Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Electricity Sector – A Case Study of Delhi

Project Directors

Prof. Suresh Misra Dr. Mamta Pathania

Project Associates

Dr. Amit Kumar Singh Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh

Sponsored by

Department of Consumer Affairs Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution

Government of India

Conducted by Centre for Consumer Studies

Indian Institute of Public Administration IP. Estate, Ring Road, New Delhi – 110002

i

Preface

Providing prompt and efficient service is essential not only to attract new customers, but also to retain existing customers. Every organisation must evolve a system for redressal of grievance arising out of its work. Grievance redressal system should form an integral part of the machinery of any organisation. No organisation can claim to be accountable, responsive and user friendly unless it has established an efficient and effective grievance redressal system. In fact the grievance redressal mechanism of an organisation is the gauge to measure its effectiveness and efficiency as it provides important feedback on the working of the organisation.

The basic purpose behind grievance redressal mechanism is to provide a platform for citizens to redress their complaints related to various services they receive form a service provider, voice their opinion and provide feedback on various services rendered by the provider. It bridges the communication gap between the service provider and the citizen or consumer, providing citizens a platform through which they can get their grievances redressed in a timely and transparent manner. It also serves as a mean to measure the efficiency of the service provider as it provides an important feedback towards reconciliation of a grievance. Here depending on the relevance of service and associated factors scope can vary.

A suitable mechanism must exist for receiving and redressing customer grievances. The details of grievance redressal mechanism are to be placed in the domain of public knowledge. The grievances should be dealt with promptly and courteously. Any mistakes made by the service provider should be rectified immediately. In order to make the redressal mechanism more meaningful and effective, a structured system has been put in place. Such system would ensure that the redressal sought is just, fair and within the given framework of rules and regulations.

Consumer grievances provide valuable feedback on the quality of services and whether the initiatives taken by the service provider in technology and re-engineering of business processes are having the desired impact on business growth and improved customer satisfaction. The service providers also understand the importance of sensitizing staff to handling customer transactions / requests with courtesy, empathy and promptness. It is in the interest of the service provider that they also conduct periodical customer satisfaction surveys to understand customers' perceptions of the services being provided and to identify priority areas, which need improvement.

The present study deals with the Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the Electricity Sector and confines to Delhi region. The Electricity Act of 2003 mandates that the Forums for Redressal of Consumer Grievances (CGRF) shall be set up by all distribution utilities. The study focuses on the problems being faced by the consumers of electricity in Delhi and the effectiveness of the distribution utilities in addressing the problems of the consumers efficiently and to the satisfaction of the consumers. The study also tries to identify the problems faced by the consumers and the response of the power utilities. Lack of awareness about issues relating to bills, its various provisions and technical details also adds to the problem.

We received the help and support from a large number of people and organisations during the study. We are thankful to the Chairman, DERC, Chairman of the ECGRFs and Presidents of the DCDRFs for their valuable inputs and help at various stages in completing this study. We are also thankful to the heads of four DISCOMS (BYPL, TPDDL, BRPL and NDMC) for their cooperation in collection of data and help in carrying out the study. Our thanks are due to the members of the forums, secretaries and other staff of the forums who inspite of initial hesitation provided all the information and material that was required for the study. We are also thankful to various consumers, RWAs and other stakeholders for their cooperation in providing useful

ii

information and also suggestions that helped us shape this study. Mr Yadvendra Shukla, RPVV, Tyagraj Nagar and others who helped us in filling in the questionnaires, our sincere thanks to them. The Research Staff of CSS, IIPA needs special mention for their efforts in completing the study. Dr. Amit Kumar Singh and Mr. Pankaj Singh have worked with dedication and have been helpful in various ways. We also acknowledge the help we received from Shri. B. S. Sachdeva in completing this study.

Dr T Chatterjee, Director of IIPA, New Delhi has been a source of inspiration and we would like to thank him and others for the administrative support that we received. Our colleagues in the Centre, particularly, Shri. R.C. Mangla, Ms. Deepa Bist and Ms. Hema Rautela have been of immense help in completing this study. Our thanks to all of them.

We are thankful to the Department of Consumer Affairs, GoI for sponsoring this study to CCS/IIPA. We are grateful to Shri. Pankaj Agarwal, Secretary and Shri. Manoj Kumar Parida, JS, DCA for their help and support in completing this study.

We are confident that this report will help the Power utilities in better appreciation of the consumer grievances and put in place a fair, transparent and responsive system to address consumer complaints.

Prof. Suresh Misra

Dr. Mamta Pathania

.

Place: New Delhi

iii

CONTENTS

1 Preface i-ii

2 Executive Summary iv-xix

3 Chapter I: Introduction 1-7

4 Chapter II: Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Electricity Sector 8-19

5 Chapter III: Analysis of Cross Section of Electricity Consumer Respondents

20-36

6 Chapter IV: Perception of Complainants 37-51

7 Chapter V: Perception of Chairman/Members of CGRFs on Functioning of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums

52-66

8 Chapter VI: Analysis of Complaints Filed in the In-House Call Centres of DISCOMs

67-74

9 Chapter VII: Findings and Recommendations 75-85

10 References 86

11 Annexure I: List of Officials Consulted during the Study 87-88

12 Annexure II: BSES Rajdhani/Yamuna Limited Complaint Handling Procedures

89-94

13 Annexure III: TPDDL Limited Complaint Handling Procedures 95-100

14 Annexure IV: Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011.

101-112

iv

Executive Summary

1. Background

The purpose of electricity sector reforms of Delhi, particularly after the

implementation of Electricity Act, 2003, largely aimed at making this sector more

efficient through competition and providing benefits for consumers. Apart from

the framework of competition, the Act also makes specific provisions seeking to

safeguard the interests of consumers. The National Electricity Policy and the

Tariff Policy framed under the Act reinforces this provision. The State Electricity

Regulatory Commission is also to notify guidelines/ regulations for the

establishment of the Forums and the Ombudsman for consumer protection.

The Government of NCT Delhi framed rules to establish a well structured

grievance redressal mechanism within the DISCOMs as well as state level

wherein the citizens can lodge their complaints related to various services, voice

their opinions/feedback and also get redressal to their grievances. The

effectiveness of any mechanism can be adjudged by the prompt service delivery

in terms of attending to the complaint/consumer grievance and timely disposal of

the complaint. An effective complaint redressal mechanism helps both the

consumers and the service providers equally.

Specific provisions related to grievance redressal under the Electricity Act,

Government of India, as well as Delhi State Government mandates the

establishment of a variety of regulatory measures, intended to protect the

electricity consumers from exploitation by the distribution companies. These

include - the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRFs) under the

Electricity Act (2003), the DCDRF under Consumer Protection Act (1986), Delhi

State Public Grievance Cell and the Lok Adalats. Despite the provisions of

various Grievance Redressal Forums, evidence suggests that DISCOMs have

repeatedly failed the customers with confusing bills, wrong estimation of meter

reading, mismanaging, mistreatment and ignoring consumer complaints.

In an attempt to address these issues, a brief analysis of the crucial electricity

statutes, current practices in grievance redressal in electricity sector and

evaluation of their role has been done in this study. The study has been carried

v

out to find out the consumers ‘expectations and the level of satisfaction with the

four power distribution companies in Delhi. It projects the problem which

consumers face in their daily life and looks for solutions to improve the situation

and to alleviate the problems of the consumers of electricity. It also examines the

knowledge and skill of the consumers to understand various issues relating to

electricity supply and the process of complaint redressal.

2. Objectives of the Study

1. To evaluate the operational effectiveness of Consumer Complaint

Redressal Mechanism; including In-house and various Consumer

Forums available for Grievance Redressal;

2. To know the perception of the consumers on the quality of redressal of consumer complaints

3. To assess the overall satisfaction level among consumers on the services provided by the DISCOMs to redress consumer complaints

3. Methodology

The present study is an assessment of the effectiveness of redressal

mechanism, awareness among consumers about the existing redressal

mechanism, consumers’ perception on quality of the existing Grievance

Redressal Mechanism and satisfaction among consumers on the range of

services provided by the DISCOMs. In order to collect the necessary information,

various stakeholders, i.e. Electricity Consumers and Complainants, Electricity

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (ECGRFs), District Consumer Dispute

Redressal Forums (DCDRFs) and DISCOMs were approached. IIPA team also

interacted with officials of DERC to understand the efficacy of the complaint

handling mechanism.

The study involves collecting information from consumers in Delhi, mainly

from the domestic consumers as commercial consumers do not fall under the C

P Act, 1986. Based on the questionnaire designed, analysis was done to find out

the issues faced by consumers with power distribution companies and their

expectations. The research design followed is descriptive and the technique used

is stratified sampling. On the basis of feedback from the licensee, regulator and

the consumer, the analysis and the interpretation of the results were obtained.

vi

Certain findings, recommendations and conclusions were derived that can be

utilized by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), to

strengthen the redressal mechanism, Licensee and the regulator to improve the

mechanism of consumer grievance redressal and help the consumers redress

their grievances if any in an effective manner and help the power distribution

companies and their associates to provide better quality of services to the

consumers.

4. Sampling Plan

A stratified random sampling technique has been used to assess the

effectiveness of the redressal mechanism, evaluate the extent of awareness and

satisfaction among electricity consumer in the jurisdiction of four DISCOMs

(BYPL, TPDDL, BRPL and NDMC) of Delhi. Electricity Consumers,

Complainants, Chairman and Members of ECGRF and DCDRF constitute the

main stakeholders. The stakeholder wise distribution of sample size is given

below in the table. (Table 1.1)

For the collection of primary data, three question schedules were prepared.

All the question schedules were subjected to reliability test by pre-testing which

was modified based on the responses received.

Table 1.1

S. No. Respondents Sample size

1 Electricity Consumers 410

2 Complainant (from different ECGRFs & DCDRFs) 165

3 Chairman & Members (ECGRF) 8

4 President & Members (DCGRF) 20

Total sample size 603

5. Source of Data

To achieve the objectives of the study, both primary and secondary data

were used. Primary Data was collected by administrating structured

questionnaires among various stakeholders. Secondary Data was collected from

books, articles, internet, journals, data and reports provided by DISCOMs, etc.

Discussions were also held with experts and officials in the area.

vii

6. Tools

Three types of questionnaires were developed for this study. These

questionnaires were administrated among the following stakeholders.

1. Electricity Consumers

2. Complainants (ECGRF and DCDRF)

3. Chairman/Members of ECGRF and DCDRF

7. Analysis

The analysis and tabulation of the primary data has been done by using

SPSS. Secondary data provided by DISCOMs and other sources was analyzed

with the help of excel. Some of the secondary data and information has been

collected from the articles; books, reports and internet to understand the concept

and trends regarding redressal mechanism in the electricity sector of different

states.

8. Limitations

• Complainants were reluctant to fill the questionnaires. As they thought it

may have an adverse effect on their cases.

• Secondary data, related to electricity cases filed in different forums are not

properly documented, hence difficult to access.

• DISCOMs were reluctant to share information regarding their functioning.

9. Major Findings

Based on the field data and information collected from various sources the

major findings of the study are as follows:

9.1 General Observations

1. Consumers are of the opinion that the quality of electricity supply has

improved during the past 10 years, but there are several issues which

needs to be taken care of.

viii

2. The level of awareness among consumers about the electricity bill is not

satisfactory. Most of the consumers are not aware about the slab wise

energy charges and third party meter testing. Most of the complaints filed

in the CGRFs relate to these two issues.

3. The quality of in –house complaints centres needs to be improved as

many of the consumers have complained that these centres are not easily

accessible. The behavior of call centre executives is not consumer friendly

and cordial hence they need proper training.

4. Even after nine years of establishment of CGRFs, consumers of Delhi are

not fully aware of them. CGRF of BRPL and TPDDL are situated in such

periphery areas, where the aggrieved consumers find it difficult to even

reach these forums. Wide publicity is required to be given in the media

especially electronic media – TV, etc. on the establishment of Forums and

their role.

5. Multiplicity of forums for redressal in a way provides opportunities for the

consumers to get their grievances redressed through different avenues

but on the other hand it leads to state of confusion as to which forum

would be best to approach.

6. Lot of complaints are related to billing and metering issues, if the licensees

could pay more attention on them, the number of grievances / complaints

filed both in the customer care centres as well as in the CGRFs would

drastically come down.

7. A general perception among many of the consumers is that the decisions

of the CGRFs are biased and in favour of DISCOMs. Presently DERC

appoints the Chairman and Members to the CGRFs in accordance with

the list recommended by the DISCOMs.

8. The problem regarding the functioning of ECGRF’s relates to the

compliance of their orders. During survey it was found that the

representatives of the DISCOMs don’t come fully prepared at the time of

hearing, which leads to undue adjournments. It has also been found that

on many occasions the ECGRFs ask for lot of documents from the

consumers as well as from DISCOMs which delays the disposal of cases.

9. There is no enforcement mechanism/power given to the CGRFs to

implement or execute the orders. At present, there is no fixed

ix

accountability on the part of licensee to implement the decisions/ orders of

the Forums. As a result the consumer runs from pillar to post to execute

the order.

10. A general perception among the consumers is that the mechanism for the

implementation of the decisions of Forums should be such that individual

officers / employees be made accountable for non-compliance of orders

and accordingly action taken.

11. During discussion with the CGRFs and from the feedback of the

consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters.

There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of

the consumers are not aware of this aspect. And those who are aware,

they do not think the system is reliable and fair.

12. With the unbundling of Delhi Electricity Sector in 2001, the objective was

that consumers will be allowed to purchase electricity from any of the

three DISCOMs. But after ten years, there is no competition in Delhi’s

electricity market as there is only one electricity distributor in each power

supply area hence there is always a chance of increase in the electricity

charges and exploitation of the consumers. It also affects consumer’s right

to choice.

9. 2 Findings: Perception of Cross Section

1. As far as respondent’s knowledge about information printed on the

electricity bill is concerned, 73.5 percent of them read the details printed

on the electricity bill and rest 26.5 percent of the respondents never read

the information provided on the electricity bill.

2. As far as the information printed on the electricity bill, 81 percent knew

about the meter No, 66.8 percent were aware of the Circle/zone, 65.9

were aware of the type of supply, 64.9 percent knew about the meter type,

60.5 percent of the respondents knew about the CRN No., 54.6 percent

knew about the C A No., 54.1 percent of the respondents were aware

about the sanctioned load and 52.7 percent knew about the pole number.

3. As far as slab-wise energy charge is concerned half of the respondents,

51.2 percent were aware of it. Only 39 percent of respondents were aware

about the knowledge regarding Third Party Meter Testing.

x

4. Awareness about the Electricity Act is very less. Only 26.8 percent of the

total respondents knew about the Act while majority of them, 73.2 percent

were not aware of the Electricity Act.

5. The DISCOM wise data indicates that the level of awareness about the

Electricity Act is highest among the consumers of NDMC (31.7 percent)

followed by TPDDL (27.8 percent) and BYPL (26.5 percent). The

consumers of BRPL are least aware about the Electricity Act (24.8

percent).

6. Awareness about the Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the Act is

very low as only 27.5 percent of respondents know about the mechanism

while 72.5 percent are not aware about any such mechanism for redressal

of grievances.

7. As far as the nature of problem is concerned, 30 percent of the

respondents opined that they faced the problem of no current many times

followed by 27.8 percent who faced the problem of scheduled outages,

while 24.9 percent faced problem of voltage fluctuation.

8. 80 percent of the respondents said they have approached the in-house

complaint system for disruption in service line.

9. Among the respondents who complained to the Call Centres, 47.4 percent

were concerned with voltage fluctuation followed by 42.9 percent relating

to disconnection.

10. More than half of the respondents (66.7 percent) said that they used the

Zonal Complaints Centre for complaint registration. As far as Web

Services are concerned only 13.3 percent of the respondents said they

opted for this avenue for registering their complaint of metering, followed

by 7.7 percent in case of billing and 4 percent in case of Scheduled

Outages.

11. As regards complaint relating to metering problem, 73.3 percent of the

respondents said that their complaints had been resolved, in case of

power failure of street light, 91.7 percent said that their complaints had

been resolved. Similarly, 90.5 percent respondent’s complaint relating to

no current, 85.7 percent respondent’s complaint regarding disconnection,

74.6 percent respondent’s complaint of billing problem had been resolved.

Regarding voltage fluctuation 78.9 percent respondents said that their

xi

problems have been resolved, whereas 75 percent said their complaint of

broken service line were resolved, 66.7 percent in case of transfer of bill

charges to others and 33.3 percent in case of theft cases have been

resolved.

12. Consumers of BRPL have more complaints than consumers of other

DISCOMs while the consumers of NDMC have lesser complaints as

compared to others. 47.6 percent of the respondents of BRPL complained

that they have faced inconvenience due to failure of power supply many

times in the last one year.

13. Only 30.5 percent of respondents said they approached the call centre of

DISCOMs once, 18.9 percent called it twice, whereas 17.9 percent called

it thrice, 10.5 percent had called in the call centre four times and rest of

the 22.1 percent said they called the call centre more than four times.

14. As far as accessibility of the call centre is concerned only 21.6 percent of

the respondents were satisfied to large extent. In case of the behaviour of

the call centre executives, only 26.4 percent of the respondents were

satisfied to large extent with the response of call centre executives. On the

other hand, only 20 percent of the consumers were satisfied to large

extent with the time taken by the executives of Call Centre.

15. As far as redressal /remedy to the complaint is concerned only 17.9

percent of the respondents said they were satisfied to large extent with it

and more than one fourth of the consumers were dissatisfied with the

remedy/redressal of the DISCOMs.

16. It was found that the awareness about the mechanism for redressal of

grievances is very low. 73.5 percent of the respondents did not know

about the DCDRF, 69.1 percent did not know about State Electricity

Regulatory Commission, 65.7 percent were not aware about the Electricity

Consumer Redressal Forums. As far as awareness regarding the Lok

Adalats (set up by DERC) is concerned, only 38.2 percent of respondents

knew about it and rest 62 percent did not have any idea about the

existence of such a forum.

17. 85.3 percent of the respondents said that the quality of service has

improved after privatization. Respondents seem to be satisfied with the

electricity tariff.

xii

18. 66.5 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the tariff cost in

electricity sector is reasonable, while only 33.5 percent of the respondents

said it is unreasonable. Consumers of BRPL zone are more dissatisfied

with the cost of tariffs as 41 percent of them said that it is unreasonable for

the consumers. Consumers of NDMC (27.5 percent) are comparatively

less dissatisfied with the present cost of electricity tariff. Consumers of

BYPL (36.8 found it to be unreasonable).

19. 82.9 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the redressal

mechanism needs improvement. Time bound disposal of the complaints at

every level should be adhered to, followed by 78 percent of respondents

who were of the opinion that the mechanism can be improved by creating

awareness among the as people regarding the redressal mechanism.

20. 74.6 percent of the respondents said that the mechanism can be improved

if the dealing officers are penalized for non-compliance while 69.3 percent

of them said that a unified redressal mechanism can bring a lot of

improvement in the existing system of redressal mechanism. 65.9 percent

were of the opinion that if the redressal forums are vested with execution

powers, then they can be more effective.

21. Among the existing grievance redressal mechanism 51.1 percent of the

respondents said ECGRF is the best grievance redressal mechanism

followed by 19.3 percent who supported, Public Grievance Cell as the best

mechanism, 17.8 percent said DCDRF is the best forum for redressal of

grievances and 11.9 percent said SERC in their opinion is the best mode

of redressal of their grievances.

9.3 Findings: Perception of Complainants

1. Only 6.6 percent of the total respondents had approached some or the

other forum for redressal of grievances whereas majority 93.6 percent

opined that they never approached any forum for their complaints.

2. Among those respondents who have approached any of the available

forums, 60.7 percent of them approached the ECGRF, 36.2 percent

approached the Delhi State Public Grievance Cell, 25.9 percent of them

had approached DCDRFs and 29.3 percent of them approached Lok

xiii

Adalats (set up by DERC). SERC is the least approached (12.1 percent)

forum by the electricity consumers.

3. As regards the reason for approaching ECGRF, 61.3 percent said that

they knew only about this forum, followed by 46.4 who quoted “Easy to

Access” as the reason for approaching, cost effectiveness and quick

redressal (42.9 percent each) were other reasons given by the

complainants as the reason for approaching the forum.

4. For approaching DCDRF’s, the responses were mixed. 66.9 percent of the

complainants said they knew only about this forum, 55.6 percent said it

was suggested by others, while majority of them regarded none of the

following - cost effective, easy to access, quick redressal and strong

compliance mechanism as reasons for approaching the forum. 66.7

percent said that they knew only Lok Adalats, therefore they approached

the Lok Adalat.

5. 42.9 percent of the respondents who filed complaint in the ECGRF and

37.3 percent in DCDRF, faced difficulty after lodging their complaint in the

respective forums.

6. 37.5 percent of the BRPL complainants said that they faced difficulty after

lodging their complaint, while 34.6 percent complainant of BYPL opined

the same. Complainants of NDMC are the least sufferers as only 9.1

percent of them said that they faced difficulty after filing the complaint.

7. 40.5 percent for ECGRF complainants and 53.8 percent for DCDRF

complainants said that their complaint is still pending in the Forums and

merely 51.8 percent of ECGRF cases and 43.6 percent of DCDRF said it

has been resolved.

8. 64.7 percent of the Complainants of DCDRF are satisfied with

relief/redressal given by the Forum while those of ECGRF, 51.8 percent of

complainants were satisfied with the redressal /relief from the forum.

9. 56.7 percent of the complainants were satisfied with the procedures

adopted by ECGRF while 49.3 percent were not satisfied with the

procedures of redressal being adopted by the DCDRF. BYPL zone has

comparatively higher level of satisfaction with the procedures adopted by

respective ECGRF than other three forums.

xiv

10. 55.6 percent of ECGRF and 83.3 percent of DCDRF complainants who

are dissatisfied with their respective forum’s decisions is due to delay in

decision by the forums, followed by 33.2 percent of ECGRF and 26.7

percent of DCDRF were unsatisfied with the compensation. It is notable

that ECGRFs respondents who were dissatisfied with the reliefs/redressal

given by the respective forums, 58.3 percent of them opined that their

forums are biased in favour of DISCOMs. However this factor is pointed

out by only 20 percent respondents of DCDRFs.

