in life. The subject factory has availed the same concession/waiver of fixed charges in 1988-89. Again, the factory was not operated in 1990-91. Fixed charges for the same period were raised by the audit teams during the audit. The same charges were not raised due to the negligence of MEPCO staff for which disciplinary action has been initiated against them. As per the record of MEPCO, the factory is running on the old name and change of name has not taken place therefore amount due against the factory is recoverable. Consumer has to pay the fixed charges.

5. From the meeting it was observed that:

1) The instant complainant purchased the factory two years back but the factory is running in the name of Masha Allah Cotton Factory (original name)

2) Audit Note was raised about 17 years back but never got debited in spite of a number of RCOS.

3) As per the RCO policy for seasonal industries fixed charges can only be waived off for one season only [already availed].

4) As per the latest terms & conditions of February 2007, “No supply charges shall be recovered from a disconnected seasonal consumer for any season during which be does not come forward to have his seasonal industry re-connected with the company’s supply system”.

6. Issues

(1) Latest notified tariff terms and conditions are silent in the matter and there is no such verdict that seasonal factories can avail waiver of fixed charges once in life.

(2) Why these charges were not raised in 1990-91, why these charges are being raised after 16 years.

(3) Factory was permanently disconnected and RCO was made 5/6 times after the year 2000 but the said fixed charges were neither raised nor recovered from the factory previously.

7. CAD Views

1) As per the previous decisions of the Authority, retrospective billing of previous years not allowed.

2) The latest terms & conditions do not allow such charging [Although the bill period pertains to 1991-1992 but debited in 2007].

8. Recommendations

The case was presented to the Authority for decision in the matter. It was recommended that:

1) NEPRA may Issue interim order to MEPCO to Set-aside the disputed amount and reconnect the supply.

2) MEPCO may be asked to investigate the matter OR POI be asked to investigate the matter.

3) The Authority may take a decision based on the details as provided by the parties & CAD.

9. Decision of the Authority

The case was decided by the Authority in Regulatory Meeting RM-07-372 held on November 11, 2007. The decision of the Authority in the subject matter is reproduced as under:

The Authority considered all relevant aspects of the case and decided that MEPCO could not legally substantiate its ex-post claim of recovery of 17 years old bills already paid by the consumer as served on him at that time. MEPCO is directed to withdraw the disputed amount charged through debit audit Note and to restore service to the complainant if all other dues have been paid. A compliance report be submitted within 15 days.

10. The decision has been implemented and the complaint stands redressed.

Qari Abdul Qudoos Abbasi vs IESCO For Restoration Of Electricity Supply Of Madressah Ashraf-Ul-Uloom

1. Executive Summary

Qari Abdul Qudoos Abbasi of Madressah Ashraf-Ul-Uloom, Islamabad filed a complaint with NEPRA against IESCO regarding restoration of electricity supply of the Madressah Ashraf-ul-Uloom. The complainant informed that electricity supply of the Madressah got disconnected and on enquiry, it was informed to him by IESCO that the transformer installed for provision of supply to that area has been stolen. On complaint, report was sought from IESCO by NEPRA. Electricity supply of Madressah was restored by IESCO on directions of NEPRA from street light transformer. IESCO reported that 50 KVA transformer installed for Madressah was an independent transformer. As and when the demand notice amounting to Rs.61560/- is paid by the Madressah, the transformer will be installed. To resolve the issue, a meeting was held at NEPRA Head Office in which representatives of IESCO and complainant participated.

2. Analysis By CAD

1) The transformer was installed for Madressah Ashraf-Ul-Uloom long time back. The system was taken over by IESCO up to the metering installation point. As per the complainant, some connections were also given by IESCO from this transformer which were later on removed and shifted to the other transformer. As the system was already been taken over by IESCO and maintenance up to the metering point is the obligation of the DISCO therefore in this case it is the obligation of IESCO to provide the transformer. As per Regulation 6 of ECR, 2003, “The dedicated distribution system of the consumer shall be maintained by the licensee up to the metering installation of the consumer. Control of such a system shall be handed over to the licensee for the purpose of operation and maintenance before commencement of provision of electric power service to the consumer”.

2) If transformer was installed within the premises of the consumer then IESCO has some justification and base. Transformer was installed far way, across the road from the Madressah therefore IESCO is responsible for its maintenance and safe custody.

3. Comments By Legal Section

Legal Section agreed with the views/analysis of Consumer Affairs Division.