11. In case of functioning of ECGRF, 84.2 percent of the complainants said

their complaint was acknowledged within 7 days of receipt of the

complaint, 42.1 percent said it was not disposed of in time while 31.6

percent said that there is no compliance of orders.

12. In case of functioning of DCRF, 83.9 percent of the complainants said their

complaint was registered/rejected within a period of 21 days of its receipt.

Only 37.5 percent said that the complaints are disposed of within the time

limit. 85.7 percent of them said that the compliance of orders is done.

While 14.3 percent said there is no compliance.

13. 86.4 percent of complainants were not aware of the Electricity

Ombudsman.

14. 27.3 percent of the respondents knew about the Consumer Protection Act.

Majority of the complainants (81.8 percent) are not aware of the consumer

rights. Only 37.9 percent of the complainants were aware of the redressal

mechanism under the CPA, 1986.

15. During discussions Complainants said that DISCOMs are having

resources such as technical, financial, legal & even consultants thereby

they can easily counter the objections of consumers. Thus the results are

in favour of licensees making the consumer aggrieved and isolated.

9.4 Findings: Perception of Chairman/Members of ECGRF

1. Majority of the Chairman /Members were of the opinion that knowledge of

the Legal Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is a prerequisite and

necessary in deciding the cases. One need not have a degree in law to

function effectively.

xv

2. All the ECGRFs agreed that shortage of Members, lack of technical

knowledge, non-cooperation from DISCOM, shortage of stationary are the

common problems faced by the forums. In case of lack of supporting staff,

lack of infrastructure, lack of fund for day to day miscellaneous expenses,

only ECGRF of BRPL was of the opinion that they faced these problems

while the others- BYPL, TPDDL/TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion

that they do not face these problems.

3. BRPL furnished the complaint within 15-30 days, TPDDL and NDMC

within 15 days while BYPL did the same within 5 days.

4. All ECGRF disposed off the complaints within 30-60 days. For compliance

of the order of the forum by DISCOMs BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC said the

compliance of orders is within 21 days while BYPL was of the opinion that

it is within 30 days. Asking for undue adjournments and disinterested

consumers was referred to as the reasons for the delay in disposal of

complaints by the BRPL

5. BYPL and TPDDL said that they faced sometimes problems in the

execution of the order. While BRPL and NDMC said that they never faced

this problem. All the ECGRFs were of the opinion that they get adequate

support from the DISCOMs. For Third Party Meter Testing, BRPL and

TPDDL said that they face problems due to Third Party Meter Testing

while BYPL and NDMC said they never faced this problem.

6. BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that the consumers are

indifferent and casual towards their problems and hence not in favour of

filing of complaints in the ECGRFs. All ECGRFs were of the opinion that

people don’t come forward because they don’t have much idea about the

Act and the redressal mechanism.

7. Members and Chairman of TPDDL were of the opinion that the members

are involved in the judgment writing and due consideration is given to their

viewpoint in final judgments. Chairman /Members of BYPL said that the

members are involved but only sometimes, similarly Chairman/Members

of NDMC said that the members are involved in the judgment writing.

Whereas the Chairman/members of BRPL did not answer to this question.

8. All the forums said that they don’t have funds to educate people and

organize awareness campaigns to educate consumers about their rights

xvi

9. The Chairman and the Members of ECGRFs are of the opinion that they

don’t have any administrative and financial powers.

10. As far as opinion regarding delay in decisions of complaint is concerned,

The common reasons for delay highlighted by the ECGRFs Members are:

a. Reports are required from test labs, etc which are not in time

b. Local reports unreliable

c. Documentation not complete

d. Undue Adjournment (should not be more than two).

11. The officers/officials working in DERC are on deputation or short term

assignment. By the time they understand the depth of issues, their term

comes to an end.

.

10. Suggestions

Almost every year there are public protests on one pre-text or the other.

Such protests reflect that the grievances continued to persist. It also reflects that

the consumers lack faith and confidence in the functioning of the licensees.

Therefore effective, efficient, responsive and reliable consumer grievance

redressal mechanism is necessary to win consumer confidence and ensure that

consumer grievances are redressed in a time bound manner.

1. The grievance redressal mechanism in electricity sector starts with the in-

house redressal mechanism. The findings suggest that a lot of

improvement required in the services that they provide .For this:

a) Training of the councillors/staff/members manning the helplines,

call centres, forums be done on regular basis for effective handling

of the complaints. Call centres executives should have proper skills

to handle a complaint. The call centres/ in house call centres needs

to be more vibrant and work with a spirit of consumer welfare to

increase consumer satisfaction.

b) The number of call centre executives need to be increased as most

of the time the numbers on which the consumers call are busy and

therefore the consumers are not able to lodge their complaints

easily.

xvii

c) In the present scenario consumers have to wait for a longer period

on the phone line which is a costly affair and further discourages

the consumers to make use of this avenue. For this a toll free

number can be provided to consumers for easy access.

d) Provision of online status enquiry of the grievance should be

introduced

2. The findings clearly show that the level of consumer awareness regarding

redressal mechanism in electricity sector is considerably low because of

which the consumers are not able get the benefit of the provisions of

Electricity Act. DERC and the DISCOMs should take the following

measures to give wide publicity to forums (CGRFs):

a. Funds should be earmarked by DISCOMs & DERC to the ECGRFs

for creating awareness on grievance redressal machinery and wise

use of electricity as in the present scenario no such provisions of

separate fund is available to ECGRFs.

b. To increase awareness about the grievance redressal mechanism

prominent hoardings / signages at public places should be put up

.Wide awareness/ publicity by medium of T.V. visual aids, internet

be created. DERC should give adds in the FM Radio and television

for wider publicity of forums for redressal.

c. Accessibility to the forum is a problem due to their poor location

hence the very aim of the forum –welfare/redressal of consumer

grievances is difficult. Connectivity / accessibility of redressal

forums needs to be taken care of for better and effective redressal

mechanism and should be within the reach of consumers. Location

of forum offices be such that they are approachable by public

transport.

d. Workshops and Seminars need to be organized in association with

various RWA’s to spread awareness.

3. During discussion with the ECGRFs and from the feedback of the

consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters.

There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of

the consumers are not aware of this. And those who are aware, they are

not able to get the benefit of this provision as the contract with the third

xviii

party meter agency has already expired. Therefore, it is suggested that

some independent agency from Delhi/NCT region be identified and

responsibility given for providing third party meter testing.

4. Mediation, conciliation can be the first step before the complaints go to the

forums. Mediation centres can reduce the workload of the forums.

Mediation/reconciliation system should be set up under the supervision of

ECGRFs for the convenience of both ECGRFs and the consumers.

5. There is a need to simplify procedures and reduce documentation to

reduce delay in disposal of complaints.

6. Adequate measures should be taken to ensure that compliance of orders

of the forums is ensured. The power for monitoring the compliance of the

order be given to ECGRFs and in case the orders are not complied with,

then ECGRF be empowered for levying penalty on DISCOMs. Provisions

of sec. 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be adopted in CGRF Rules/

regulations.

7. There is no clarity as to who is controlling the forums. It should be clarified

in the rules/Act as to who controls the forums – DERC or the licensee.

8. For more transparency, the DISCOMs should be brought under the RTI

Act, 2005. Apart from that the forums should come up with more

openness to consumer problems and should also frame a Citizen Charter

for their services.

9. Powers vested with the Chairman of the ECGRF are quite limited as he

has no control over other forum members. Delegations need to be

defined. Punctuality in sittings/ hearings/ holding & conducting the court

should be adhered to.

10. DERC should take up the overall responsibility in appointing the Forum

Chairman/Members.

11. The forums should be given more administrative/ financial powers to carry

out the work effectively. ECGRFs be made independent, directly under the

DERC.

12. For greater access to justice, the Forums can have sittings / hearings at

different locations in their jurisdictions with a specified schedule so that all

the consumers need not come to headquarters of the Forum.

xix

13. Efforts should be made to appoint qualified people in the Forums. They

should have adequate knowledge of the electricity sector.

14. For better management and effective decision making, duties/

responsibilities of the members should be prescribed w.r.t. attendance,

hearing the cases, decisions, judgment writing, etc. Members should be

involved and mandated in judgment writing independently. Like CDRFs,

members should also be asked to write some percentage of total

judgments.

15. There is a general impression among the consumers that ECGRFs are

biased in favour of licensees. The main reason is that they impose very

less penalty on licensees and provide less compensation to the

consumers. The compensation provision may be revised in the interest of

consumers and adequate amount of compensation be allowed on case to

case basis.

16. Open access being one of the objectives in privatisation could not

materialise even after ten years. Consumer continues to face monopolistic

decision on the part of DISCOMS/ Regulator, thus competitions in the

sector needs to be encouraged.

17. There is no competition as far as distribution of electricity is concerned this

has made the service providers a monopoly entity which goes against the

consumers. They have no choice.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Electricity plays a vital role in our day-to-day life. Availability of reliable and

cost effective power is essential for economic development of the country. The

consumption of electricity is an important indicator of the stage of development

of agriculture, industry, health sectors and commerce. It is an accepted fact, as

the economy expands, not only the demand for energy grows exponentially, but

the aspiration of people for improved energy services in terms of availability,

accessibility, quality and affordability also increases enormously. The

liberalisation policy which was initiated in India in the early 1990s to accelerate

the overall economic development required self‐sufficiency in power production

to meet the increasing demand-supply gap.   But in the mid 90s, the electricity

sector of India was in a poor state. There were lots of problem with the sub-

transmission and distribution system of State Electricity Boards and other

electricity utilities. Transmission and Distribution losses were very huge. Regular

power cuts were quite common even in the metropolitan cities. Managing the

Electricity Boards itself had become a major problem.

Delhi was not an exception to this, being the National Capital it was

experiencing huge inflow of population, rise in commercial enterprises and

industries, required substantial amount of power supply and augmentation of

power transmission infrastructure system. Apart from this with the advancement

of technology, life style and increased use of new electrical and electronic

gadgets, the demand for power was going up enormously. Delhi's energy

requirement was growing at about 7-8 % per annum. As per the Delhi Vidyut

Board (DVB) report, in 1951 the peak demand was only 27 MW which crossed

2831 MW on 13th July, 2001 and touched 3250 MW during the year 2002 -03.

Against the peak demand of 2831 MW during 2001, the total availability was only

405 MW from DVB's own generation projects, 632 MW from Badarpur Thermal

Power Station (BTPS) and the balance was drawn from the Northern Region

2

Grid. While demand was growing rapidly, government was not able to add

additional capacity. Therefore, there was a great mismatch between demand

and supply resulting in serious crisis in the power sector. Apart from this the net

cost of generating power from DVB's own plants was also high due to low

capacity utilization and high fuel consumption by the plants. The above shortfalls

created a huge gap between the demand and supply of electricity where

consumers were suffering with regular power cuts, voltage fluctuations and

failure of transmission lines. As a result the consumer grievances increased

many folds coupled with corruption.

Furthermore the internal grievance redressal mechanism of DVB was not

able to resolve the consumer complaints. This led to dissatisfaction among the

electricity consumers. Hence reforms in the Energy Sector, for making it efficient

and more competitive, was need of the hour. It was also felt that there needs to

be an effective redressal mechanism for consumer grievances.

Thus, in order to improve the quality of service to consumers in Delhi,

making electricity available at a competitive rates, improving operational

efficiencies, attempting to reduce transmission and distribution losses by

reduction in fraudulent extraction of energy and reduction in misuse or theft,

reducing the need for government funding of the electricity sector in the long run

and to attract investment into the business, the privatization process began with

the establishment of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in 1999 followed

by the promulgation of Delhi Electricity Reform Act-2000. This was much before

the National Electricity Act was passed by the Parliament in 2003.

The Delhi Electricity Reform Act-2000 and policy directions by

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) provides the legal

framework for the re-organisation and privatization of energy sector. GNCTD

approved the unbundling of DVB into six successor entities, one holding

company, one generation company (GENCO), one transmission company

(TRANSCO) and three distribution companies (DISCOMS). As a result of these

reforms, private participation was introduced in distribution for the first time in

Delhi. It thus set up distribution joint venture with Reliance Power and Tata

3

Power. The Reliance Power holds the responsibility of the distribution/supply of

power in Central and East Delhi through BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL)

and South and South West Delhi through BSES Rajdhani Power Limited

(BRPL). The Tata Power holds the responsibility of distribution/supply of Power

in North and North West Delhi through Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited

(TPDDL), whereas, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) is responsible for

supplying electricity in its area of jurisdiction.

Why this Study?

The purpose of electricity sector reforms largely aimed at cutting down the

AT&C losses, reducing the financial burden of exchequer, and increasing the

amount of metered power. However, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission

(DERC) also imposes performance and information standards on distribution

companies with a view to enhance their coverage, operation, efficiency and

ability to improve the quality of service to consumers in Delhi and to make

available electricity at a competitive price. Along with this, in 2003, the National

Electricity Act was passed by Indian Parliament which led to liberalizing the

Indian Electricity Sector. Since most of the electricity suppliers were private

entities the aim was to ensure that customers are fairly treated for which the Act

provides for the establishment of a two-tier consumer grievance redressal

system to adjudicate disputes arising from unresolved complaints; (i) Consumer

Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) (ii) Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE).

In accordance with the Delhi Electricity Act of 2002 and the National

Electricity Act of 2003, DISCOMs are to establish an in-house complaint

handling and grievance redressal mechanism where consumers can register

their complaints and seek clarifications to their queries, for example; Consumer

Care Centre, Call Centre, Web Based Service and Zonal Complaint Service.

Apart from these, specific provisions related to grievance redressal under the

Electricity Act, Government of India, as well as Delhi State Government

mandated the establishment of a variety of regulatory measures intended to

protect the electricity consumers from exploitation by the distribution companies.

These include the DCDRF under Consumer Protection Act (1986), Delhi State

Public Grievance Cell and the Lok Adalats. Despite the provisions of various

4

Grievance Redressal Forums, evidence suggests that DISCOMs have

repeatedly failed the customers with confusing bills, wrongly estimation of meter

reading, mismanaging, mistreatment and ignorance to the consumer complaints.

The laws only serve as initiatives to provide a framework for protecting

consumers against various defects; deficiency and negligence. It is in fact the

implementation of laws and functioning of regulatory bodies that determines the

success of any programme/ scheme, etc. Keeping in view the shortcomings and

problems with the power sector, the focus of the present study is to evaluate the

nature and effectiveness of the redressal mechanism available to the consumers

and to what extent the consumers are satisfied with the mechanism? In an

attempt to address this question, a brief analysis of the crucial electricity

statutes, current practices in grievance redressal in electricity sector and

evaluation of their role has been done. The study is carried out to find out the

consumers ‘expectations and the level of satisfaction with the power distribution

companies in Delhi. It projects the problem which consumers face in their daily

life and looks for solutions to improve the situation and to alleviate the problems

of the consumers of electricity. It also examines the knowledge and skill of the

consumers to understand various issues relating to electricity supply and the

process of complaint redressal.

Objectives of the Study

1. To evaluate the operational effectiveness of Consumer Complaint Redressal Mechanism; including In-house and various Consumer Forums available for Grievance Redressal;

2. To know the perception of the consumers on the quality of redressal of consumer complaints

3. To assess the overall satisfaction level among consumers on the services provided by the DISCOMs to redress consumer complaints

Methodology

The present study is an assessment of the effectiveness of redressal

mechanism, awareness among consumer about the existing redressal

mechanism, consumers’ perception on quality of the existing Grievance

5

Redressal Mechanism and satisfaction among consumers on the range of

services provided by the DISCOMs. In order to collect the necessary

information, various stakeholders, i.e. Electricity Consumers and Complainants,

Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (ECGRFs), District

Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums (DCDRFs) and DISCOMs were

approached. IIPA team also interacted with officials of DERC to understand the

efficacy of the complaint handling mechanism.

The study involves collecting information from consumers in Delhi, mainly

from the residential consumers. Based on the questionnaire designed, analysis

was done to find out the issues faced by consumers with power distribution

companies and their expectations. The research design followed is descriptive

and the technique used is stratified sampling. On the basis of feedback from the

licensee, regulator and the consumer, the analysis and the interpretation of the

results were obtained. Certain findings, recommendations and conclusions were

derived that can be utilized by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

(GNCTD), Licensee and the regulator to improve the mechanism of consumer

grievance redressal and help the consumers redress their grievances if any in an

effective manner and further also to help the power distribution companies and

their associates to provide better quality of services to the consumers.

Sampling Plan

A stratified random sampling technique has been used to assess the

effectiveness of the redressal mechanism, evaluate the extent of awareness and

satisfaction among electricity consumer in the jurisdiction of four DISCOMs

(BYPL, TPDDL, BRPL and NDMC) of Delhi. Electricity Consumers,

Complainants, Chairman and Members of ECGRF and DCDRF constitute the

main stakeholders. The stakeholder wise distribution of sample size is given

below in the table. (Table 1.1)

For the collection of primary data, three question schedules were prepared.

All the question schedules were subjected to reliability test by pre-testing which

were modified based on the responses received.

6

Table 1.1

S. No. Respondents Sample size

1 Electricity Consumers 410 2 Complainant (from different ECGRFs &

DCDRFs) 165

3 Chairman & Members (ECGRF) 8

4 President & Members (DCGRF) 20

Total sample size 603

Source of Data

To achieve the objectives of the study, both primary and secondary data

were used. Primary Data was collected by administrating structured

questionnaires among various stakeholders. Secondary Data was collected

from books, articles, internet, journals, reports, data and reports provided by

DISCOMs, etc.

Tools

Three types of questionnaires were developed for this study. These

questionnaires were administrated among the following stakeholders.

1. Electricity Consumers

2. Complainants (ECGRF and DCDRF)

3. Chairman/Members of ECGRF and DCDRF

Analysis

The analysis and tabulation of the primary data has been done by using

SPSS. Secondary data provided by DISCOMs and other sources was analyzed

with the help of excel. Some of the secondary data and information has been

collected from the articles; books, reports and internet to understand the

concept and trends regarding redressal mechanism in the electricity sector of

different states.

7

Limitations

Complainants were reluctant to fill the questionnaires. As they thought it may have an adverse effect on their cases.

Secondary data, related to electricity cases filed in different forums are not properly documented, hence difficult to access.

DISCOMs were reluctant to share information regarding their functioning.

8

CHAPTER-II

GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM IN ELECTRICITY SECTOR

Introduction

Redressal of complaints is of major concern to the consumers. The

consumers need a simple system where they can lodge their complaints and

their grievances are redressed effectively in a time bound manner therefore

having a right to access the redressal mechanism is of prime importance. For

the right to redress to be realized, a mechanism must exist to ensure that it can

be exercised effectively. If consumer confidence is to be built up he/she needs

assurance that if things go wrong they can seek redress. The Redressal Forums

which act as the first point of contact in case of a complaint have to play a pro-

active role in building consumer confidence. The forums should be responsive

and initiatives aimed at promoting access to simple, swift, effective and

inexpensive legal channels be made available. The forums are also to be

located at a place easily accessible so as to help the consumers to approach it

and seek redressal to their complaints. Any delay in disposal of the complaints

will only shatter the faith of consumers in the redressal mechanism.

Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, defines “Consumer” to “mean

any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the

Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying

electricity to the public under this Act or an any other law for the time being in

force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected

for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the

Government or such other person, as the case may be”.

The definition is very wide and includes all kinds of consumers. Even

unauthorized consumers have been included in the definition by incorporating

the words person whose premises are connected with the works of the licensee.

Here it is important to mention that according to the definition, an applicant of

electricity is not a consumer. The rights of an applicant who is an owner or a

9

holder of a premise has separate set of rights then the consumer. After the

applicant receives the electricity connection, whether authorized or

unauthorized, he is deemed to be a consumer for all practical purposes.

According to Consumer Protection Act, 1986 "consumer" means any person

who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or

partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment

and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys

such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly

promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is

made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person

who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or

promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of

deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other

than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid

or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of

deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of

the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of

such services for any commercial purposes;

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose”

does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and

services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood

by means of self-employment;

As per the Indian Constitution, the power sector is a concurrent subject

and is joint responsibility of the State and Central Governments. Before the

Electricity Bill, 2001, the power sector in India was dominated by the

Government through three principal Acts, (i) The Indian Electricity Act,1910 (ii)

The Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and (iii) The Electricity Regulatory Commission,

1998. The Electricity Bill, 2001 replaced these three Acts. The aim of this Act is

to increase competition in the energy sector. It facilitates open access to

transmission and distribution grid, power trading also allows setting up of captive

10

power plants without any restriction. The State and Central Government sectors

still account for 58 percent and 32 percent of the generation capacity

respectively while the private sector accounts for about 10 percent. The bulk of

the transmission and distribution functions are with State utilities. The private

sector has a small but growing presence in the distribution and is also making

entry into transmission.

Power Sector which had been funded mainly through budgetary support

and external borrowings was opened to private sector in nineties. Orissa was the

first state to initiate restructuring and privatization of power sector in 1990 by

way of unbundling State Electricity Board. The process was supported by World

Bank which provided for separation of generation, transmission and distribution

as independent entities, though it contradicts the concept of Electricity Act, 1948.

According to Electricity Supply Act, 1948, State Electricity Board controls the

Electricity generation, transmission and distribution as an integrated utility. Soon

afterwards several states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and

Karnataka followed. However the experiment in Orissa failed within a decade.

The Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) (State Electricity Board of Delhi) was founded in

1997 and was successor of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) which

was a part of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) whereas DVB was placed

under Delhi Government. Till 2001, DVB could not meet the expectations of

consumers thereby government initiated the process for its privatisation.

Privatization Process in Electricity Sector in Delhi The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) issued

“The Strategy Paper on Power Sector in Delhi” in 1999 which provided the

ground work for privatization. This Strategy Paper identified the problems of the

power sector in Delhi, particularly the supply demand gap and Transmission &

Distribution (T&D) losses in the system. It was found that poor maintenance of

equipments, work culture and political interference increased commercial losses

considerably. Failure to check theft of power, soft approach of successive

governments and interest of electoral limitations in a democratic set up left the

11

government with no other alternative except to move towards privatization of

power sector in Delhi.

Objectives of Privatization The objectives of privatization process were as under;

a) To improve the quality of service to consumers in Delhi and to make available electricity at a competitive price.

b) To improve operational efficiencies and to reduce transmission and distribution losses by reduction in fraudulent extraction of energy and reduction in misuse or theft.

c) To reduce the need for government funding of the Electricity Sector in the long run and to attract private investment into the business.

d) To protect the legitimate interest of employees of DVB.

The Strategy Paper also suggested several important measures to improve

the existing situations; they were as follows;

a) One of the important suggestions was to establish an independent statutory Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission which should be responsible for undertaking licensing of new capacity, prescribing performance standards and fixing tariffs.

b) Setting up a Delhi Power Generation and Transmission Company which should be in charge of the existing and planned generation & transmission work including 66KV sub-stations.

c) Setting up new power distribution companies. Their task should include maintaining the transmission & distribution network from 33KV to 400 Volts, supplying power to consumers, metering and collecting revenue.

d) Encouraging new generation in the private sector as well as in the joint ventures.

In the meantime, The Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 was in

place prescribing the constitution of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions at

central and state level. The Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are

responsible for regulating the functioning of private licensees as well as State

Electricity Boards (SEBs). Accordingly, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission

was established in 1999 followed by the promulgation of Delhi Electricity Reform

Act-2000. On the recommendation of the Delhi Electricity Reform Act-2000,

12

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) approved the re-

organisation and privatisation of energy sector and unbundled DVB into six

successor entities - one holding company, one generation company (GENCO),

one transmission Company (TRANSCO) and three distribution companies

(DISCOMS).

It is pertinent to mention that there was no public participation in the

privatisation process except the tripartite agreement with DVB employees. Delhi

government proceeded with implementation of transfer scheme by inviting bids

on the basis of loss reduction targets in next five years. The privatisation scheme

and its process attracted numerous objections/criticism from various quarters

including individual experts, NGO’s and RWAs. Even Delhi High Court in a

Public Litigation and Public Accounts Committee of Delhi Legislative Assembly

were more vocal and specific to highlight deliberate attempts to privatize on the

part of government. Some of them are summarised as under which has serious

repercussions on the consumer grievance redressal mechanism.

a) Instead of creating competition between DISCOMs, the privatisation process described above led to the creation of private monopolies,

b) The bidding process including valuation was questionable, apart from subsequent negotiations and modified loss targets,

c) DVB privatisation was a negotiated bilateral deal and not a competitive bid,

d) It started with a guaranteed return on equity,

e) Initial loss levels identified were higher and simultaneous loss reduction targets within five years were lower,

f) Valuation of DVB assets and ignoring works in progress favoured licenses at the cost of consumers,

g) Private companies tried to maximise their profit in agreements as against public utilities contributing to social impacts.

Grievance Redressal Mechanism for Electricity Consumers

Over the years, the electricity consumers of Delhi are provided with

multifarious forums for redressal of grievances. The redressal mechanism which

was in place previously in electricity sector got modified in 2003 with the

enactment of Electricity Act, 2003.

13

According to the Section 42 (5) of this Act, every distribution licensee shall,

within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever

is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in

accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission.

Accordingly all the three DISCOMs of Delhi have set up a two-tier consumer

grievance redressal system. At the first level is the in-house customer care

centre/cell constituted by the DISCOMs. The second level being Consumer

Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRF), which have been set up in accordance

with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The CGRF comprises of three

members – (i) Chairman cum Member Technical (ii) Member Legal and (iii)

Member NGOs. DISCOMs advertise the post of members of the CGRFs,

however the appointment of the members is done by DERC.

Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances from

CGRFs, under sub-section 42(5), may make a representation for the redressal of

his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or

designated by the State Commission. The Act, under section 111, also provides

for the establishment of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE).

As a parallel redressal mechanism, under the Consumer Protection Act,

1986, a three tier redressal machinary was set up for the better protection of

consumers. The CP Act also proivides the electricity consumers to file complaint

in the District Forums for redressal of their grievances. However of late the

Supreme Court of India has stayed this. In addition to the above, consumers

can also directly approach the Public Grievance Cell (PGC), set up by the Govt.

of NCT of Delhi and Lok Adalats of Delhi established Delhi Legal Service

Authority.

The multiplicity of grievance redressal mechanism for electricity

consumers of Delhi can be broadly divided into three categories:

1. In-House Mechanism in DISCOMs

2. Independent Grievance Redressal Mechanism

3. Grievance Redressal under Regulatry Framework

14

Fig: 2.1

1. In-House Mechanism in DISCOMs

I. Consumer Care Centre – At these centres, consumers can register

complaint and seek clarifications and redressal. The concerned executive

provides the complainant with acknowledgment, highlighting an

approximate time period within which the complaint will be resolved and a

registration number for future reference or follow up. Once the complaint

is registered it is automatically forwarded to concerned official who has to

take action.

II. Call Centre - Call Centres are one of the most important complaint

handling procedures of DISCOMs. It is mandatory for the DISCOMs to

provide a centralised telephone number, where consumers can lodge

their complaints. They also have to give the name and contact number of

the Assistant Engineer concerned, who can be approached in case of

15

delay in the redressal of the complaint. These numbers must be notified

under:

a. By display/dissemination of the above information on separate handouts attached to the electricity bills from time to time

b. By display of the above information at the bill collection centres

c. By display on the company website

In case the Centralized Call Centre is aware about the problem it shall

inform the complainant the reason(s) for the same and also indicate the

approximate time required for solving the problem. Nevertheless, it shall

register each complaint received and issue a unique complaint number for

such complaints also.

III. Zonal Complaint Centre - If the consumers are not able to call at the

Centralized Call Centre, they can register their complaint in the Zonal

Service Centre.

IV. Web Based Service – Further, if the consumers are not able to call at the

Centralized Call Centre, they can register their complaint online through

email.

Complaint Redressal Mechanism after Registration–The Complaint

Care Centres are supported by software for updation. All the complaints

registered through various sources are fed into the software by the

executive. Once the complaint is registered, the system generates a unique

complaint number and the executives can locate the status of complaint at

any stage of the redressal process which can be communicated to the

complainant.

Alternatively till the complaint is attended and issue resolved, concerned

official at each stage of the process, have to update the software on the

status of a particular complaint. In case action is not taken within the

stipulated period, the complaint gets automatically forwarded to senior

official for appropriate action.

16

Consumer Participation – It is a process of interaction between the service

provider and the end user. In order to involve consumers in improving its

services, Licensee has created various forums to interact with consumers.

Licensee claims that they conduct meetings with (RWA) Resident Welfare

Associations on monthly basis at all district head quarters to understand

customer’s perspective about the services. Similar exercise is undertaken

with industrial welfare associations as well.

2. Independent Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The independent grievance redressal mechanism consists of – ECGRF,

DCDRF, PGC and Lok Adalats.

I. Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums – As per Electricity

Act, 2003, every licensee has to establish a consumer grievance redressal

forum. This Forum consists of three member bench i.e. Chairman cum

member technical, member legal and member NGO. The premises,

infrastructure and support staff is provided by the Licensee. All the staff,

including Chairman and members are on the pay – roll of the Licensee.

Licensee claims such expenses in the Annual Revenue Requirement

submitted to DERC to be part of total expenditure while deciding tariff.

Table 2.1 Prescribed Time Frame for Redressal Procedure in CGRF

Sl. No. Procedure Prescribed Days

i Acknowledging the Complaint Within a period of 7 days of its receipt

ii Furnishing Complaint by nominated employee of DISCOMs

Within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter from the Forum

iii Disposal of the Complaint by the CGRF Within a period of 60 Days

iv Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs Within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order

As regards operational part, Forums are to follow the Performance

Standards Regulations prepared jointly by the license and the Regulators. Their

reasoned judgments are based on such standards. A time limit of 90 days is

prescribed to dispose of the complaint except in the circumstances which are

17

beyond control of the forum. In case a consumer is not satisfied with the order of

the Forum, appeal can be made in the office of Ombudsmen (Electricity) but not

the licensee.

II. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums – The Consumer Protection Act,

1986 was enacted for better protection of the interests of consumers. Consumer

Protection Act imposes strict liability on a service provider, in case of deficiency in

rendering of its services. Therefore, any consumer can file a complaint in the

District Forum when there is a deficiency in power supply or any other related

issues excluding theft cases.

Table 2.2

Prescribed Time Frame for Redressal Procedure in DCDRF

Sl. No. Procedure Prescribed Days

i Registering/ Rejection of Complaint Within a period of 21days of its receipt

ii Disposal of the Complaint by the DCDRF Within a period of 90/150 Days (90 days for general complaint) & (150 Days for the complaints where lab test is required)

iii Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs Within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order

III. The Lok Adalats – Delhi Legal Services Authority has taken a lead and has set-

up permanent and continuous Lok Adalats in Government Departments and

Statutory Bodies in Delhi, out of which two Lok Adalats have been set up for

exercising jurisdiction in respect of public utility services including supply of power.

At present two permanent Lok Adalats with four Presiding Judges in Delhi are

dealing with electricity cases (BSES and TPDDL).

The permanent Lok Adalats do not have jurisdiction where the value of

dispute is more than ten Lakhs. It is also provided that when the parties fail to

reach an agreement, the permanent Lok Adalat shall decide the case. However,

the dispute must not relate to any offence.

18

IV. Public Grievance Cell - The Public Grievance Cell is an additional forum where

the consumers can lodge their complaints. The Public Grievance Cell cross-cuts

sectors, departments and agencies and provides a simple, virtually paperless

mechanism where the consumer can personally speak their mind pointing out

the difficulties they have faced. Complaints are lodged with the PGC when

citizens find that despite having approached the concerned agency, department

or local body, the matter remains unresolved. During hearings in the PGC, the

complainant and the departmental officers are heard side-by-side. Full

consideration is given to the problem as a relatively senior officer usually attends

the hearing. 

3. Grievance Redressal Mechanism under Regulatory Framework -

The redressal mechanism under regulatory framework caters to the

complaints of the consumers who are not satisfied with the in-house

grievance redressal mechanism of DISCOMs and the decisions of ECGRF.

Under the regulatory framework, the grievance redressal mechanisms are:

DERC, Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and Electricity Ombudsman.

I. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission – As per the Delhi Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Redressal of Consumers’ Grievances) Regulations,

2003, the Commission nominates a nodal officer to be designated as

‘Grievance Redressal Officer’, hereinafter called the GRO, for dealing with

matters relating to consumer grievances. Any person or organization may

submit his grievance to the Commission through a complaint with the

following essential submissions :

(a) That the complainant has submitted his grievance to the licensee in accordance with the licensee’s approved complaint handling procedure along with necessary documentary evidence.

(b) That the complainant is not satisfied with the final response of the licensee

or that the licensee has caused a delay in addressing the consumer’s grievance beyond the period prescribed in its complaint handling procedure.

(c) That the complaint is not pending before any Court of law or with any

other forum.

19

II. Appellate Tribunal for Electricity – The Electricity Act, 2003 has also

made provision for another forum for the aggrieved electricity consumers. If

a consumer is not satisfied with the relief or order of the DERC, then he can

approach the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) under Section 111 of

the Act.

III. Electricity Ombudsman – As per the Sub Section 42 (6) Act, the

Commission shall designate or appoint a person to be known as

Ombudsman to carry out the functions entrusted to him by the Act and the

Regulations. Any complainant, aggrieved by orders of the ECGRF may

himself or through his authorized representative make a representation in

writing, or through e-mail or website based grievance registration process to

the Ombudsman. However there is an obligation that before making a

representation to the Ombudsman, consumer must approach the Forum

constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for redressal of

his grievance. The award or the orders of the Ombudsman shall be final and

binding on the parties. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the

complainant and the distribution licensee to seek appropriate remedy

against the order passed by the Ombudsman before other appropriate

judicial bodies.

20

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF CROSS SECTION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMER RESPONDENTS

The purpose of electricity sector reforms of Delhi largely aimed at making

this sector more efficient and viable to the consumers. Following the privatisation

of Delhi’s power sector, in July 2002, GNCTD has handed over the responsibility

of power distribution to two private sector companies, namely Reliance Energy

Ltd. and TATA Power Company. These two companies signed a joint venture

with Government of NCT, Delhi. However, the generation and transmission are

still with the government.

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL), as a subsidiary of TATA

Power Company, distributes electricity in North & North West parts of Delhi and

serves a populace of 50 lakh. The registered consumer base of TPDDL is

around 12 lakh and a peak load of around 1350 MW, the company's operations

span across an area of 510 sq kms. The second company, i.e: Reliance Energy

Ltd. owned BSES which manages power distribution in two-thirds of Delhi and

supplies power to 32 lakh customers through its two companies viz: BSES

Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) (catering to South and West Delhi areas) and

BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) (catering to Central and East areas).

BYPL distributes power to an area spread over 200 sq kms with a population

density of 6750 per sq km. It’s 13.5 lakh customers are spread over 14 districts

of Delhi. BRPL, the other subsidiary of BSES distributes power to an area

spread over 750 sq. km with a population density of 2465 per sq km. It’s over

18.5 lakh customers are spread in 19 districts.

The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) is entrusted with the

distribution of electricity to the consumers in the New Delhi area under Section

195 to 201 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act 1994. The NDMC area

spread over 40 sq. km, houses Rashtrapati Bhavan, North Block and South

Block, Parliament House, Supreme Court, Prime Minister's residential complex,

bungalows of Union Ministers, national and defence establishments, besides

diplomatic missions of various countries. As far as Cantonment Area of Delhi is

21

concerned, the responsibility to provide electricity rest with the Military

Engineering Services (MES).

After a decade, though the present electricity sector has shown a

significant improvement in terms of Aggregate Technical & Commercial (AT&C)

losses, but evidence suggests that DISCOMs have repeatedly failed the

customers with confusing bills, wrongly estimation of meter reading,

mismanaging, mistreatment and ignorance to the consumer complaints. Even

after the privatisation of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), power cuts still are

frequent in many parts of Delhi, especially in summers. These problems can be

resolved by quick and easy redressal of the grievances of consumers by the

power distribution companies at the primary level, i.e. companies themselves.

Therefore, there is a dire need to assess the benchmark of quality of services

being provided by the DISCOMs.

Map: 3.1 Delhi: Power Supply Area of DISCOMs

Source: bsesdelhi.com

Experiences suggest that Indian consumers are generally ignorant,

unaware about the product and services, which they are using. Most of them can

be termed as a reluctant consumer, who don’t want to spend a little time on

22

reading the terms and condition of products and services which they use.

Though the Government at different levels, through its different regulations,

legislations is compelling producers, manufacturers and service providers to

inform the consumers about the quality and other details of their product and

services, unfortunately, due to lack of education, awareness or ignorance,

consumers are not utilizing their right to information.

Therefore, it was necessary to have the opinion of a cross section of the

residents of the Delhi about the usefulness and effectiveness of the redressal

mechanism in the electricity sector. This Chapter evaluates the perceptions of

the cross section of the respondents about the usefulness and effectiveness of

the redressal mechanism in the electricity sector.

3.1 Awareness regarding information printed on the Electricity Bill

The guidelines of DERC clearly mandate the DISCOMs to print necessary

information related to electricity connection and the services provided thereof on

the bill itself. Therefore, an attempt was made to find out the level of awareness

about the information printed on the bill among the consumers. Accordingly, 73.5

percent of the respondents said that they read the details printed on the

electricity bill while 26.5 percent of them said that they do not read the

information provided on the electricity bill.

However, when enquired in detail and asked about the information

regarding various numbers printed on the electricity bill, more than half of the

respondents replied that they know about the details provided on the bill.

According to the survey, 81 percent knew about the Meter No, 66.8 percent were

aware of the Circle/zone, 65.9 said that they were aware of the type of supply

whereas 64.9 percent knew about the meter type and 60.5 percent of the

respondents knew about the CRN No., 54.6 percent knew about the C A No.,

54.1 percent of the respondents were aware about the sanctioned load, 52.7

percent knew about pole number. As far as slab-wise energy charge is

concerned almost half of the respondents, 48.8 percent were not aware of it.

When asked about the knowledge regarding Third Party Meter Testing, majority

(61 percent) of respondents were not aware of it. Most of the complaints relate to

23

lack of awareness regarding slab wise energy charges and Third Party Meter

Testing. (Table 3.1)

Table 3.1 Awareness Regarding Information Printed on the Electricity Bill

Yes No

Read the details provided on Electricity Bill 73.5 26.5 Particulars Know Don't know CRN No. 60.5 39.5 CA No. 54.6 45.4 Meter No. 81.0 19.0 Pole No. 52.7 47.3 Sanctioned Load 54.1 45.9 Circle/Zone 66.8 33.2 Meter Type 64.9 35.1 Supply Type 65.9 34.1 Slab-wise Energy Charge 51.2 48.8 Third Party Meter Testing 39.0 61.0

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

3.2 Knowledge about Electricity Act, 2003

For getting the complaints redressed from the Electricity Redressal Forums

one needs to have fair knowledge of the Act /Laws in place for the welfare of the

consumers so that they are able to exercise their rights in a proper manner, as

prescribed under the law. Table 3.2 shows that the awareness with regard to

Electricity Act, 2003 is very less as only 26.8 percent of the total respondents

said that they know about the Act while majority of them, 73.2 percent opined

they were not aware of the Electricity Act. This shows the lack of awareness

regarding the Electricity Act which encompasses wide range of provisions for the

consumers. When enquired about the awareness about the Grievance

Redressal Mechanism under the Act, 27.5 percent of respondents said that they

knew about the mechanism while 72.5 percent said they are not aware about

any such mechanism for redressal of grievances. This clearly indicates that

there is an urgent need to make people aware about the redressal mechanism

available for the electricity consumers under the Electricity Act 2003. This low

level of awareness is a matter of concern for effectiveness of Electricity Act,

2003.

24

Table 3.2 Knowledge about Electricity Act, 2003

Overall

Response DISCOM wise knowledge about

Electricity Act, 2003 Particulars

Know Don't know

BRPL BYPL NDMC TPDDL

Electricity Act, 2003

26.8 73.2 24.8 26.5 31.7 27.8

Aware about Grievance Redressal Mechanism under this Act

27.5 72.5 23.8 29.3 32.5 29.4

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

An analysis of the data pertaining to the awareness level about the

Grievance Redressal Mechanism under this Act reveals the real strength of the

electricity sector reforms as it indicates that how much benefit actually have

reached to the electricity sector consumers. Unfortunately it has been found that

in all the DISCOM areas, both, the level of awareness about the Electricity Act,

2003 and the redressal mechanism under this Act is very low, i.e. 26.8 percent

and 27.5 percent respectively.

The DISCOM wise data indicates that the level of awareness about the

Electricity Act among the consumers is 31.7 percent for NDMC followed by 27.8

percent for TPDDL and 26.5 percent BYPL. The consumers of BRPL are least

aware about the Electricity Act (24.8 percent).

3.3 Nature of Complaint Filed and Status of the Problem

Based on the discussions with the DISCOMS and the consumers the

following problems were identified, which are normally faced by the consumers.

1. Failure of Power

2. Failure of Street Light

3. Meter Problem

4. Voltage Fluctuation

5. Transfer of Bill Change

The quality of services can be measured in terms of occurrence of

problems which frequently are being experienced by the consumers. The

respondents were asked whether during the last one year they have

25

experienced the problems mentioned in the table 3.3 or not. The highest

percentage of problem registered as per the respondents (Table 3.3) was in the

case of no current as 30 percent of the respondents faced this problem , 27.8

percent experienced problem of scheduled outages while 24.9 percent faced

problem of voltage fluctuation.

Table 3.3

Complaint Registration and Status of Problem

Experience In-House complaint (For those

who Experienced Problems)

Avenues for Complaint Registration (For those

who filed complaint)

Status of Problem

Y

es

No

Yes

No

Con

sum

er

Car

e C

entr

e

Cal

l C

entr

e

Web

se

rvic

es

Zon

al

Com

pla

int

Res

olv

ed

Unr

eso

lved

No Current 30.7 69.3 66.7 33.3 64.3 7.1 0 28.6 90.5 9.5 Voltage Fluctuation 24.9 75.1 37.3 62.7 26.3 47.4 0 26.3 78.9 21.1Disconnection 6.3 93.7 53.8 46.2 28.5 42.9 0 28.6 85.7 14.3Scheduled outages 27.8 72.2 43.9 56.1 44 36 4 16 80.0 20.0Metering problem 12.2 87.8 60.0 40.0 33.3 20 13.3 33.3 73.3 26.7Billing problem 10.7 89.3 59.1 40.9 38.5 23.1 7.7 30.8 74.6 25.4Service Line broken 4.9 95.1 80.0 20.0 50 12.5 0 37.5 75.0 25.0Power failure of street light 15.6 84.4 37.5 62.5 50 41.7 0 8.3 91.7 8.3 Theft cases 3.9 96.1 37.5 62.5 100 0 0 0 33.3 66.7Transfer of bill charges to other

2.9 97.1 50.0 50.0 0 33.3 0 66.7 66.7 33.3

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

As far as failure of street lights is concerned, 15.6 percent of the

respondents faced this problem. Metering problem was faced by 12.2 percent

and 10.7 percent had the problem with regard to billing. The least problematic

area as per the respondents was the transfer of bill charges to others, as only

2.9 percent faced this problem, followed by theft cases which accounted for 3.9

percent. The problem of service line broken was faced by 4.9 percent of the

respondents.