4. Decision of the Authority

The case was placed before the Authority for decision with the recommendations that IESCO be directed to install the transformer at its own cost. The Authority decided that “under Regulation 6 of ECR, 2003, IESCO is responsible for the maintenance and custody of the dedicated distribution system up to the metering point lying outside the premises of the complainant including the Distribution Transformer (DT) which was providing service to the consumer and stated to be stolen. IESCO should provide another Distribution Transformer at its own cost as a replacement of the stolen Distribution Transformer at Madressah Ashraf-ul Uloom so as to provide proper service to the complainant as was being provided prior to the theft of DT. IESCO should submit a compliance report within 15 days”.

5. Review Petition Filed By IESCO Against The Decision Of The Authority

IESCO filed review petition against the decision of the Authority and informed that transformer at Madressah Ashraf ul Uloom being religious institution has been installed in compliance to the decision of the Authority. IESCO further requested for revision of the decision of the Authority and submitted that if the above decision is implemented it will become impossible to recover the cost of damaged/stolen transformers from dedicated consumers because meter is always installed after the place of transformer. In case of implementation of decision it will become a precedent and no one would pay the cost of damaged/stolen transformers and company would sustain a huge irreparable financial loss. Stealing of transformer is beyond the control of company and it is not possible to post a security guard on each and every transformer.

6. Decision of the Authority on Review Petition

Review Petition of IESCO was submitted to the Authority for decision. The Authority dismissed the review petition submitted by IESCO and advised that in future, the transformers be installed within or very near to the premises of dedicated consumers to avoid such incidents. It was instructed that the IESCO should get an undertaking that in case of theft, due to negligence on part of consumers, the consumers would bear replacement costs. The Authority also decided that decision in this instant would not be a precedent. All such complaints in future would be decided based on their individual merit and facts.

Metro Cash & Carry, Islamabad vs IESCO regarding grant of permanent power connection

1. Metro Cash & Carry, Islamabad filed a complaint with NEPRA against IESCO regarding grant of permanent power connection. In the complaint it was stated that M/s Metro Cash & Carry Pakistan (Private) Limited filed an application with IESCO for grant of permanent power connection of 1335 KW on 07-02-2008, they also applied for temporary connection. IESCO sanctioned the temporary connection but no action was taken for sanction of permanent connection. The load of temporary connection was enhanced from 120 KW to 800KW (on 11KV) but no demand notice was served for grant of permanent connection. They requested that till the time, their dedicated 11 KV feeder was laid, the temporary connection be converted into permanent connection.

2. Report was sought from IESCO. IESCO reported that:

The application for provision of temporary connection having load of 120KW was entertained from existing 11KV feeder and sanctioned on 23-02-2008. On request of the applicant the load was extended to 470KW and further to 800 KW on 13-03-2008 and 27-03-2008 respectively. The temporary connection was extended from time to time .

They applied for load of 1335KW through new 11KV independent feeder emanating from 132KV H-11 Grid Station Islamabad. The matter is delayed on the part of applicant instead of IESCO because documents for clearance of right of way were not provided by the applicant. As and when the same was provided, the case would be processed further for approval for permanent connection.

3. To resolve the issue, a meeting was also held on September 11, 2008 at NEPRA Head Office. On intervention of NEPRA, permanent connection of Metro Cash and Carry was sanctioned on August 07, 2008 for 1335 KW load and demand notice was issued. Consumer deposited the demand notice on August 11, 2008. Although their permanent connection was sanctioned but they were not allowed the same with the reason that their dedicated feeder is under construction and IESCO continued charging consumer on temporary tariff.

4. As per NEPRA Performance Standards (Distribution) Rules- 2005, 106 days are required for provision of connection on 11/33 KV for load above 500 KW but not exceeding 5000 KW. IESCO failed to provide the connection to Metro Cash and Carry within the given time period of 106 days. After taking approval from the Member concerned, IESCO was directed vide this office letter dated December 03, 2008 to immediately convert the temporary connection of Metro Cash and Carry into permanent connection. IESCO implemented the decision and temporary connection of Metro Cash and carry was converted into permanent w.e.f. December 03, 2008.

5. The complainant filed review petition against decision of NEPRA regarding the date of conversion of temporary connection into permanent connection. The review petition filed by the complainant was admitted by the Authority. Both the parties were heard by the Authority and Authority decided that “IESCO be directed to revise the date of conversion of temporary connection of Metro Cash & Carry into permanent connection by calculating the time period of 106 days [as specified at Rule 4(C)(4) of NEPRA Performance Standards (Distribution) Rules, 2005] from the date of registration of application for permanent connection i.e. February 08, 2008, which came out to be May 25, 2008”

6. The decision of the Authority was conveyed to IESCO for its implementation. In response, IESCO filed review petition against the decision of the Authority. Review petition filed by IESCO was not admitted by the Authority and IESCO was directed to implement the decision of the Authority without further delay. IESCO implemented the decision of the Authority and converted the temporary connection of Metro Cash & Carry into permanent connection as per the directions of the Authority.