Out of the total respondents who faced some or the other problem in this

regard, the highest percentage of respondents who approached the in-house

complaint system of the DISCOMs for redressal of their grievances related to

broken service line as 80 percent respondents did so, followed by 70.7 percent

26

of respondents who approached it for the failure of power supply, 66.7 percent

approached it for problem of no current. The results show that majority of the

consumers had approached the in-house complaint system for redressal of their

grievances.

After knowing about the different problems, normally faced by the

consumers, the respondents were asked whether at any time, have they

registered a complaint in the in- house complaint mechanism of the DISCOMs.

Surprisingly a large section of respondents who have experienced any of the

problems had filed a complaint for one or the other reasons. 80 percent of the

respondents who said that they have experienced the problem related with

service line broken had complained to the in-house complaint centres of the

respective DISCOMs, followed by 70.7 percent of the respondents who have

faced problem related with failure of power supply. The least percentage of

complaints filed for the theft cases (37.5 percent) and power failure of street light

(37.5 percent).

The next question of enquiry was related to the preference of the

consumers regarding the avenues available to them to file a complaint. Majority

of them opined that they preferred the Consumer Care Centre for their

complaints followed by Call Centre and Zonal Complaints. The least preferred

avenue was the Web Services for registering the complaints. In the case of theft,

all the complainants have preferred Consumer Care Centre to file their

complaints. 64.3 percent of the complainants related to no current and 50

percent of the complaints for broken service line and power failure of street light

also approached the Consumer Care Centre.

As far as Call Centre as an avenue for complaint registration is

concerned, the (47.4) respondents who used this avenue related to voltage

fluctuation followed by 42.9 percent related to disconnection. In Zonal

Complaints as an avenue, the highest number of complaints related to transfer

of bill charges to other as more than half of the respondents (66.7 percent) said

that they filed their complaints there. As far as Web Services are concerned only

13.3 percent of the respondents said they preferred this option for registering

their complaint of metering, followed by 7.7 percent in case of billing and 4

percent in case of Scheduled Outages.

27

After knowing the preferred avenues for complaint registration, the

respondents were also asked about the status of their complaint- whether

pending or disposed of. Table 3.3 shows that majority of the respondents

complaints had been resolved. Category wise analysis indicates that for

metering problem, 73.3 percent of respondents complaints had been resolved, in

case of power failure of street light, 91.7 percent said that their complaints have

been resolved. Similarly, 90.5 percent respondent’s complaint of no current,

85.7 percent respondent’s complaint of disconnection, 74.6 percent respondent’s

complaint relating to billing problem, 79.3 percent respondent’s complaint of

power supply failure were resolved. Regarding voltage fluctuation, 78.9 percent

respondents said that their problem have been resolved whereas 75 percent

said their complaint of broken service line were resolved, 66.7 percent in case of

transfer of bill charges to others and 33.3 percent in case of theft cases had

been resolved.

Table 3.4 DISCOM wise Problems faced by the Consumers and the Status of the

Complaint

Problems faced by Consumers BRPL BYPL NDMC TPDDL

No Current 39.0 24.4 15.0 16.7Voltage Fluctuation 28.6 26.8 17.5 16.7Disconnection 6.7 12.2 0.0 5.6Scheduled outages 31.4 26.8 15.0 22.2Metering problem 12.4 14.6 12.5 5.6Billing problem 9.5 12.2 10.0 16.7Service Line broken 8.6 2.4 0.0 0.0Power failure of street light 20.0 17.1 5.0 16.7Theft cases 2.9 9.8 2.5 0.0Transfer of bill charges to other 2.9 4.9 2.5 0.0

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

Further DISCOM wise analysis of the incidence of problems shows that

the consumers of BRPL have more complaints than other DISCOMs while the

consumers of NDMC have lesser complaints as compared to others. As per the

data (table 3.4), 39 percent of the respondents of BRPL complained that they

faced problem of no current many times in the last one year. In case of BYPL

also the incidence of power failure is the most common issue. The consumers of

NDMC have lesser number of complaints as compared to others. No respondent

of NDMC complained about disconnection of electricity or broken service line.

As far as the responses from TPDDL area is concerned, the major problem for

28

the respondents relates to scheduled outages (22.2 percent). Interestingly, it is

the only DISCOM area where no consumer has complained about transfer of bill

charges to other, theft charges and problem of broken service line.

3.4 Contacting the DISCOM’s Call Centre

After knowing the status of the complaint registration by the respondents

at different avenues as provided by the DISCOMs, the respondents were asked

as to the number of times they approached the DISCOM’s Call Centre to redress

their complaints. Out of those consumers who approached the Call Centres

(Figure 3.1), only 30.5 percent of them said they had approached the Call Centre

of DISCOM’s only once, 22.2 percent said they did so more than four times, 18.9

percent called it twice whereas 17.9 percent called it thrice and 10.5 percent had

called in the Call Centre four times. Figure 3.1 clearly indicates that the

respondent’s grievances are not addressed on a priority basis and they have to

approach the agency a number of times to get their complaints redressed.

Figure 3.1

Contacting the DISCOM’s Call Centre Frequency of Consumers' Call to DISCOMs Call Centres

18.917.9

10.5

22.2

30.5

Once Twice Thrice Four times More that four times

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

29

3.5 Consumers perception regarding Quality of Service of the DISCOMs Call Centre

When asked about the respondent’s perception regarding quality of

service of the DISCOM Call Centres, (Table 3.5) very less percentage of the

respondents were fully satisfied with quality of services of DISCOMs. As far as

the accessibility of the call centre is concerned only 21.6 percent of the

respondents were fully satisfied with it. It is notable that the effectiveness of any

redressal agency primarily depends upon the easy accessibility of the

agency/forum to the consumers. In case of quality of service, only 26 percent of

them were fully satisfied with the behaviour of the call centre executives. As far

as redressal /remedy to the complaint is concerned, only 17.9 percent of the

respondents are satisfied to large extent and more than one fourth of the

consumers were dissatisfied with the remedy/redressal of the DISCOMs.

Table 3.5 indicates that majority of the consumers seem to be satisfied to

some extent. When asked about particulars, more than half of the respondents

(58.9 percent) were satisfied to some extent with the time taken by the call

centre executive in attending to their complaint, 56.8 percent were satisfied to

some extent with the remedy /redressal of the complaint. As far accessibility

factors to the call centres are concerned, 55.8 percent of the respondents were

satisfied only to some extent, which indicates the need for a more consumer

friendly approach to this issue. Asked about the cost effectiveness and

accessibility of the call centre, 53.8 percent of the respondents were satisfied

with it to some extent.

Table 3.5

Consumers perception regarding Quality of Service of the DISCOMs Call Centre

Particulars Satisfied to large extent

Satisfied to some extent

Not satisfied

Accessibility of the call centre 21.6 55.8 22.6

Time taken by the call centre executive 20.0 58.9 21.1

Behavior of the call centre executive 26.4 48.2 25.4

Cost effectiveness 25.3 53.8 21.9

Remedy/Redressal 17.9 56.8 25.3Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

30

Among the DISCOMs it has been found that consumers of BRPL zone

are comparatively less satisfied with the quality of Call Centres than the

consumers of other three DISCOMs. In case of accessibility of the call centre,

28.1 percent of the respondents of BRPL are not satisfied with the services of

call centre. However, this value is only 7.9 percent for NDMC zone, which is

lowest among all four DISCOMs. In the case of behaviour of the call centre

executives, only 27.3 percent of the respondents of BYPL are satisfied to a large

extent. The level of satisfaction with the behaviour of call centre executive is

again highest in NDMC zone (32.4 percent). Inter DISCOM comparison shows

that consumers of NDMC zone get quick remedy/redressal than other

DISCOMs. Data from table 3.6 indicates that 37.5 percent respondents of this

zone are satisfied to large extent to the remedies/redressal done by the NDMC.

On the other hand only 13.6 percent of the respondents of BYPL are satisfied for

the same. On the other hand 37.7 percent respondents of BRPL are unsatisfied

with the remedies/redressal made available by their DISCOMs.

Table 3.6

DISCOM wise Consumer Perception regarding Quality of Service of the Call Centre

Particulars

Satisfied to large extent

Satisfied to some extent

Not satisfied

BRPL 25.7 46.2 28.1 BYPL 22.7 63.6 13.6 NDMC 33.8 58.3 7.9

Accessibility of the Call Centre

TPDDL 27.5 51.2 21.3 BRPL 19.2 51.9 28.9 BYPL 13.6 72.8 13.6 NDMC 25.0 62.5 12.5

Time taken by the Call Centre Executive

TPDDL 25.0 62.5 12.5 BRPL 24.0 47.2 28.8 BYPL 27.3 59.1 13.6 NDMC 32.4 38.8 18.8

Behavior of the Call Centre Executive

TPDDL 27.5 50.0 22.5 BRPL 21.2 58.3 20.5 BYPL 18.2 59.0 22.8 NDMC 31.2 43.8 25.0

Cost Effectiveness

TPDDL 19.5 55.5 25.0 BRPL 17.0 45.3 37.7 BYPL 13.6 72.7 13.7 NDMC 37.5 56.3 6.2

Remedy/Redressal

TPDDL 20.0 71.6 8.4 Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

31

3.6 Awareness about different Grievance Redressal Mechanism available for Electricity Consumers

There are quite a few number of options that the consumers can choose

from to redress their grievances. They are vertical as well as horizontal

structures where the consumer can file his complaint. However an important

question is whether the consumers are aware about these systems and

structures. Table 3.7 shows the level of awareness among respondents

regarding different grievance redressal mechanisms available to them in the

electricity sector. The results show that majority of the respondents are not even

aware of the grievance redressal mechanism available to them. 73.5 percent of

respondents said that they are unaware about the DCDRF, 69.1 percent did not

know about State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 65.7 percent were not

aware about the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forums. As far as awareness

regarding the Lok Adalats (set up by DERC) is concerned, only 38 percent of

respondents knew about it and the rest 62 percent did not have any idea about

the establishment of such forums. Thus, the results clearly show that the

awareness regarding the mechanism in place for the redressal of grievances is

very low. When consumers are not aware about the mechanism how would they

approach the forums and get their problems redressed. Lack of awareness also

proves to be a hindrance in filing of complaints.

Table 3.7

Awareness about Grievance Redressal Mechanism available to Consumers

Overall Response DISCOM wise Grievance Redressal

Mechanism System

Know Don't know

BRPL BYPL NDMC TPDDL

ECGRF 34.3 65.7 34.3 29.3 37.5 38.9

SERC 30.9 69.1 24.8 18.0 32.5 38.9

PGC 31.4 68.6 29.5 41.5 25.0 33.3

DCDRF 26.5 73.5 20.0 31.5 27.5 38.9

Lok Adalat 38.0 62.0 36.2 51.2 30.0 38.9Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA 3.7 Opinion on Quality of Services Before and After Privatisation

Privatisation of the electricity was done to bring in efficiency and improve

the quality of the services being awaited by the consumers. On comparatives

32

assessment it was important to know the difference in the quality of services

before and after privatisation. Table 3.8 shows that majority of the respondents

are of the opinion that there is improvement in the quality of services as

compared to before privatization. A large majority (85.3 percent) of them said

that the quality of service has improved and only 14.7 percent said it has not

improved.

Table 3.8 Opinion on Comparative Assessment on Quality of Services Before and

After Privatisation

DISCOM Improved Unchanged

BRPL 81.0 19.0

BYPL 87.8 12.2

NDMC 92.5 7.5

TPDDL 88.9 11.1

All 85.3 14.7 Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

3.8 Consumer Opinion Different Aspects/Services before and after Privatisation

The opinion of electricity consumers on the improvement of services was

sought in order to know the difference between the quality of service before and

after privatisation. When asked about the continuity of electricity (Table 3.9),

majority of respondents, 87.8 percent opined that there has been improvement

in the continuity of electricity as compared to past experience, whereas 11.2

percent said it has unchanged. Regarding voltage stability, 79 percent of the

respondents said it has improved and 20 percent said it is the same as before.

As far as maintenance of infrastructure is concerned, 73.5 percent of

respondents said that the infrastructure has improved. For Restoration of

Supply, 72.2 percent of respondents said it has improved while 22.9 percent said

it is remained unchanged.

When asked about Billing Issues, 65.7 percent said that the billing has

improved while 22.9 percent did not find any change. Regarding Metering, 64.8

percent were of the opinion that the services have improved while 26.3 percent

did not find a change. Surprisingly 10.9 percent said that is has deteriorated.

33

As far as Grievance Redressal Mechanism is concerned, 62.8 percent of

the respondents said it has improved from the past practices of redressal of

grievances, 31.6 percent were of the opinion that it has not changed and 5.6

percent said it has deteriorated further. The respondents were also asked about

the change in the behavior of officials while dealing with consumers as

compared to the past. 56.2 percent of the respondents said the behavior has

improved, 35.3 percent said it has not changed and 8.5 percent said it has

deteriorated further.

Table 3.9 Opinion on Service Comparison before and after Privatisation

Particulars Improved Unchanged Deteriorated

Continuity of electricity 87.8 11.2 1.0

Voltage stability 79.0 20.0 1.0

Restoration of supply 72.2 22.9 4.9

Metering 64.8 24.3 10.9

Billing issues 65.7 22.9 11.4

Behavior of officials 56.2 35.3 8.5

Grievance Redressal Mechanism 62.8 31.6 5.6

Maintenance of infrastructure 73.5 18.0 8.5Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

Inter-DISCOM comparison shows that (table 3.10) most of the

respondents of all four DISCOMs opined that quality of various services has

improved as compared to last ten years. However their opinion varies from

service to service and DISCOM to DISCOM. In case of continuity of electricity,

90.2 percent respondents of BRPL and NDMC agreed that there is improvement

in the service, 77.8 percent respondent consumers of TPDDL said the same. As

far as restoration of power supply is concerned 12.5 percent respondents of

NDMC were of the opinion that situation has deteriorated during the last ten

years, which is highest among all the four DISCOMs.

It has been observed that metering and billing issues were the most

common problems faced by the consumers. Even after privatization this problem

still continues. 17.2 percent of the respondents of BYPL zone still faced metering

problems and it has increased now. 11.7 percent respondents of BRPL, 15

percent of NDMC and 10.0 percent of TPDDL are of the same opinion. In case

34

of Billing issues, 17.6 percent respondents of BRPL, 12.9 percent of BYPL, 12.5

percent of NDMC and 10.3 percent of TPDDL said that billing problem have

increased after privatisation.

Table 3.10

DISCOMs wise Consumer Opinion on Comparative Assessment of different Aspects/Services before and after privatization

Particulars Improved Unchanged Deteriorated

BRPL 90.2 8.8 1.0BYPL 78.6 19.0 2.4NDMC 90.2 7.4 2.4

Continuity of Electricity

TPDDL 77.8 22.2 0.0BRPL 79.6 19.4 1.0BYPL 78.0 19.5 2.5NDMC 76.3 21.1 2.6

Voltage Stability

TPDDL 83.3 16.7 0.0BRPL 71.4 23.8 4.8BYPL 66.6 31.0 2.4NDMC 70.0 17.5 12.5

Restoration of Supply

TPDDL 68.4 31.6 0.0BRPL 64.5 23.8 11.7BYPL 68.2 14.6 17.2NDMC 65.0 20.0 15.0

Metering

TPDDL 67.2 22.8 10.0BRPL 61.7 20.7 17.6BYPL 65.2 22.0 12.8NDMC 67.5 20.0 12.5

Billing Issues

TPDDL 58.2 31.6 10.2BRPL 51.4 38.1 10.5BYPL 56.1 34.1 9.8NDMC 67.5 25.5 7.0

Behavior of Officials

TPDDL 57.9 33.8 8.3BRPL 58.1 33.3 8.6BYPL 63.4 26.8 9.8NDMC 72.5 25.0 2.5

Grievance Redressal Mechanism

TPDDL 61.1 35.8 3.1BRPL 71.4 17.2 11.4BYPL 73.2 17.0 9.8NDMC 82.5 10.0 7.5

Maintenance of Infrastructure

TPDDL 61.1 33.3 5.6Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

3.9 Opinion of Consumers on Tariff Structure

As regards the Tariff structure in the electricity sector, more than half of

the respondents (66.5 percent) were of the opinion that the tariff structure of

electricity is reasonable while 33.5 percent of the respondents said it was

unreasonable. DISCOM wise data indicates that respondents of BRPL zone are

more dissatisfied with the tariff structure as 42 percent of them felt that it was

35

unreasonable. Respondents of NDMC (27.5 percent) were comparatively less

dissatisfied with the present electricity tariff. BYPL (36.8 percent) consumers

found it to be unreasonable. Infact the responses are mixed. Quite many of the

respondents feel that the tariff structure is unreasonable and they are forced to

pay a higher tariff.

Table 3.11 Opinion of Consumer on Cost of Tariff

DISCOM Reasonable Unreasonable BRPL 58.0 42.0 BYPL 63.2 36.8 NDMC 72.5 27.5 TPDDL 64.7 35.3 All 66.5 33.5

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

3.10 Consumer Opinion on Improving Grievance Redressal Mechanism

Consumers who use the system can also give the best feedback about its

functioning. There is no doubt that any system which is in place can work

wonders if the people manning it handle it in an effective and efficient manner.

The respondents were of the opinion that there is marked improvement in the

quality of services being provided as compared to previous years, but seeing the

increase in number of complaints in the electricity sector, the respondents were

asked as to how the present system can be further improved. The majority, (82.9

percent) of the respondents (Table 3.12) were of the opinion that it can be

improved only if time bound disposal of the complaints at every level is adhered

to, followed by 78 percent of respondents who were of the opinion that the

mechanism can be improved by educating the consumers through mass

awareness programmes as people will get to know about the redressal

mechanisms and how they can file complaints and seeks remedy. Lack of

adequate information is a major problem.

74.6 percent of respondents said that the mechanism can be improved by

penalizing the dealing officers for non-compliance, while 69.3 percent of them

said that a unified redressal mechanism can bring out improvement in the

existing system of electricity grievance redressal mechanism. 65.9 percent were

of the opinion that the redressal forums should be empowered with execution

powers so that they can function more effectively.

36

Thus, majority the respondents though satisfied but still look for a lot of

improvement in the present structure so that their grievance can be redressed in

a time bound manner and cost effectively.

Table 3.12 Consumer Opinion on Improving Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Electricity

Sector

Particulars Yes No

Through unified redressed mechanism 69.3 30.7

Time bound disposal of the complaints at every level 82.9 17.1

Enabling the forums with execution powers 65.9 34.1

Dealing officers should be penalized for non-compliance 74.6 25.4

By mass awareness programmes 78.0 22.0Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

3.11 Consumers Opinion about the most effective Grievance Redressal Mechanisms

After knowing the opinion of respondents regarding various ways in which

improvement in the present structures can be brought about, the respondents

were also asked as to rank the grievance redressal mechanism which they think

is the best, out of the available mechanisms. (Table 3.13) 51.1 percent of the

respondents rated ECGRF as the best forum followed by 19.3 percent who

found, Public Grievance Cell as the best mechanism, 17.8 percent said DCDRF

is the best forum for redressal of grievances and 11.9 percent said SERC in their

opinion is the best mode of redressal of grievances in the electricity sector. The

results thus show that majority of the respondents supported ECGRF as the

most effective redressal mechanism. However a lot of improvement is required

to be done in the way they are managed, timely disposal of cases and above all

accessibility of forums, so that they are able to serve the consumers in a much

better way.

Table 3.13 Most Effective Grievance Redressal Mechanisms in Consumers’ opinion

Grievance Redressal Mechanisms Consumer opinion

ECGRF 51.1

SERC 11.9

PGC 19.3

DCDRF 17.8Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

37

CHAPTER IV

PERCEPTION OF THE COMPLAINANTS

The Electricity Act 2003 and subsequent developments such as National

Electricity Policy, National Tariff Policy, Rural Electrification and others provide a

strong legal and policy framework to the NCT Delhi for creation of a well

structured, and consumer centric electricity grievance redressal mechanism. For

example, DERC, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE), Ombudsman,

Public Grievance Cell, ECGRFs and other courts of the land like Lok Adalats

and DCDRFs are different avenues available for the electricity consumers. Apart

from this, the guidelines of State Electricity Regulatory Commission have also

laid strong emphasis on strengthening the in-house grievance redressal

mechanism within the DISCOMs. The purpose of these forums is to give quick

and easy redressals to the consumers. At a minimum, the consumers can

expect and deserve a free and fair redressal to their grievances. But how does

these redressal mechanisms actually function, is the question of enquiry.

If a consumer experiences any kind of ‘defect’ or ‘deficiency’ in the

product or service of DISCOMs he/she can approach the aforesaid forums in the

form of complaint/protest/objection for redrassal of their grievances. If a

consumer approaches any of the aforesaid forums to redress his grievances

he/she shall be treated as a complainant as per the DERC (Grievance Redressal

Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011. As per the regulation, complainant

means;

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) an applicant for a new electricity connection;

(iii) any consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any law relating to registration of societies and /or Charitable institutions or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iv) any unregistered association or group of consumers, having common or similar interests;

(v) In case of death of a consumer, his legal heirs or authorised representatives;

38

(vi) Any other person claiming through or authorized by or acting as agent for the consumer and affected by the services or business carried out by the distribution licensee.

Here ‘defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality,

quantity, or standard of service, equipment or material which is required to be

maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract,

express or implied, or under any license or as is claimed by the distribution

licensee in any manner whatsoever in relation to electricity service;

Whereas ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or

inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required

to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any

license or has been undertaken to be performed by distribution licensee in

pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to electricity service or

performance standard; viz Interruption/ failure of Power supply, Voltage

complaints, metering problems including meter shifting, charges/ payments

(billing problems), disconnection/reconnection of power supply to the consumer,

new connections/extensions in load, notice of supply interruptions, violations of

Electricity Supply Code, contravention of Act, rules or regulations made there

under with regard to consumer interest.

The Act has made specific provisions to give easy and inexpensive

remedies to the electricity consumers. On receipt of the consumer grievance, the

Secretary shall send an acknowledgement to the applicant within 7 days of

receipt of a complaint. A copy of the grievance shall be forwarded

simultaneously to the concerned officer of the distribution licensee for redressal

or to file objection if any in writing within 10 days, in case the distribution

licensee is not agreeable to the request of the complainant. On receipt of the

comments from the distribution licensee or otherwise and after conducting or

having such inquiry or local inspection conducted as the forum may consider

necessary, and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties,

the Forum shall pass appropriate orders for disposal of the grievance, as far as

possible, within 60 days of filing the complaint.

39

The Forum shall not be bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the

Civil Procedure. The decision/s of the Forum shall be based on the opinion of

the majority members of the Forum present and voting. The certified copy of the

order of the Forum shall be communicated to the Complainant and distribution

licensee in writing within 7 days from the date of order. The distribution licensee

shall comply with the order of the Forum within 21 days from the date of issue of

the order. The decision/s of the Forum is not binding on consumers; they can

make a representation before the Ombudsman appointed/designated by the

Commission. However, DISCOMs cannot approach Ombudsman against the

decision of Forums.

Seeing the different provisions under the Act, one can easily make out

that the Act is quite consumer friendly keeping in view the welfare of consumers.

It provides a lot of avenues for redressal of grievances of the electricity

consumers. Out of the different avenues in the consumer redressal mechanism,

the electricity forums are the torch bearers. But of late, it is being said that

electricity forums are not able to meet the expectations of the consumers who

file a complaint in these forums. The delay in disposal of the complaints and the

small amount of compensation awarded has not attracted the consumers

towards the redressal forums.

Therefore, it was necessary to have the opinion of complainants of the

four DISCOMs. This Chapter evaluates the perceptions of the cross section of

the respondents about the usefulness and effectiveness of the redressal

mechanism in the electricity sector.

4.1 Distribution of Complainants

Approaching a grievance redressal system would be a last option for an

aggrieved electricity consumer. Though the DISCOMs of Delhi have provided

different in-house grievance redressal avenues to their consumers but it has

been found that many of the electricity consumers are dissatisfied with the

solution/remedies provided by the DISCOMs. Therefore, the opinion of the

respondents was sought with regard to the fact that how many of them

approached the different avenues/forums meant for their welfare.

40

Figure 4.1 shows the DISCOM wise distribution of respondents who have

approached any of the aforesaid forums for their complaint. It can be seen from

the figure that overall 6.6 percent of the respondents have approached these

forums. Among the DISCOMs, 8.2 percent respondents of NDMC have filed their

complaints, which is highest among all the DISCOMs. In TPDDL zone, least

number of respondents (5.6 percent) have approached the forums for their

grievances. Since very less percentage of consumers is approaching the

aforesaid forums, it can be concluded that awareness regarding the redressal

mechanism in electricity sector is very low among the consumers.

Figure 4.1

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.2 Type of Forums approached by the Respondents

Among the respondents who knew about the different redressal

mechanism available to redress their grievances, 60.7 percent of them replied

that they approached the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

(ECGRF) for getting their problems resolved, followed by 36.2 percent who said

they approached the Public Grievance Cell of Delhi, 29.3 percent approached

the Lok Adalat, while 25.9 percent approached the District Consumer Dispute

Redressal Forum (DCDRF). Only 12.1 percent said that they approached State

Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) for solution to their grievances. (table

4.1) During discussion it was revealed that many consumers approached

41

different forums at different point of time. However the preference was for the

ECGRF.

Table 4.1

Forums approached by complainants

Type of Forum approached by the consumer (out of the consumer who approached to the forum)

ECGRF DERC PGC DCDRF LA BRPL 71.3 18.8 50.0 18.8 37.5BYPL 80.9 0.0 9.1 27.3 18.2NDMC 42.9 5.9 35.3 41.2 47.1TPDDL 54.3 21.4 42.9 14.3 7.1All 60.7 12.1 36.2 25.9 29.3

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.3 Reason for Filing Complaint in a Particular Forum

As the respondents who approached the aforesaid forums are very less,

they were also asked the reason for filing a complaint in a particular forum.

Presently the electricity consumers of Delhi have multiple avenues to redress

their grievance. There may be a case where a consumer in a particular

region/area has access to multiple avenues to file his/her complaint, in the

aforesaid forums.

More than half of the respondents who filed their complaint in ECGRF

(60.7 percent) said they knew only about this forum, followed by 46.4 who

quoted “Easy to Access” as the reason for approaching, cost effectiveness (42.9

percent) was the other reason accorded by the complainants as the reason for

approaching the forum and 42.9 for quick redressal followed by 25 percent of

them who said the reason was the strong compliance mechanism and 21.4

percent agreed it was suggested by others. Regarding approaching DERC, half

of the respondents agreed that they knew only about this forum. For cost

effectiveness and easy to access, 75 percent respondents said that DERC is

neither cost effective nor easy to access. Interestingly all the complainants (100

percent) were of the opinion that the DERC does not provide quick redressal.

Similarly for approaching DCDRFs, the responses were mixed. Out of

the complainants who approached the DCDRFs, 63.9 percent of the

complainants said they knew only about this forum, 55.6 percent said it was

suggested by others while majority of them regarded none of the following - cost

42

effective, easy to access, quick redressal and strong compliance mechanism as

the reasons for approaching the forum. When asked about Lok Adalats, 66.7

percent said they knew about only this forum therefore they approached the Lok

Adalat (table 4.2).

Table 4.2

Reason for Filing Complaint in a Particular Forum

ECGRF DERC DCDRF Lok Adalat Particulars Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Know about this Forum 61.3 38.7 50.0 50.0 63.9 36.1 66.7 33.3 Cost Effective 42.9 57.1 25.0 75.0 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7 Easy to Access 46.4 53.6 25.0 75.0 38.9 61.1 50.0 50.0 Quick Redressal 42.9 57.1 0.0 100.0 30.6 69.4 16.7 83.3

Strong Compliance Mechanism 25.0 75.0 25.0 75.0 22.2 77.8 16.7 83.3 Suggested by Others 21.4 78.6 25.0 75.0 55.6 44.4 33.3 66.7 Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.4 Complainants Experience about the Redressal Mechanism

The effectiveness of any system can be measured by the quality of

service delivery and disposal of complaints in the prescribed time frame. When

asked about the experience of the complainants regarding the redressal

mechanism they approached and the level of satisfaction with the procedures

adopted, 42.9 percent respondents who have filed complaint in ECGRF and 37.3

percent in DCDRF were not satisfied with the redressal mechanism and said the

process and procedure was difficult. (Figure 4.2)

Figure 4.2

Found any difficulty after lodging Complaint

Complaints Experience regarding difficulty after Filling Complaint

42.9

57.1

37.3

62.7

Yes No Yes No

ECGRF DCDRF

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

Figure 4.3 indicates that 37.5 percent of the BRPL complainants have

said that they have experienced difficulty after lodging their complaint, while 34.6

percent complainants of BYPL have opined the same. Complainants of NDMC

43

are the least sufferers as only 9.1 percent of them said that they have

experienced difficulty after filing the complaint. Actually, the NDMC area

constitutes the core of the city. It includes Rashtrapati Bhawan, Parliament

House, Government of India Headquarters, Government Housing, Private

Housing, the Central Business District of the City and Prominent Institutions. As

this area is a VIP Zone and inhabited by high profile people, therefore, their

complaints are being taken care of properly by all the agencies/departments.

Figure 4.3

DISCOM wise Responses regarding Difficulty in Filling Complaint in ECGRF

37.550.0

12.5

34.645.9

19.59.1

80.9

10.0

24.6

69.6

5.8

Yes No NoAnswer

Yes No NoAnswer

Yes No NoAnswer

Yes No NoAnswer

BRPL BYPL NDMC NDPL

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.5: Status of Complaint

The status of the complaint is an important indicator of the effectiveness

of the redressal mechanism. The table 4.3 reveals that a large number of

complaints remained unresolved and were pending. 40.5 percent of the

respondents of ECGRF and 53.8 percent of DCDRF said that their complaints

were still pending in the Forums while 51.8 percent of ECGRF complainants and

43.6 percent of DCDRF complainants said their complaints have been resolved.

The data highlights the performance level of the forums leaves much to be

desired. (table 4.3)

Table 4.3 Status of Complaint

Response ECGRF DCDRF Resolved 51.8 43.6

Pending 40.5 53.8

Rejected 7.7 2.6

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

44

DISCOM wise assessment of status of complaint is shown in Figure 4.4.

According to the data, TPDDL has highest disposal of complaints in comparison

to other three forums. 64.3 percent of the complainant respondents from TPDDL

opined that their complaints had been resolved. NDMC resolved the lowest

number of complaints as only 38.5 percent of the complainant/respondents

confirmed this. It has been found that the post of Chairman in NDMC CGRF has

been vacant for a long period of time and it may be one of the reasons of high

pendency in the forum. In case of BRPL this value is 50 percent and for BYPL it

is 53.3 percent. The study suggests that hardly 50 percent of the complaints on

an average are disposed off and the pendency has been increasing.

Figure 4.4

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.6 Satisfaction with the Relief/Redressal given by the Forums

The satisfaction level of complainants with regard to the way the dispute

has been resolved is an important indicator of the functioning of the redressal

mechanism. 35.3 percent of the complainants of DCDRF were not satisfied with

the relief/redressal given by the Forum while 47.2 percent of ECGRF were not

satisfied with the redressal /relief given by the forum (Figure 4.5). It means that a

large section of the respondent/complainants of ECGRF were not satisfied with

the relief/redressal provided by the forums.

45

Figure 4.5

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

Figure 4.6 illustrates the DISCOM wise satisfaction level with the

relief/redressal provided by the forums. As per the data, 58.3 percent respondent

complainants of TPDDL were satisfied with the relief/redressal given by the

forums, which is highest among all the four ECGRFs. The lowest satisfaction

level is found among NDMC respondents (45.5 percent).

Figure: 4.6 DISCOM wise Satisfaction with the Relief/Redressal

53.3

26.720.0

54.5

27.3

18.2

45.5

36.4

18.1

58.3

25.0

16.7

Yes

No

No

Answ

er

Yes

No

No

Answ

er

Yes

No

No

Answ

er

Yes

No

No

Answ

er

BRPL BYPL NDMC NDPL

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.7 Satisfaction with the procedure adopted by the Forums

As far as satisfaction with the procedures adopted by the Redressal

Forums is concerned, (Table 4.4) 56.7 percent of the complainants said they

were satisfied with the procedures of ECGRF while 49.3 percent of the

respondents of DCDRF satisfied with the procedures of redressal being adopted

by the District Forums. While analyzing the data and also the procedures

adopted by both these forums indicates that DCDRF is taking longer time and

involves a lot of paper work therefore their procedure is more complicated in

46

comparison to the ECGRF. The data also reveals that the satisfaction level is

only moderate.

Table 4.4

Response ECGRF DCDRF

Yes 56.7 49.3

No 35.0 41.6

No Answer 8.3 9.1

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

A comparative study of the satisfaction level with the procedures adopted

by different ECGRF, has been exhibited in the Figure 4.7. It is evident that the

respondents of BYPL zone have comparatively higher level of satisfaction (63.6

percent) with the procedures adopted by respective ECGRF than other three

forums. The respondents of BRPL zone seems to be least satisfied with the

procedures adopted by their ECGRF, as 43.8 percent of them have negative

response. In case of TPDDL, 61.5 percent of the respondents and in NDMC

zone 58.3 percent respondents opined that they are satisfied with the

procedures adopted by the forums.

Figure: 4.7

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.8 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Reliefs/Redressal provided by the Forums

The reasons of dissatisfaction among the complainants were many. 55.6

percent of ECGRF and 83.3 percent of DCDRF complainants who are

dissatisfied with their respective forum’s decisions blamed delay in decision by

the forums, followed by 33.2 percent of ECGRF and 26.7 percent of DCDRF

held low compensation as one of the reason of dissatisfaction (table 4.5). It is

notable that were 61.1 percent of the respondents opined that the forums were

biased in favour of DISCOMs. However this factor is pointed out by only 20

47

percent of the respondents of DCDRF. The consumers are of the view that

these redressal mechanism are not fair and favour the DISCOMs. On the other

hand, major complaint against the DCDRF is that their cases are not heard

properly, 60 percent of the DCDRF respondents agreed with this view. The

findings point out that the consumers by and large do not have faith in the

redressal mechanism set up by the DISCOMs but they have little choice.

Table: 4.5 Reason for Dissatisfaction with Redressal Mechanism

Reason for Dissatisfaction ECGRF DCDRF

Delayed decision 55.6 83.3

Unsatisfactory Compensation 33.2 26.7

Case not heard properly 44.4 60.0

Order is not executed 28.4 13.3

Forum biased in favor of DISCOM 61.1 20.0

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA 4.9 Opinion about Functioning of ECGRF

When asked about their views on the functioning of the ECGRF (Table

4.6), 84.2 percent of the complainants said their complaint was acknowledged

within 7 days of receipt of the complaint. When asked about disposal of the

complaint by the ECGRF within period of 60 Days, 57.9 percent said it is done in

the prescribed time while rest of the respondents (42.1 percent) said it is not

disposed of in the given time frame. As regards compliance of the order of the

forum by the DISCOMs within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order, 68.4

percent said that it is being done while 31.6 percent said that there is no

compliance of orders within the prescribed time limit.

Table: 4.6

Opinion about Functioning of ECGRF

Response Particulars

Yes No

Acknowledged your complaint within a period of 7 days of its receipt 84.2 15.8

Disposal of the complaint by the ECGRF within period of 60 Days 57.9 42.1

Compliance of the order of the forum by the DISCOMs within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order

68.4 31.6

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

48

4.10 Opinion about Functioning of DCDRF

When asked about the functioning of the DCDRF, (Table 4.7) 83.9

percent of the complainants said their complaint was registered /rejected within a

period of 21 days of its receipt. On disposal of the complaint by the DCDRF

within a period of 90/150 days, only 37.5 percent of them opined that the

complaints were disposed of within the time limit. For compliance of the orders of

the Forum by the DISCOMs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order,

85.7 percent of them said that the compliance of orders is done. While 14.3

percent said there is no compliance of the order.

Table: 4.7

Opinion about Functioning of DCDRF

Response Particulars

Yes No

Registered/Rejected complaint within a period of 21 days of its receipt

83.9 16.1

Disposal of the complaint by the DCDRF within a period of 90/150 days

37.5 62.5

Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order

85.7 14.3

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.11Awareness about Electricity Ombudsman

Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non –redressal of his grievances by

the forum established by the distribution licensee under the Act, may make a

representation for redressal of his grievance to an authority known as

Ombudsman. The ombudsman shall exercise his general powers as are

available to a Forum , advice the Commission on redressal of grievances of the

Consumer and after hearing a forum or any other interested party, issue orders

,instructions or directions to any forum for the performance of its functions under

these regulations, as it may deem fit.

But the majority of the respondents are not even aware of the existence of

the Electricity Ombudsman. Majority of the complainants (86.4 percent) were not

even aware of the Electricity Ombudsman. Merely 13.6 percent of the

respondents said they were aware of the Electricity Ombudsman (figure 4.8).

49

Awareness about the various institutional mechanism among the consumer is

very low. At the time of field survey the post of ombudsman was vacant therefore

data related with cases filed in ombudsman could not be accessed. However on

May 25, 2012 DERC has appointed an electricity ombudsman for addressing

electricity related grievances of consumers of DISCOMs.

Figure: 4.8

Awareness about Electricity Ombudsman

Yes, 13.6

No, 86.4

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

4.12 Approaching Ombudsman after dissatisfaction with ECGRF Decision

After a complaint is rejected by the ECGRFs the complainant has an

option to file a complaint with the Ombudsman. But as majority of the consumers

are unaware about the existence of the Ombudsman they do not file complaints

there. However, only 1.46 percent of the respondents said that they have

approached ombudsman after dissatisfaction with ECGRFs decision.

Figure 4.9

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

50

However looking at the number of complaints filed in the ECGRFs,

complaint being filed with the Ombudsman is very negligible. It shows that

people are unaware and therefore cannot avail the benefits of the Ombudsman

which is especially established to solve their problems.

4.13 Awareness about CPA, 1986

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent, unique and highly

progressive piece of social welfare legislation providing for simple, speedy and

less expensive remedy for the redressal of consumer grievances in relation to

defective goods and deficient services. The Act provides effective, people

oriented, broad based and efficient remedy to consumers against unfair dealings

and exploitation. Consumer Protection Act is a weapon in the hands of

consumers to fight against exploitation by traders, manufacturers, sellers and

service providers. The Act makes provision for the establishment of Consumer

Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes. The Act

has been operative in all the states of the country except the state of J&K.

Before the CPA came into operation no doubt there were other legislations to

protect the consumers, but the CPA is an improvement over the other existing

laws for consumer protection as it is compensatory in nature. On the other hand

remedies under other laws are basically punitive or preventive in nature and are

designed to provide relief only in specific situations.

Figure: 4.9

Level of Awarness about CP Act, 1986

27.3

72.7

18.2

81.8

37.9

62.1

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Awarness about CPA, 1986 Awarness about SixConsumer Rights

Awarness about theRedressal Mechanism under

Source: Primary Survey Conducted by CCS, IIPA

The study also tried to find out the level of awareness about C P Act

among the Complainants (Figure 4.9). Of all the respondents, only 27.3 percent

51

of them knew about the Consumer Protection Act. 72.7 percent were unaware

about this Act.

When asked about the six consumer rights under the CP Act, majority of

the complainants (81.8 percent) were not aware of the six consumer rights while

only 18.2 percent opined that they are aware of the same. Seeing the low level

of awareness regarding CP Act it was quite obvious that the respondents would

also not be knowing much about the redressal mechanism. The data supports it,

as only 37.9 percent of the complainants were aware of the redressal

mechanism under the CPA.

52

Chapter V

PERCEPTION OF CHAIRMAN/ MEMBERS OF CGRFS ON FUNCTIONING OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUMS

The Electricity Act, 2003 made specific provisions seeking to protect the

consumers’ interests. Section 43 of the Act provides for universal service

obligation for the licensee to provide connection to a consumer within a

stipulated period of time, failing which the licensee is liable to pay compensation

to the affected consumer. In pursuance to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003,

in Delhi, the DISCOM-wise CGRFs and the Appellate Institution of the Electricity

Ombudsman were set up in August, 2004. These CGRFs consists of three

members including the Chairperson of the Forum. The Chairman shall have a

degree in electrical engineering, while one member shall have to have a degree

in law and preferable experience in the electricity sector. The third member shall

be from NGO/Consumer Organization background.

At present, the DISCOMs submit a list of recommendations for the

Chairman and Members post to the DERC. The DERC then chooses the

Chairman and other members from the list suggested by the DISCOMs. The

salaries of the staffs and the expenditures incurred at the offices of CGRFs are

met by DISCOMs. At many occasions, the Consumer Grievance Redressal

Forum (CGRF) has been accused of being biased towards the DISCOMs. They

have been termed as the part of licensee. The DERC has been flooded with

complaints from consumers alleging that the forums are not transparent and fair.

Against this backdrop, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission brought

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011

which said that the Forums shall be independent of the Commission and

distribution licensee. The Commission has right to decide the appropriate

number of forums for each distribution Licensees. Forum shall consist of not

more than three members including the Chairperson of the Forum. The

Commission shall invite applications for selection of Chairman and Members of

the Forum and may prepare a panel of persons who are eligible according to the

53

qualifications hereinafter prescribed and shall appoint them on behalf of the

distribution licensee.

The eligibility criteria for the appointment of the members of the Forums are as

follows:

(i) Chairperson of the Forum shall be a person possessing degree in electrical engineering, having served not below the rank of Superintending Engineer and having experience in the distribution of electricity.

(ii) One member shall be a person possessing degree in law and having at least 10 years of experience in legal matters, which preferably includes experience in electricity sector for a period of at least three years; Provided when the Chairperson of the Forum is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the member indicated in Regulation 4(5) (ii) shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson, until the day on which the Chairperson assumes office.

(iii) Another member shall be a representative of a registered society or NGO/Consumer Organization having one of its main objectives as consumer protection, with at least 5 years of standing or alternatively the representing member should have five years of experience in consumer related matters.

The functioning and usefulness of the CGRFs is not only depends on the

availability of adequate staff, infrastructure, financial support to the forums by the

DISCOMs and DERC but also very much on the competence, efficiency,

punctuality, and the autonomy in decision making of the Chairman and the

Members of CGRFs. Therefore, it was necessary to have the opinion of all the

Members of Electricity Forums about the existing working environment at the

Forums. This Chapter analyses the functioning of ECGRFs and tries to analyse

the type of cases which are being filed and disposed off in the forums.

5.1 Knowledge of the Legal Provisions while Handling Cases The Chairman/ members are the ones who practically deal with the

complaints of electricity consumers and are well versed with their functioning

and have an idea that to what extent these forums are able to provide redressal

to the aggrieved consumers. Therefore, the study tried to find out the functioning

and effectiveness of these forums. The Chairman and members of the ECGRFs

were therefore asked whether Law degree is an important prerequisite for

54

effective decision making or not. Majority of the Chairman /members were of the

opinion that it is not an important prerequisite. However one member was of the

opinion that it is important and would help in effective decision making. When

asked about the Knowledge of the Legal Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 as a

prerequisite, majority of the respondents agreed that the Knowledge of the Legal

Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is very important in deciding the cases. (Table

5.1)

Table5.1

Knowledge of the Legal Provisions while handling cases

Opinion about the Law Degree as a prerequisite for effective decision

making (Responses - Yes/No/NA)

Opinion about the Knowledge of the Legal Provisions of Electricity

Act, 2003 as a prerequisite (Responses - Yes/No/NA)

DISCOMs

Chairman Legal Member

Member (NGO/VCO)

Chairman Legal Member

Member (NGO/VCO)

BRPL NO NO No Reply Yes Yes No Reply

BYPL NA No Reply Yes Yes Yes Yes TPDDL/TPDDL

NO NO NA Yes Yes Yes

NDMC

No Reply NA No Reply No Reply Yes No Reply

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

5.2 Problems faced by the ECGRFs while handling Cases

The Chairman and Members were also asked about the problems which

they are facing while working in the forums.(Table 5.2) The responses of forums

differed on certain issues. All the ECGRFs agreed that shortage of members,

lack of technical knowledge, non-cooperation from DISCOMs, shortage of

stationary (Paper, Stamp, Envelopes, etc) are the problems which are common

in their forums and wanted adequate number of trained and skilled members for

the effective functioning of the forums. In case of lack of supporting staff, lack of

infrastructure, lack of fund for day to day miscellaneous expenses, etc. the

ECGRF of BRPL was of the opinion that they faced these problems while the

55

others- BYPL, TPDDL/TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that they do not

face these problems.

But the major problem as far as forums of TPDDL and BRPL are

concerned relates to accessibility. They are not approachable by public transport

which acts as damper in lodging complaints by the consumers.

Table 5.2 Problems faced by the ECGRFs while handling cases

Opinion of ECGRFs (Yes/No) Type of Problems

BRPL BYPL TPDDL/TPDDL

NDMC

1 Shortage of Members No No No No

2 Lack of Technical Knowledge No No No No

3 Lack of Supporting Staff Yes No No No

4 Lack of Infrastructure Yes No No No

5 Lack of Fund for day to day Miscellaneous Expenses

Yes No No No

6 Non-cooperation from DISCOM No No No No

7 Shortage of Stationary (Paper, Stamp, Envelope etc)

No No No No

8 Shortage of Funds to meet day to day Expenses

Yes No No No

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

5.3 Time Taken by ECGRFs to redress a Complaint

The effectiveness of any system can be gauzed by the way complaints

are disposed or in other words by the timely redressal of consumer grievances.

The Chairman and members of the Forums were asked about the average time

taken by the forums for different procedures to redress a complaint. In reply to

this, said that they abide by the time frame as mentioned in the Electricity Act.

As far as acknowledging the complaint is concerned, BRPL and NDMC

ECGRF’s opined that they acknowledge the complaint within seven days of it’s

receipt while BYPL and TPDDL ECGRF’s said that they acknowledge the

complaint the same day when they receive it.

56

Table 5.3 Time taken by ECGRFs to Redress a Complaint

No. of Days Sl. No.

Procedure

BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC

1 Acknowledging the Complaint 7 1 1 7

2 Furnishing Complaint by nominated employee of DISCOMs

15 – 30 5 15 15

3 Disposal of the Complaint by the CGRF

50 - 60 50 30 - 60 60

4 Compliance of the order of the Forum by the DISCOMs

Within 21 days

30 21 21

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

For furnishing complaint by nominated employee of DISCOMs, BRPL

furnished the same within 15-30 days, TPDDL and NDMC within 15 days while

BYPL did the same within 5 days as shown in table 5.3. With regard to disposal

of the complaints by the ECGRF, all of them said they disposed off the

complaints within 30-60 days. The compliance of the order of the forum by

DISCOMs BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC is done within 21 days while BYPL does so

within 30 days.

5.4 Reasons for delay in Disposal of Complaints

It is rightly said justice delayed is justice denied. The opinion of the

members and the chairman of the forums was sought with regard to the reasons

for delay in disposal of complaints. The responses varied from one forum to

another. With regard to involvement of advocates, all the ECGRFs agreed that it

was not the reason for delay in disposal of the complaint. Asking for undue

adjournments and disinterested consumers was referred to as the reasons for

the delay in disposal of complaints by the BRPL ECGRF. Delay due to product

testing and technical proceedings were other reasons referred to by the

ECGRFs as the reasons for the delay in disposal of complaints by BRPL and

TPDDL (Table 5.4)

Thus, the forums were of the opinion that they by and large are disposing

of the cases well in time and wherever there is delay it was due to the certain

reasons which if taken care can lead to quicker disposal of complaints.

57

Table 5.4 Reasons for delay in disposal of complaints

Sl. No.

Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL/ TPDDL

NDMC

1 Involvement of advocates No No No No

2 Asking for undue adjournments Yes No No No

3 Consumer disinterested Yes No No No

4 Lack of quorum of district forums No No No No

5 Technical proceedings No No Yes No

6 Due to product testing Yes No Yes No

7 Non cooperation by the advocates No No No No

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.5 Opinion of ECGRFs Members on Execution of Orders and Related Problems

When the ECGRFs were asked about their opinion whether they are

facing problems in the execution of orders of the ECGRF, BYPL and TPDDL

said that they faced problems with this regard only sometimes. While BRPL and

NDMC opined that they never face problem of execution of the order. As far as

matter of getting adequate support from DISCOMs is concerned all the ECGRFs

were of the opinion that they get adequate support from the DISCOMs. BRPL

and TPDDL said that they face problems due to Third Party Meter Testing while

BYPL and NDMC said they do not face this problem. (Table 5.5)

Table 5.5 Opinion of ECGRFS on Execution of Orders and Related Problems

Facing problems in the

execution of the orders of the ECGRF

Getting adequate support from

DISCOMs

Problem due to Third Party Meter Testing

Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes

BRPL √ √ √ BYPL √ √ √ TPDDL √ √ √ NDMC √ √ √

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.6 Type of Problems related with Third Party Meter Testing Procedure

Table 5.6 clearly shows the type of problems faced related to Third Party

Meter Testing Procedure. TPDDL was of the opinion that they are facing

problems regarding Third Party Meter Testing due to shortage of labs for testing,

delay in sending report and difficulty in interpreting report. While BRPL was of

58

the opinion that they find problems in the Third Party Meter testing due to the

failure of contract with agencies. On the other hand BYPL and NDMC did not

mention any such problems in response to this question. The practical problem

which majority of the members mentioned was that the contract with the Third

Party Meter testing agencies was over and therefore it was not possible to

enforce this service properly.

Table 5.6 Type of problems related with Third Party Meter Testing Procedure

Sl. No.

Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC

1 Shortage of labs for testing - - √ -

2 Delay in sending report - - √ -

3 Difficulty in interpreting report - - √ -

4 Labs are influenced by DISCOMs

- - - -

5 Due to failure of contract √ - - -

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.7 Reasons for not filing complaints in the ECGRF by Consumers

When the ECGRFs were asked about the reasons for lesser number of

complaints being filed in the forums ,BRPL,TPDDL and NDMC were of the

opinion that in general the consumers are indifferent and casual towards their

problems and hence not in favour of filing complaints in the ECGRFs.

Table 5.7

Reasons for not filing complaints in the ECGRF by Consumers

Sl. No.

Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC

1 In general, consumers are indifferent and casual towards their problem

√ √ √

2 Don’t want to fight for their rights √

3 Do not have faith in long procedures of redressal

√

4 Do not have much idea about the Act & redressal mechanism

√ √ √ √

5 High cost of litigation

6 Afraid of court’s technicalities √

7 Small compensation amount

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

59

TPDDL was also of the opinion that the consumers don’t want to fight for their

rights while BRPL was of the view that the consumers do not have faith in long

procedures of redressal, therefore they don’t come forward to raise their voice.

All the four ECGRFs were of the opinion that people don’t come forward

because they don’t have much idea and lack awareness about the Act and the

redressal mechanism. This is an area to be addressed and lot more awareness

needs to be created. Some of the members of TPDDL were also of the opinion

that consumers are afraid of court technicalities and therefore do not file

complaints in the forums.

5.8 Level of Satisfaction with Powers to the forums and adoption of

Alternative Redressal Mechanism After knowing the reasons for not many consumers approaching the

forums for redressal of their complaints, the Chairman and Members of the

various electricity redressal forums were asked about their satisfaction with

regard to the administrative and financial powers assigned to the ECGRFs.

Table 5.8 Level of Satisfaction Powers to the Forums and Adoption of

alternative Redressal Mechanism

Satisfaction with the administrative

and financial powers given to

ECGRF

Are the decisions based on the opinion of the

majority members?

Adopting Alternative Mechanism of

Dispute Settlement? (conciliation/mediation)

Yes No Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes BRPL √ √ √ BYPL √ √ √ TPDDL √ √ √ NDMC √ √ √ Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

To this query, all the four forums were not satisfied with the powers given

to them. They were of the opinion that for the smooth functioning of any system

certain amount of discretion to carry out functions needs to be given to them.

(Table 5.8) When asked whether the decisions of the forums are based on the

opinion of majority of the members of the forums, TPDDL and NDMC said they

are, while BYPL and BRPL said the decisions are not based on majority

member’s opinion. For adopting alternative mechanism for dispute settlement

60

BRPL and NDMC were of the opinion that alternative redressal mechanism were

adopted sometimes, BYPL adopted such mechanisms while TPDDL never

adopted such ADR’s for dispute settlement.

5.9 Opinion about Functioning of the ECGRFs Table 5.9 shows the opinion of Chairman and Members about the

functioning of the ECGRFs. When asked about whether the members are

involved in judgment writing while handling cases, all members and chairman of

TPDDL were of the opinion that the members are involved in the judgment

writing and due consideration is given to their viewpoint in the final judgment.

Chairman /Members of BYPL were of the opinion that the members are involved

but only sometimes, similarly Chairman/Members of NDMC opined that the

Members are involved in the judgment writing.

Whereas the Chairman/Members of BRPL did not answer to this

question. Further when asked about the functioning of the Forums, leaving aside

the NGO members of all the ECGRFs (except TPDDL) all other Members and

Chairmen were of the opinion that the forums are functioning fairly well.

Table 5.9

Opinion about Functioning of the ECGRFs Are members involved in judgment

writing? (Responses - Yes/No/NA)

Opinion about the functioning of your Forum

(Good/Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory)

Chairman Legal Member

Member (NGO/VCO)

Chairman Legal Member

Member (NGO/VCO)

BRPL No Answer No Answer No Answer Good Good No Answer

BYPL Rarely Sometimes Sometimes Good Good No Answer

TPDDL Yes Yes Yes Good Good Good

NDMC Yes Yes No Answer Good Good No Answer

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

5.10 Level of awareness among Consumers about their Rights The functioning of the forums would be better if only more and more

consumers make use of these forums to redress their grievances. This is only

possible if consumers are aware of their rights as consumers and also about the

redressal mechanism for their welfare. The Chairman/members were also asked

about their opinion on the level of awareness among consumers about their

rights. In reply to this question all the forums were of the opinion that the

61

consumers at large are having very little knowledge of their rights as a

consumer. Therefore they fall prey to the exploitation at the hands of the

manufacturers and traders who in turn cheat and exploit the consumers for petty

gains. Due to ignorance the consumers are not able to raise their voice against

the exploitation.

Table 5.10 Level of Awareness among Consumers about Their Rights

Sl. No.

Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC

1 Very much aware of their rights as a consumer

2 Very less knowledge of their rights as a consumer

√ √ √ √

3 Do not know anything Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA 5.11 Opinion about involvement of advocates /NGOs in the proceedings of

the Complaints Under the Consumer Protection Act the NGO’s can file a complaint on

behalf of the consumer. In response to the question whether the NGOs should

play an active role in filing complaints in the forums, all the forum members were

against the involvement of NGOs in filing cases. When asked whether the

appearance of advocates in the forum is helpful to the consumers, BRPL, BYPL

and NDMC were of the opinion that their appearance doesn’t prove to be helpful

while TPDDL said their presence is sometimes helpful. The involvement of

advocates prolongs the proceedings, makes it too technical and also becomes

expensive.

Table 5.11 Opinion about involvement of advocates /NGOs in the proceedings

of the complaints Sl. No.

Procedure BRPL BYPL TPDDL NDMC

1 Do you like the NGOs to play an active role in filing of complaints?

No No No No

2 Does appearance of advocates in the forum help consumers?

No No Sometimes No

3 Do you think advocates prolong the cases on grounds other than the merit?

Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Yes

4 Do you think the involvement of the lawyers has made the Proceedings too technical and difficult for the consumers to understand?

No No No Yes

62

Seeking opinion on the fact that advocates prolonging the cases on

grounds other than merit, BRPL, BYPL and TPDDL opined that the advocates

do prolong the cases sometimes while NDMC ECGRF was of the view that the

advocates prolong the cases. Except NDMC ECGRF all other forums were of

the opinion that the involvement of lawyers has not made the proceedings too

technical and difficult for consumers to understand. But in practice it has been

observed that due to the involvement of the advocates the consumers are at a

disadvantage as the proceedings have no doubt become to technical and

expensive. Due to the cost factor many small consumes do not approach the

forums. (Table 5.11)

5.12 Availability of Funds with Forums for Consumer Education

The consumers lack awareness about the redressal mechanism. Funds

are required for creating awareness. When the forum Chairman/Members were

asked whether the forums have separate funds for consumer education and

awareness (Table 5.12), all the forums indicated that they do not have funds to

educate the people and organize awareness campaigns for the benefit of the

consumers and also about the redressal machinery available to them. This is a

major drawback because if people are not educated and are not aware about

their rights then they cannot take the benefit of the redressal machinery.

Table 5.12

Availability of Funds with Forums for Consumer Education Do the Forums have separate funds

for consumer education?

Yes No BRPL - √ BYPL - √ TPDDL/TPDDL - √ NDMC - √

Source: Primary Survey conducted by CCS, IIPA

The forums were of the opinion that either fund may be provided to them

for making people aware or DERC/DISCOMs themselves should organise

awareness campaigns to educate the consumers about their rights and the

redressal machinery in place.

63

5.14 Complaint handling by ECGRF

When a consumer does not get a satisfactory remedy from the in-house

complaint handling centres of DISCOMs, he/she can approach the ECGRF to

redress the grievances. Here they can also demand for appropriate

compensation for their loss and agony. As per the data provided by the three

CGRFs, maximum number of complaints have been filed in the CGRF of TPDDL

zone (1362), followed by BRPL (579) and BYPL (346) (table 5.13). Interestingly

when we compare this data with the tables 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15, there is a big

anomaly between the number of in-house complaints in each DISCOM and the

complaint filed in their respective CGRFs. The number of complaints filed in the

in-house complaint centres was highest in BRPL but the number of cases filed in

its CGRF was lower than TPDDL. On the other hand, the in-house complaints

centres of TPDDL received lowest number of complaints as compared to other

two DISCOMs but the number of cases filed in its CGRF is highest among all the

three DISCOMs. It means either consumers of BRPL and BYPL zone are

reluctant to approach CGRFs or DISCOMs are redressing the grievance of

consumers at their own level.

Table: 5.13 Comparative statements of CGRFs regarding Complaints (Jan 2011- Dec

2011)

ECGRFs

Filed (During Jan 2011 -Dec 2011)

Disposed (During Jan 2011 -Dec 2011)

Pending as on 31st Dec 2011)

Number of Customers (in Lakh)

BRPL 579 470 109 18.8

BYPL 346 311 35 11.9

TPDDL 1362 1313 183 12.2 Source: Data provided by all three DISCOMs.

Another important fact came out from the data provided by the BRPL and

BYPL is that there is no pendency of complaints at their in-house complaint

centres, even for the problems related with the metering and billing, they are

indicating that all the complaints are being sorted out at the in-house level.

However, the data of respective CGRFs indicates that more than 75 percent of

cases filed in the forums relate to metering and billing complaints. (Table 5.14,

5.15 and 5.16)

64

5.15 Type of Complaint filed in ECGRFs (Jan 2011- Dec 2011)

The functioning of the forums would be better if only more and more

consumers make use of these forums to redress their grievances. Based on the

discussions with the ECGRFs and the consumers the following problems were

identified for which the consumers normally complaint to the forums – metering

and billing complaints, connection/disconnection/ reconnection, complaints

relating to change in the name of registered consumer, complaints relating to

electrification of no-electrified area, complaints relating to street light, complaints

regarding frequent breakdown, complaints relating to load enhancement-load

reduction, complaints relating to unified premises, complaints taken up suo-moto

by the CGRF.

Table: 5.14 Type of complaints filed in BRPL CGRF (Jan 2011- Dec 2011)

Type of Complaints

No. of Complaints Received

Type of Complaints Received (in %)

No. of Complaints Disposed off

Disposal Rate of Complaints

1 Metering and Billing Complaints

448 77.4 361 80.6

2 Connection/disconnection/ reconnection

68 11.7 60 88.2

3 Complaints relating to change in the name of registered consumer

23 4.0 16

69.6 4 Complaints relating to

electrification of no-electrified area

3 0.5 3

100.0 5 Complaints relating to street

light 13 2.2 12

92.3 6 Complaints regarding

frequent breakdown 4 0.7 3

75.0 7 Complaints relating to load

enhancement-load reduction 20 3.5 15

75.0 8 Complaints relating to unified

premises NIL 0.0 NIL

Nil 9 Complaints taken up suo-

moto by the CGRF NIL 0.0 NIL

Nil

Total 579 100 470 81.2

Source: BRPL, CGRF

It can be observed from the tables 5.14, 5.15 & 5.16 that majority of the

complaint filed in all the three DISCOMs are on excess billing due to meter

defect or improper meter readings entered by meter readers. For example,

during Jan 2011 – Dec 2011, out of the total complaints filed in BRPL ECGRF,

65

77.4 percent of them are related to metering and billing problems. Similarly in

BYPL CGRF and TPDDL CGRG, the percentage of this type of complaints was

75.4 percent and 61.3 percent respectively. Many of the respondents have

complaint that they have not received electricity bill on time and despite that they

have been forced to pay hefty charges as late fine. As far as meter problem is

concerned, many of the consumers are of the opinion that their meter is not

functioning properly. It has also been informed that the replacement of burnt

meters was not done within the prescribed time limit.

Table: 5.15 Type of complaints filed in BYPL CGRF (2007)*

Type of Complaints

No. of Complaints Received

Type of Complaints Received (in %)

No. of Complaints Disposed off

No. of Complaints Pending

1 Billing Related Complaints

2 Defective Meters, replacements

3 Disconnection/Reconnections

297 75.4 274 92.3

4 Interruptions (Supply failure, Low Vol.)

3 0.8 3 100.0

5 Giving no connections 83 21.1 69 83.1

6 Category change and title transfer

3 0.8 1 33.3

7 Others

8 2.0 4 50.0

Total

394 100 351 89.1

Source: BYPL, CGRF *BYPL CGRF has not provided the details of cases filed in CGRF during 2010-11

Another similar issue concerned with consumer interests that is reflected

in the tables is the delay or denying of connection/reconnection and also the

disconnection of electricity without giving prior information to the consumers. The

incidence of higher number of complaints for delay in giving

connection/reconnection clearly shows the dissatisfaction of consumers with this

regard. This type of complaint was mostly filed in TPDDL and BYPL CGRFs. As

per the table 5.16, out of the total complaints received by TPDDL CGRF, 34.4

percent were related with delay in grant of new connection/ disconnection/

reconnection. In the same way, the percentage of such type of cases was found

higher in BYPL CGRF, here 21.1 percent complaints filed in 2007-08 were

related with denying of new connection.

66

Table: 5.16

Type of complaints filed in TPDDL CGRF (Jan 2011- Dec 2011)

S.NO

Type of Complaints

No. of Complaints Received

Type of Complaints Received (in %)

No. of Complaints Disposed off

No. of Complaints Pending

1 Metering and Billing Complaints 835 61.3 781 93.52 Complaints relating to delay in

grant of new connection/ disconnection/ reconnection

468 34.4 474 101.3

3 Complaints relating tot change in the name of registered consumer

27 2.0 28 103.7

4 Complaints relating to electrification of no-electrified area

NIL NIL NIL 0

5 complaints relating to street light 2 0.1 2 100.06 Complaints regarding frequent

breakdown 2 0.1 2 100.0

7 Complaints relating to load enhancement-load reduction

28 2.1 25 89.3

8 Complaints relating to unified premises

NIL NIL NIL 0

9 Complaints taken up suo-moto by the CGRF

NIL NIL NIL 0

Total

1362 100 1313 96.4

Source: TPDDL, CGRF

The incidence of higher number of complaints for delay in giving

connection clearly indicates the DISCOMs are not able to deliver the required

services in an efficient and time bound manner. Today electricity is

indispensable for our day-to-day life. As per the Electricity Act, the definition of

consumer is very wide and includes all kinds of consumers. Even unauthorized

consumers have been included in the definition by incorporating the words

person whose premises are connected with the works of the licensee. Though

Act does not consider an applicant of electricity as a consumer but on ethical

ground if a DISCOM denies the genuine demand of a person to get electricity

connection, then it is a gross negligence on part of the agency. Therefore it is

necessary to develop the transparent and time bound procedure to avoid

delay/discrimination in granting new connection of electricity to the consumers.

67

CHAPTER VI

ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS FILED IN THE IN-HOUSE CALL CENTRES OF DISCOMS

The consumer grievance redressal mechanism for electricity consumers

of Delhi have been stratified into different levels. At the first level, each DISCOM

has set up an in-house Customer Care Centre for their consumers and at the

second level, ECGRFs have been set up in accordance with the provisions of

the Electricity Act, 2003. The process of filing a complaint starts with the in-

house complaint redressal centres. Consumers can register their complaints in

the in-house Customer Care Centres /Call Centres/Web based Service/ Zonal

Complaint Centres, established by the DISCOMs through telephone, email or

they can register directly at the zonal centres of DISCOMs. These in-house

complaint centres are the first contact point for an electricity consumer of Delhi

where he/she can lodge their complaint on a centralized telephone number.

They are the most important grievance redressal centres available for the

electricity consumers of Delhi.

A good in-house customer care service also provides vital inputs to the

company to make effective strategy for future to satisfy the needs and demands

of consumers. As informed by the DISCOMs, most of the complaints of

consumers received via call centre are appropriately resolved in a time bound

manner. Therefore, analysis of variation in the numbers as well as types of

complaints filed in these centres can be a good indicator to judge the

performance of DISCOMs.

6.1 Type and Trend of Complaints received by the DISCOMs

It needs to be mentioned here that problems like no current, failure of

street light or voltage fluctuation are frequently occurring and common to

everyone, however, problems related to faulty meter directly affects the

consumers individually and results into financial loss. It also creates lot of other

problems like billing problem and faulty charges. The faith and confidence of

consumers on DISCOMs is very much related with installation of proper meters.

It has been found that majority of the unsolved cases of in-house complaint

68

centres of DISCOMs are either related to faulty meters or bill related problems.

That is why most of the complaints filed in the ECGRFs relate to these two

problems.

Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 show the type and number of complaints filed

during 2008-11 in the in-house complaints centre of three private DISCOMs of

Delhi. BRPL has received maximum number of complaints followed by BYPL

and TPDDL. During 2010-11, BRPL received 10,14,278 complaints as compared

to 7,49,736 of BYPL and 5,52,090 of TPDDL. It can also be easily seen that the

number of complaints filed in all the three DISCOMs are continuously increasing.

Maximum increase has been observed in TPDDL. During 2008-09, TPDDL

received 3,70,196 complaints which increased to 4,35,050 during 2009-10 and

5,52,090 during 2010-2011.(Table 6.3)

Table 6.1

BRPL: Number of Complaints received during last 3 Years

Type of Complaint 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11

No current 613468 686133 727333 11.8 8.9

Disconnection 12202 12276 17377 0.6 19.3

Load Shedding/Scheduled outages 1634 1783 1862 9.1 6.7

Metering problem 18011 24208 29464 34.4 27.9

Billing problem 28460 18493 12336 -35.0 -34.2

Service Line broken 5397 3752 2569 -30.5 -31.0

Power failure of street light 25287 23992 23916 -5.1 -2.7

Theft cases 8417 11200 17284 33.1 43.3

Transfer of bill charges to other 1250 1500 2000 20.0 26.5

Availing excess sanction load 19352 20346 12851 5.1 -18.5

Others 185790 181457 167286 -2.3 -5.1

Total 919268 985140 1014278 7.2 5.0Source: BRPL Rajdhani Power Limited

The interruption in power supply is a common problem for the electricity

consumers of Delhi. Even after unbundling of power distribution system, many

parts of the capital city is facing long power cuts, up to 12 hours a day,

particularly in summer season. However at the time of privatization it was

69

promised to the consumers that distributing companies will provide 24×7 power.

But the analyses of data provided by the DISCOMs are telling a different story.

The number of complaints regarding no current is increasing year by year. BRPL

received 6,13,468 complaints in 2008-09 which has increased up to 7,27,333.

Similar trends can be observed in BYPL and TPDDL. In case of BYPL, it was

4,04,861 in 2008-09 and 4,98,373 in 2010-11. Though TPDDL has received

less number of complaints as compared to other two DISCOMs but the number

of complaints during the same period has increased tremendously. The number

of complaints were 1,62,125 in 2008-09 which increased to 2,36,650 during

2010-11 (table 6.3)

Table 6.2

BYPL: Number of Complaints received in last 3 Years

Type of complaint 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11

No current 404861 354909 498376 -12.3 10.9

Voltage Fluctuation 24502 20126 21174 -17.9 -7.0

Disconnections 5459 4792 5134 -12.2 -3.0

Load Shedding/Scheduled outages 2800 3485 2841 24.5 0.7

Metering problem 47933 60945 75839 27.1 25.8

Billing problem 18290 13072 9778 -28.5 -26.9

Service Line broken 22005 17719 33812 -19.5 24.0

Power failure of street light 15891 11820 12226 -25.6 -12.3

Theft cases 14998 16106 13375 7.4 -5.6

Transfer of bill charges to other 4799 2964 3455 -38.2 -15.2

Availing excess sanction load 15953 20333 73726 27.5 115.0

Total 577491 526271 749736 -8.9 13.9Source: BYPL Yamuna Power Limited

A comparative analysis of the problems related with metering is showing

an increasing trend during 2008-11 in all the three DISCOMs. In case of BYPL

and BRPL the numbers of complaints relating to metering problem are not only

very high but are also increasing continuously. During 2008 -09, BYPL received

47,933 complaints with regard to metering problem which increased to 75,839

during 2010-11(Table 6.2). TPDDL comes second among three DISCOMs and

received 47,711 cases during 2008-09 which has increased up to 53082 cases.

BRPL received 18,011 metering related cases which increased up to 29,464.

70

In percentage terms, there is an increase of 63.2 percent in meter related

problems. Similar trend can also be seen in BRPL (Table 6.1). During 2008-09,

BRPL received 28,460 complaints related to metering problem which has

increased up to 29,464 during 2010-11, an increase of 61.1 percent. In case of

TPDDL (Table 6.3), though the increase is less as compared to BYPL and BRPL

but the number of cases related with metering problem is also very high.

Table 6.3

TPDDL: Number of Complaints received in last 3 Years

Type of complaint 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11

No current 162125 191076 236650 17.9 20.8

Voltage Fluctuation 12849 14499 17531 12.8 16.8

Disconnection 9895 9694 11831 -2.0 9.3

Load Shedding/Scheduled outages 11531 22403 32263 94.3 67.3

Metering problem 47711 53959 53082 13.1 5.5

Billing problem 6406 7049 4912 10.0 -12.4

Service Line broken 75681 76098 117072 0.6 24.4

Power failure of street light 15710 20916 44753 33.1 68.8

Theft cases 612 1299 1130 112.3 35.9

Transfer of bill charges to other 41 19 12 -53.7 -45.9

Availing excess sanction load 27635 38038 32854 37.6 9.0

Total 370196 435050 552090 17.5 22.1Source: TPDDL Tata Power Limited

Complaints about billing problems are showing a declining trend in all the

three DISCOMs; however their number is still very high in BRPL region.

According to table 6.1, the in-house complaint centres of BRPL received 28, 460

complaints which declined to 12,336 complaints. BYPL received 18,290

complaints during 2008-09 (Table 6.2) which declined to 9778 complaints.

TPDDL received lowest complaints for billing related problems (Table 6.3). It

was 6406 during 2008-09 and 4912 during 2010-11. Accordingly BRPL is

receiving almost three times more billing related complaints as compared to

TPDDL. It can be concluded that both BRPL and BYPL have not been able to

address the problems relating to billing and have to take this matter seriously to

gain the confidence of the consumers.

71

6.2 Disposal of Complaints received by the DISCOMs

While discussing the reasons for the rise in number of complaints with the

CGRF members and also with DISCOMs, it has been told that with the

increasing awareness, the expectation of consumers for quality services is also

increasing; they want easy and speedy solution to their problems. Hence there is

a rise in the number of complaints lodged in the in-house care centres of the

DISCOMs. At the same time, it has also been said that in spite of rise in the

number of complaints, DISCOMs are resolving all the grievances of consumers

appropriately in time bound manner.

A quick perusal at the tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 indicates that since 2008,

the disposal rate of in-house consumer care centres of all the three DISCOM’s is

almost 100 percent. It means that there shall not be any aggrieved consumers in

Delhi. But it has been found that lot of complaints are being filed at the different

grievance redressal forums available to the electricity consumers of Delhi, such

as; CGRF, District Forums, Lok Adalat and PGC. During 2010-11, BRPL

ECGRF received 579 complaints and the corresponding figure for TPDDL CGRF

was 1362 complaints. All these facts are contradicting the claims of respective

DISCOMs.

The claim of 100 percent disposal of the complaints by the DISCOMs

seems to be unrealistic as if we see the percentage of complaints coming to the

ECGRFs is also on the increasing trend which clearly shows the dissatisfaction

of the electricity consumers with regard to the redressal being provided by the

DISCOMs. The solution provided by the DISCOMs is treated as the complaint

disposed off but it is for the end user, the consumer to decide whether the

redressal is up to his expectations or not.

72

Tab

le 6

.4

BS

ES

Raj

dh

ani P

ower

Ltd

. (N

um

ber

of

Com

pla

ints

rec

eive

d/D

isp

osed

off

in L

ast

Th

ree

Yea

rs)

2008

- 0

9 20

09 –

10

2010

- 2

011

Sr.

N

o.

Typ

e of

Com

pla

int

No

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

No

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

No

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

1

No

Cur

rent

Com

plai

nt

6134

68

6134

68

6861

33

6861

33

7273

33

7273

33

2 F

ailu

re o

f P

ower

Sup

ply#

-

- -

- -

-

3 V

olta

ge F

luct

uati

on

- -

- -

- -

4 D

isco

nnec

tion

12

202

1220

2 12

276

1227

6 17

377

1737

7

5 L

oad

Sha

ding

/Sch

edul

ed O

utag

es

1634

16

34

1783

17

83

1862

18

62

6 M

eter

ing

Pro

blem

s (B

urnt

& F

ault

y M

eter

)

1801

1 18

011

2420

8 24

208

2946

4 29

464

7 B

illi

ng P

robl

em

2846

0 28

460

1849

3 18

493

1233

6 12

336

8 S

ervi

ce L

ine

Bro

ken

5397

53

97

3752

37

52

2569

25

69

9 P

ower

Fai

lure

of

Str

eet L

ight

s 25

287

2528

7 23

992

2399

2 23

916

2391

6

10

The

ft C

ases

84

17

8417

11

200

1120

0 17

284

1728

4

11

Tra

nsfe

r of

Bil

l Cha

rges

to O

ther

12

50

1250

15

00

1500

20

00

2000

12

Ava

ilin

g E

xces

s S

anct

ion

Loa

d 19

352

1935

2 20

346

2034

6 12

851

1285

1

13

Oth

ers*

18

5790

18

5790

18

1457

18

1457

16

7286

16

7286

Yea

r W

ise

Tot

al

9192

68

9192

68

985,

140

985,

140

1,01

4,27

8 1,

014,

278

Not

e:

# N

o C

urre

nt c

om

plai

nts

incl

ude

d th

e c

om

pla

ints

of F

ailu

re o

f Po

we

r S

upp

ly &

Vol

tag

e F

luct

uatio

n

* O

ther

s in

clu

ded

the

Ca

teg

ory

Ch

ange

, Tes

ting

of

Me

ter,

Ne

w C

onn

ectio

n, R

econ

nec

tion

, Rec

onn

ectio

n &

Na

me

Cha

nge

Re

ques

t

73

Tab

le 6

.5

BS

ES

Yam

un

a P

ower

Ltd

. (N

um

ber

of

Com

pla

ints

rec

eive

d/D

isp

osed

off

in L

ast

Th

ree

Yea

rs)

2008

- 0

9 20

09 –

10

2010

- 2

011

Sr.

N

o.

Typ

e of

Com

pla

int

No

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

No

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

No

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

1

No

Cur

rent

/Fai

lure

of

Pow

er S

uppl

y 40

4861

40

4861

35

4909

35

4909

49

8376

49

8376

2 V

olta

ge F

luct

uati

on

2450

2 24

502

2012

6 20

126

2117

4 21

174

3 D

isco

nnec

tion

54

59

5459

47

92

4792

51

34

5134

4 L

oad

Sha

ding

/Sch

edul

ed O

utag

es

2800

28

00

3485

34

85

2841

28

41

5 M

eter

ing

Pro

blem

s

4793

3 47

933

6094

5 60

945

7583

9 75

839

6 B

illi

ng P

robl

em

1829

0 18

290

1307

2 13

072

9778

97

78

7 S

ervi

ce L

ine

Bro

ken

2200

5 22

005

1771

9 17

719

3381

2 33

812

8 P

ower

Fai

lure

of

Str

eet L

ight

s 15

891

1589

1 11

820

1182

0 12

226

1222

6

9 T

heft

Cas

es

1499

8 14

998

1610

6 16

106

1337

5 13

375

10

Tra

nsfe

r of

Bil

l Cha

rges

to O

ther

47

99

4799

29

64

2964

34

55

3455

11

Ava

ilin

g E

xces

s S

anct

ion

Loa

d (L

oad

Enh

ance

men

t 15

953

1595

3 20

333

2033

3 73

726

7372

6

12

Oth

ers

- -

- -

- -

Yea

r W

ise

Tot

al

5774

91

5774

91

5262

71

5262

71

7497

36

7497

36

74

Tab

le 6

.6

TP

DD

L (

Nu

mb

er o

f C

omp

lain

ts r

ecei

ved

/Dis

pos

ed o

ff in

Las

t T

hre

e Y

ears

) 20

08 -

09

2009

– 1

0 20

10 -

201

1

Sr.

N

o.

Typ

e of

Com

pla

int

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

*No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

*No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

No.

of

Com

pla

ints

R

ecei

ved

*No.

of

Com

pla

ints

D

isp

osed

off

1

No

Cur

rent

16

2125

16

2125

19

1076

19

1076

23

6650

23

6650

2 V

olta

ge F

luct

uati

on

1284

9 12

849

1449

9 14

499

1753

1 17

531

3 D

isco

nnec

tion

98

95

9895

96

94

9690

11

831

1150

2

4 L

oad

Sha

ding

/Sch

edul

ed O

utag

es

1153

1 11

531

2240

3 22

403

3226

3 32

263

5 M

eter

ing

Pro

blem

s

4771

1 47

711

5395

9 53

954

5308

2 52

274

6 B

illi

ng P

robl

em

6406

64

06

7049

70

48

4912

48

63

7 S

ervi

ce L

ine

Bro

ken

7568

1 75

681

7609

8 76

098

1170

72

1170

72

8 P

ower

Fai

lure

of

Str

eet L

ight

s 15

710

1571

0 20

916

2091

6 44

753

4475

3

9 T

heft

Cas

es

612

612

1299

78

1 11

30

827

10

Tra

nsfe

r of

Bil

l Cha

rges

to O

ther

41

41

19

19

12

12

11

Ava

ilin

g E

xces

s S

anct

ion

Loa

d

2763

5 27

635

3803

8 38

026

3285

4 31

058

12

Oth

ers

- -

- -

- -

Yea

r W

ise

Tot

al

3701

96

3701

96

4350

50

4345

10

5520

90

5488

05

* In

Som

e ca

ses

ther

e ar

e ga

p b

etw

een

cal

ls r

ecei

ved

and

cal

ls c

lose

d du

e to

so

me

com

plai

nts

wer

e re

solv

ed i

n th

e su

bseq

uent

FY

. H

owev

er

calls

sta

nds

cl

osed

with

in th

e st

ipul

ated

tim

elin

es.

75

Chapter VII

Findings and Suggestions

Grievance redressal mechanism is a platform wherein the citizens can

lodge their complaints related to various services, voice their opinions/feedback

and also get redressal to their grievances. The effectiveness of any mechanism

can be adjudged by the prompt service delivery in terms of attending to the

complaint/consumer grievance and timely disposal of the complaint, making the

consumers believe on the efficiency of the managers manning it. An effective

complaint redressal mechanism helps both the consumers and the service

providers equally. Based on the field data and information collected from various

sources the major findings of the study are as follows:

Findings Based on the field data and information collected from various sources the major findings of the study are as follows: General Observations

1. Consumers are of the opinion that the quality of electricity supply has improved during the past 10 years, but there are several issues which needs to be taken care of.

2. The level of awareness among consumers about the electricity bill is not satisfactory. Most of the consumers are not aware about the slab wise energy charges and third party meter testing. Most of the complaints filed in the CGRFs relate to these two issues.

3. The quality of in –house complaints centres needs to be improved as many of the consumers have complained that these centres are not easily accessible. The behavior of call centre executives is not consumer friendly and cordial hence they need proper training.

4. Even after nine years of establishment of CGRFs, consumers of Delhi are not fully aware of them. CGRF of BRPL and TPDDL are situated in such periphery areas, where the aggrieved consumers find it difficult to even reach these forums. Wide publicity is required to be given in the media especially electronic media – TV, etc. on the establishment of Forums and their role.

5. Multiplicity of forums for redressal in a way provides opportunities for the consumers to get their grievances redressed through different avenues

76

but on the other hand it leads to state of confusion as to which forum would be best to approach.

6. Lot of complaints are related to billing and metering issues, if the licensees could pay more attention on them, the number of grievances / complaints filed both in the customer care centres as well as in the CGRFs would drastically come down.

7. A general perception among many of the consumers is that the decisions of the CGRFs are biased and in favour of DISCOMs. Presently DERC appoints the Chairman and Members to the CGRFs in accordance with the list recommended by the DISCOMs.

8. The problem regarding the functioning of ECGRF’s relates to the compliance of their orders. During survey it was found that the representatives of the DISCOMs don’t come fully prepared at the time of hearing, which leads to undue adjournments. It has also been found that on many occasions the ECGRFs ask for lot of documents from the consumers as well as from DISCOMs which delays the disposal of cases.

9. There is no enforcement mechanism/power given to the CGRFs to implement or execute the orders. At present, there is no fixed accountability on the part of licensee to implement the decisions/ orders of the Forums. As a result the consumer runs from pillar to post to execute the order.

10. A general perception among the consumers is that the mechanism for the implementation of the decisions of Forums should be such that individual officers / employees be made accountable for non-compliance of orders and accordingly action taken.

11. During discussion with the CGRFs and from the feedback of the consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters. There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of the consumers are not aware of this aspect. And those who are aware, they do not think the system is reliable and fair.

12. With the unbundling of Delhi Electricity Sector in 2001, the objective was that consumers will be allowed to purchase electricity from any of the three DISCOMs. But after ten years, there is no competition in Delhi’s electricity market as there is only one electricity distributor in each power supply area hence there is always a chance of increase in the electricity charges and exploitation of the consumers. It also affects consumer’s right to choice.

Findings: Perception of Cross Section

1. As far as respondent’s knowledge about information printed on the electricity bill is concerned, 73.5 percent of them read the details printed on the electricity bill and rest 26.5 percent of the respondents never read the information provided on the electricity bill.

77

2. As far as the information printed on the electricity bill, 81 percent knew about the meter No, 66.8 percent were aware of the Circle/zone, 65.9 were aware of the type of supply, 64.9 percent knew about the meter type, 60.5 percent of the respondents knew about the CRN No., 54.6 percent knew about the C A No., 54.1 percent of the respondents were aware about the sanctioned load and 52.7 percent knew about the pole number.

3. As far as slab-wise energy charge is concerned half of the respondents, 51.2 percent were aware of it. Only 39 percent of respondents were aware about the knowledge regarding Third Party Meter Testing.

4. Awareness about the Electricity Act is very less. Only 26.8 percent of the total respondents knew about the Act while majority of them, 73.2 percent were not aware of the Electricity Act.

5. The DISCOM wise data indicates that the level of awareness about the Electricity Act is highest among the consumers of NDMC (31.7 percent) followed by TPDDL (27.8 percent) and BYPL (26.5 percent). The consumers of BRPL are least aware about the Electricity Act (24.8 percent).

6. Awareness about the Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the Act is very low as only 27.5 percent of respondents know about the mechanism while 72.5 percent are not aware about any such mechanism for redressal of grievances.

7. As far as the nature of problem is concerned, 30 percent of the respondents opined that they faced the problem of no current many times followed by 27.8 percent who faced the problem of scheduled outages, while 24.9 percent faced problem of voltage fluctuation.

8. 80 percent of the respondents said they have approached the in-house complaint system for disruption in service line.

9. Among the respondents who complained to the Call Centres, 47.4 percent were concerned with voltage fluctuation followed by 42.9 percent relating to disconnection.

10. More than half of the respondents (66.7 percent) said that they used the Zonal Complaints Centre for complaint registration. As far as Web Services are concerned only 13.3 percent of the respondents said they opted for this avenue for registering their complaint of metering, followed by 7.7 percent in case of billing and 4 percent in case of Scheduled Outages.

11. As regards complaint relating to metering problem, 73.3 percent of the respondents said that their complaints had been resolved, in case of power failure of street light, 91.7 percent said that their complaints had been resolved. Similarly, 90.5 percent respondent’s complaint relating to no current, 85.7 percent respondent’s complaint regarding disconnection,

78

74.6 percent respondent’s complaint of billing problem had been resolved . Regarding voltage fluctuation 78.9 percent respondents said that their problems have been resolved, whereas 75 percent said their complaint of broken service line were resolved, 66.7 percent in case of transfer of bill charges to others and 33.3 percent in case of theft cases have been resolved.

12. Consumers of BRPL have more complaints than consumers of other DISCOMs while the consumers of NDMC have lesser complaints as compared to others. 47.6 percent of the respondents of BRPL complained that they have faced inconvenience due to failure of power supply many times in the last one year.

13. Only 30.5 percent of respondents said they approached the call centre of DISCOMs once, 18.9 percent called it twice, whereas 17.9 percent called it thrice, 10.5 percent had called in the call centre four times and rest of the 22.1 percent said they called the call centre more than four times.

14. As far as accessibility of the call centre is concerned only 21.6 percent of the respondents were satisfied to large extent. In case of the behaviour of the call centre executives, only 26.4 percent of the respondents were satisfied to large extent with the response of call centre executives. On the other hand, only 20 percent of the consumers were satisfied to large extent with the time taken by the executives of Call Centre.

15. As far as redressal /remedy to the complaint is concerned only 17.9 percent of the respondents said they were satisfied to large extent with it and more than one fourth of the consumers were dissatisfied with the remedy/redressal of the DISCOMs.

16. It was found that the awareness about the mechanism for redressal of grievances is very low. 73.5 percent of the respondents did not know about the DCDRF, 69.1 percent did not know about State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 65.7 percent were not aware about the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forums. As far as awareness regarding the Lok Adalats (set up by DERC) is concerned, only 38.2 percent of respondents knew about it and rest 62 percent did not have any idea about the existence of such a forum.

17. 85.3 percent of the respondents said that the quality of service has improved after privatization. Respondents seem to be satisfied with the electricity tariff.

18. 66.5 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the tariff cost in electricity sector is reasonable, while only 33.5 percent of the respondents said it is unreasonable. Consumers of BRPL zone are more dissatisfied with the cost of tariffs as 41 percent of them said that it is unreasonable for the consumers. Consumers of NDMC (27.5 percent) are comparatively less dissatisfied with the present cost of electricity tariff. Consumers of BYPL (36.8 found it to be unreasonable).

79

19. 82.9 percent of the respondents were of the opinion that the redressal mechanism needs improvement. Time bound disposal of the complaints at every level should be adhered to, followed by 78 percent of respondents who were of the opinion that the mechanism can be improved by creating awareness among the as people regarding the redressal mechanism.

20. 74.6 percent of the respondents said that the mechanism can be improved if the dealing officers are penalized for non-compliance while 69.3 percent of them said that a unified redressal mechanism can bring a lot of improvement in the existing system of redressal mechanism. 65.9 percent were of the opinion that if the redressal forums are vested with execution powers, then they can be more effective.

21. Among the existing grievance redressal mechanism 51.1 percent of the respondents said ECGRF is the best grievance redressal mechanism followed by 19.3 percent who supported, Public Grievance Cell as the best mechanism, 17.8 percent said DCDRF is the best forum for redressal of grievances and 11.9 percent said SERC in their opinion is the best mode of redressal of their grievances.

Findings: Perception of Complainants

1. Only 6.6 percent of the total respondents had approached some or the other forum for redressal of grievances whereas majority 93.6 percent opined that they never approached any forum for their complaints.

2. Among those respondents who have approached any of the available forums, 60.7 percent of them approached the ECGRF, 36.2 percent approached the Delhi State Public Grievance Cell, 25.9 percent of them had approached DCDRFs and 29.3 percent of them approached Lok Adalats (set up by DERC). SERC is the least approached (12.1 percent) forum by the electricity consumers.

3. As regards the reason for approaching ECGRF, 61.3 percent said that they knew only about this forum, followed by 46.4 who quoted “Easy to Access” as the reason for approaching, cost effectiveness and quick redressal (42.9 percent each) were other reasons given by the complainants as the reason for approaching the forum.

4. For approaching DCDRF’s, the responses were mixed. 66.9 percent of the complainants said they knew only about this forum, 55.6 percent said it was suggested by others, while majority of them regarded none of the following - cost effective, easy to access, quick redressal and strong compliance mechanism as reasons for approaching the forum. 66.7 percent said that they knew only Lok Adalats, therefore they approached the Lok Adalat.

80

5. 42.9 percent of the respondents who filed complaint in the ECGRF and 37.3 percent in DCDRF, faced difficulty after lodging their complaint in the respective forums.

6. 37.5 percent of the BRPL complainants said that they faced difficulty after lodging their complaint, while 34.6 percent complainant of BYPL opined the same. Complainants of NDMC are the least sufferers as only 9.1 percent of them said that they faced difficulty after filing the complaint.

7. 40.5 percent for ECGRF complainants and 53.8 percent for DCDRF complainants said that their complaint is still pending in the Forums and merely 51.8 percent of ECGRF cases and 43.6 percent of DCDRF said it has been resolved.

8. 64.7 percent of the Complainants of DCDRF are satisfied with relief/redressal given by the Forum while those of ECGRF, 51.8 percent of complainants were satisfied with the redressal /relief from the forum.

9. 56.7 percent of the complainants were satisfied with the procedures adopted by ECGRF while 49.3 percent were not satisfied with the procedures of redressal being adopted by the DCDRF. BYPL zone has comparatively higher level of satisfaction with the procedures adopted by respective ECGRF than other three forums.

10. 55.6 percent of ECGRF and 83.3 percent of DCDRF complainants who are dissatisfied with their respective forum’s decisions is due to delay in decision by the forums, followed by 33.2 percent of ECGRF and 26.7 percent of DCDRF were unsatisfied with the compensation. It is notable that ECGRFs respondents who were dissatisfied with the reliefs/redressal given by the respective forums, 58.3 percent of them opined that their forums are biased in favour of DISCOMs. However this factor is pointed out by only 20 percent respondents of DCDRFs.

11. In case of functioning of ECGRF, 84.2 percent of the complainants said their complaint was acknowledged within 7 days of receipt of the complaint, 42.1 percent said it was not disposed of in time while 31.6 percent said that there is no compliance of orders.

12. In case of functioning of DCRF, 83.9 percent of the complainants said their complaint was registered/rejected within a period of 21 days of its receipt. Only 37.5 percent said that the complaints are disposed of within the time limit. 85.7 percent of them said that the compliance of orders is done. While 14.3 percent said there is no compliance.

13. 86.4 percent of complainants were not aware of the Electricity Ombudsman.

14. 27.3 percent of the respondents knew about the Consumer Protection Act. Majority of the complainants (81.8 percent) are not aware of the consumer rights. Only 37.9 percent of the complainants were aware of the redressal mechanism under the CPA, 1986.

81

15. During discussions Complainants said that DISCOMs are having resources such as technical, financial, legal & even consultants thereby they can easily counter the objections of consumers. Thus the results are in favour of licensees making the consumer aggrieved and isolated.

Findings: Perception of Chairman/Members of ECGRF

1. Majority of the Chairman /Members were of the opinion that knowledge of the Legal Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is a prerequisite and necessary in deciding the cases. One need not have a degree in law to function effectively.

2. All the ECGRFs agreed that shortage of Members, lack of technical knowledge, non-cooperation from DISCOM, shortage of stationary are the common problems faced by the forums. In case of lack of supporting staff, lack of infrastructure, lack of fund for day to day miscellaneous expenses, only ECGRF of BRPL was of the opinion that they faced these problems while the others- BYPL, TPDDL/TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that they do not face these problems.

3. BRPL furnished the complaint within 15-30 days, TPDDL and NDMC within 15 days while BYPL did the same within 5 days.

4. All ECGRF disposed off the complaints within 30-60 days. For compliance of the order of the forum by DISCOMs BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC said the compliance of orders is within 21 days while BYPL was of the opinion that it is within 30 days. Asking for undue adjournments and disinterested consumers was referred to as the reasons for the delay in disposal of complaints by the BRPL

5. BYPL and TPDDL said that they faced sometimes problems in the execution of the order. While BRPL and NDMC said that they never faced this problem. All the ECGRFs were of the opinion that they get adequate support from the DISCOMs. For Third Party Meter Testing, BRPL and TPDDL said that they face problems due to Third Party Meter Testing while BYPL and NDMC said they never faced this problem.

6. BRPL, TPDDL and NDMC were of the opinion that the consumers are indifferent and casual towards their problems and hence not in favour of filing of complaints in the ECGRFs. All ECGRFs were of the opinion that people don’t come forward because they don’t have much idea about the Act and the redressal mechanism.

7. Members and Chairman of TPDDL were of the opinion that the members are involved in the judgment writing and due consideration is given to their viewpoint in final judgments. Chairman /Members of BYPL said that the members are involved but only sometimes, similarly Chairman/Members of NDMC said that the members are involved in the

82

judgment writing. Whereas the Chairman/members of BRPL did not answer to this question.

8. All the forums said that they don’t have funds to educate people and organize awareness campaigns to educate consumers about their rights

9. The Chairman and the Members of ECGRFs are of the opinion that they don’t have any administrative and financial powers.

10. As far as opinion regarding delay in decisions of complaint is concerned, The common reasons for delay highlighted by the ECGRFs Members are:

a. Reports are required from test labs, etc which are not in time

b. Local reports unreliable

c. Documentation not complete

d. Undue Adjournment (should not be more than two).

11. The officers/officials working in DERC are on deputation or short term assignment. By the time they understand the depth of issues, their term comes to an end.

Suggestions

Almost every year there are public protests on one pre-text or the other.

Such protests reflect that the grievances continued to persist. It also reflects that

the consumers lack faith and confidence in the functioning of the licensees.

Therefore effective, efficient, responsive and reliable consumer grievance

redressal mechanism is necessary to win consumer confidence and ensure that

consumer grievances are redressed in a time bound manner.

1. The grievance redressal mechanism in electricity sector starts with the in-house redressal mechanism. The findings suggest that a lot of improvement required in the services that they provide .For this:

a) Training of the councillors/staff/members manning the helplines, call centres, forums be done on regular basis for effective handling of the complaints. Call centres executives should have proper skills to handle a complaint. The call centres/ in house call centres needs to be more vibrant and work with a spirit of consumer welfare to increase consumer satisfaction.

b) The number of call centre executives need to be increased as most of the

time the numbers on which the consumers call are busy and therefore the consumers are not able to lodge their complaints easily.

83

c) In the present scenario consumers have to wait for a longer period on the phone line which is a costly affair and further discourages the consumers to make use of this avenue. For this a toll free number can be provided to consumers for easy access.

d) Provision of online status enquiry of the grievance should be introduced

2. The findings clearly show that the level of consumer awareness regarding

redressal mechanism in electricity sector is considerably low because of which the consumers are not able get the benefit of the provisions of Electricity Act. DERC and the DISCOMs should take the following measures to give wide publicity to forums (CGRFs):

a. Funds should be earmarked by DISCOMs & DERC to the ECGRFs for creating awareness on grievance redressal machinery and wise use of electricity as in the present scenario no such provisions of separate fund is available to ECGRFs.

b. To increase awareness about the grievance redressal mechanism prominent hoardings / signages at public places should be put up .Wide awareness/ publicity by medium of T.V. visual aids, internet be created. DERC should give adds in the FM Radio and television for wider publicity of forums for redressal.

c. Accessibility to the forum is a problem due to their poor location

hence the very aim of the forum –welfare/redressal of consumer grievances is difficult. Connectivity / accessibility of redressal forums needs to be taken care of for better and effective redressal mechanism and should be within the reach of consumers. Location of forum offices be such that they are approachable by public transport.

d. Workshops and Seminars need to be organized in association with various RWA’s to spread awareness.

3. During discussion with the ECGRFs and from the feedback of the

consumers it has been found that bulk of problems is due to faulty meters. There is a provision of third party meter testing but in practice majority of the consumers are not aware of this. And those who are aware, they are not able to get the benefit of this provision as the contract with the third party meter agency has already expired. Therefore, it is suggested that some independent agency from Delhi/NCT region be identified and responsibility given for providing third party meter testing.

4. Mediation, conciliation can be the first step before the complaints go to the forums. Mediation centres can reduce the workload of the forums. Mediation/reconciliation system should be set up under the supervision of ECGRFs for the convenience of both ECGRFs and the consumers.

84

5. There is a need to simplify procedures and reduce documentation to

reduce delay in disposal of complaints.

6. Adequate measures should be taken to ensure that compliance of orders of the forums is ensured. The power for monitoring the compliance of the order be given to ECGRFs and in case the orders are not complied with, then ECGRF be empowered for levying penalty on DISCOMs. Provisions of sec. 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be adopted in CGRF Rules/ regulations.

7. There is no clarity as to who is controlling the forums. It should be clarified in the rules/Act as to who controls the forums – DERC or the licensee.

8. For more transparency, the DISCOMs should be brought under the RTI Act, 2005. Apart from that the forums should come up with more openness to consumer problems and should also frame a Citizen Charter for their services.

9. Powers vested with the Chairman of the ECGRF are quite limited as he has no control over other forum members. Delegations need to be defined. Punctuality in sittings/ hearings/ holding & conducting the court should be adhered to.

10. DERC should take up the overall responsibility in appointing the Forum Chairman/Members.

11. The forums should be given more administrative/ financial powers to

carry out the work effectively. ECGRFs be made independent, directly under the DERC.

12. For greater access to justice, the Forums can have sittings / hearings at different locations in their jurisdictions with a specified schedule so that all the consumers need not come to headquarters of the Forum.

13. Efforts should be made to appoint qualified people in the Forums. They should have adequate knowledge of the electricity sector.

14. For better management and effective decision making, duties/

responsibilities of the members should be prescribed w.r.t. attendance, hearing the cases, decisions, judgment writing, etc. Members should be involved and mandated in judgment writing independently. Like CDRFs, members should also be asked to write some percentage of total judgments.

15. There is a general impression among the consumers that ECGRFs are

biased in favour of licensees. The main reason is that they impose very less penalty on licensees and provide less compensation to the

85

consumers. The compensation provision may be revised in the interest of consumers and adequate amount of compensation be allowed on case to case basis.

16. Open access being one of the objectives in privatisation could not materialise even after ten years. Consumer continues to face monopolistic decision on the part of DISCOMS/ Regulator, thus competitions in the sector needs to be encouraged.

17. There is no competition as far as distribution of electricity is concerned this has made the service providers a monopoly entity which goes against the consumers. They have no choice.

86

REFERENCES

1. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and

Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011, DERC, New Delhi.

2. DERC (Guidelines for Establishments of Forum for redressal of Grievances of

Consumers and Ombudsman)Regulations 2003 ,DERC Notification,Delhi,11 March

,2004 (Published in Delhi Gazette Extraordinary Part IV), Delhi Electricity Regulatory

Commission, http://www.derc.gov.in/

3. Consumer Satisfaction Survey conducted by DERC, Feb 2009,Nielson

4. Consumer Complaint Handling Procedures Relating To Distribution And Retail

Supply(APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003)

5. Complaint Handling Procedures Relating To Distribution And Retail Supply ,BSES

Rajdhani /Yamuna Limited(APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003)

6. 10 Years of BSES Delhi DISCOMS Journey so

far…,http://www.bsesdelhi.com/docs/pdf/BSES_Delhi_10_Yrs_Journey.pdf,March 2013

7. Report on Privatisation of Power in Delhi ,PAC Third Report, Delhi Legislative

Assembly, March 2006,Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat ,Delhi-54

8. Raj Singh Niranjan, Guide to Electricity Laws in India, Part E – Consumer Protection,

Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., Chapter 18,19

9. Position Paper on the Power in India, ,Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of

Finance ,Government of India, December

2009www.pppinindia.com/pdf/ppp_position_paper_power_122k9.pdf

10. Consumer Grievance in Electricity Sector, Chapter 3,TERI Report no.2009/AO1

11. Consumer Courts and Consumer Grievance redressal Mechanisms(A study by

Voice),New Delhi

12. National Electricity Policy, Ministry of Power, dated 12th February, 2005.

87

Annexure I

List of Officials Consulted during the Study Ms. Jayshree Raghuraman Secretary

DERC Viniyamak Bhawan, C-BLOCK, Malviya Nagar New Delhi -110017

DERC

Shri Rajasekhar Devaguptapu

DERC Viniyamak Bhawan, C-BLOCK, Malviya Nagar New Delhi -110017

Mr. H.C. Chawla Chairman-cum Member (Tech) CGRF BRPL Sub Station Building Sector-V, Pushp Vihar New Delhi -17

CGRF - BRPL

Sh. Sunil Johry

Secretary CGRF BRPL Sub Station Building Sector-V, Pushp Vihar New Delhi -17

Shri K.C. Modi Chairman-cum Member (Tech) Sub-Station Building Adjacent to BYPL Regd. Off Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi – 32

Shri Ashok Ahuja Secretary Sub-Station Building Adjacent to BYPL Regd. Off Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi – 32

CGRF - BYPL

MS. Krishna Gupta NGO Member Sub-Station Building Adjacent to BYPL Regd. Off Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi – 32

Shri T.C. Gupta Chairman Chairman-cum Member (Tech) 11Kv Sub-Station Building New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009

Mr. V. B. Pandey

Member (Legal) 11Kv Sub-Station Building New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009

CGRF - TPDDL

Sh. Om Singh Deswal Member (NGO) 11Kv Sub-Station Building

88

New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009

Mr. B.M. Bhatnagar

Secretary 11Kv Sub-Station Building New Police Colony Model Town-II Delhi - 110009

BSES Yamuna Power Limited

Mr. Deepanshu Agrawal Head Customer Care BSES Yamuna Power Limited Shaktikiran Building, Karkardooma Delhi- 110032

BSES Rajdhani Power Limited

Ms. Renu Antony Gen. Manager, Head Customer Care BSES Rajdhani Power Limited BSES Bhawan Nehru Place New Delhi-110019

TPDDL Mr. Puneet Munjal Sr. Gen Manager, Corporate Strategy & Planning Group NDPL House Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp DELHI-110009

89

Annexure II

COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCEDURES RELATING

TO DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY

BSES Rajdhani/Yamuna Limited

(APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003) 1. Introduction: This “Complaint Handling Procedure relating to Distribution and Retail Supply” as approved by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby adopted by the licensee. 2. Nature of complaints: • No current/failure of power supply • Voltage fluctuations • Load shedding/scheduled outages • Scheduled outages/ load shedding • Metering Problems • Billing Problems 3. Where to lodge Complaints: The contact telephone number(s) where consumers can lodge their complaints as also the name and contact telephone number of the Asst. Engineer concerned, who can be approached in case of delay in the redressal of complaint would be notified as under :

• By display/dissemination of the above information on separate handouts attached to the electricity bills from time to time

• By display of the above information at the Bill collection centres

• By Display on the company Website

4. No Current/failure of power supply Power supply in premises could fail due to one of the following reasons, which could be attributed to Distribution Companies (DISCOM):

i. Fuse blown out tripping of MCB ii. Burnt meter iii. Service line broken iv. Service line snapped from pole v. Fault in distribution mains vi. Distribution transformer failed/burnt vii. HT mains failed viii. Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation ix. Planned/scheduled/emergency Maintenance work. x. Load Shedding

In case of failure or interruption of power supply, complaint can be lodged over the telephone to the Centralized Call Center of the Licensee giving the details of name, address and brief nature of the complaint.

90

“No supply” complaints received at the Centralized Call Center shall be immediately acknowledged by providing a unique complaint number to the complainant. The Centralized Call Center shall keep a detailed log of all complaints received in a database/ register.

In case the Centralized Call Center is aware that the complaint is due to any of the reasons listed at (v)-(x) above, he shall inform the complainant the reason(s) for power failure and also indicate the approximate time required for restoration of power supply. Nevertheless, he shall register each complaint received and issue a unique complaint number for such complaints also.

The Centralized Call Center shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centers. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem. Upon resolution of the complaint, the complaint-receiving center (No-current Complaint centre / Centralized Call Center) shall be informed of the status.

In case, the cause of the complaint is more severe, due to any reason(s) listed at (v)-(x) above, the Mobile service group shall inform the nature of the fault and approximate time required for rectification to the complainant and also to the Centralized Call Center. He shall also inform the next higher authority to take appropriate action to deploy additional resources and materials to resolve the complaint.

All complaints shall be monitored by the Centralized Call Center regarding resolution of the complaint within the stipulated time limit as given below:

Nature of cause of power supply failure

Maximum Time Limit for restoration.

Fuse blown out or MCB tripped Within 3 hours Suburban – 8 hours

Service line broken Service line snapped from the pole

Within 6 hours Suburban – 12 hours

Fault in distribution mains

Temporary Supply to be restored within 4 hours from alternate source, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault and thereafter Restoration of power supply within 12 hours

Distribution transformer failed/burnt

Temporary Restoration of supply through mobile transformer or another backup source within 8 hours, wherever feasible Replacement of failed transformer within 48 hours

91

HT mains failed Temporary restoration of power supply within 4 hours, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault within 12 hours

Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation

Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hoursRoster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Repair and restoration of supply within 48 hours

Failure of Power Transformer

Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hoursRoster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Replacement action to be intimated to DERC within 72 hours

Burnt meter

Restoration of supply by bypassing the burnt meter within 6 hours Replacement of burnt meter within 3 days

In case no information is received by the complaint-receiving center within the stipulated time given above, the Call Centre shall escalate the complaint to the concerned Executive Engineer.

The escalation process shall be inbuilt within the system and the calls shall escalate automatically every two hours up to the level of GM (Operations) using the server-based system until the resolution of the complaint is logged. All complaint-handling officers shall be provided with mobile wireless based communication devices for the dissemination of complaint related information.

The concerned authority would then appraise the call center about the resolution of complaint.

In the event that the next higher authority is unavailable or is unable to resolve the problem within the stipulated time, the complaint will be escalated, through the proper channel, to the General Engineer (Operations).

Daily MIS reports shall be provided to the CEO, the GM (Operations) and DGM / Chief Engineers (Distribution) giving the status of pending complaints. MIS reports, giving category-wise total number of complaints received and details of the complaints which could not be attended within the stipulated time, along with reasons thereof, shall be submitted to the Commission on quarterly basis.

92

5. Voltage Complaints

In the case of Low / High voltage, the complaint should be lodged at the Centralised Call Centre giving name, address of the complainant along with brief nature of the problem faced. The operator on duty shall register the complaint and intimate the complaint number in every case.

The Centralized Call Centre shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centres. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem.

In case problem is local e.g. due to loose connection of service line, the mobile group shall rectify the fault themselves. In case the voltage problem is due to some other reason(s), such as, deficiency in the system, the mobile group shall bring this to the notice of the Area Assistant Engineer.

The Area Assistant Engineer shall ascertain if the problem can be rectified by changing the Tap position of the transformer, and if possible, he shall do so after getting the approval from the Executive Engineer. However, in case the Assistant Engineer find that problem is due to deficiency in the distribution system requiring up-gradation of distribution lines, transformers, capacitors etc., he shall inform the Executive Engineer for taking further necessary action. The voltage problem shall be resolved with the time limits specified in Table given

below:

S.No. Cause of Problem related to voltage

variation

Time limit for the rendering

service

Authorised Person

Next higher level for

complaint

1 Local problem Within 4 hours Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

2 Tap of transformer Within 3 days Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

3 Repair of distribution line / transformer / capacitor

Within 60 days Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

4 Installation & Up-gradation of HT / LT System

Within 180 days

Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS reports giving category-wise number of complaints received and the complaints, which could not be resolved within the stipulated time and reasons thereof.

6. Scheduled outages/load shedding:

In case of frequent load shedding or scheduled outages (excluding statutory power cuts), amounting to more than 12 hours on any day, the complaint can be lodged with the Executive Engineer of the concerned area in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the receipt of such complaint and arrange to prevent such recurrences.

7. Metering Problems

93

(i) Where meter has been provided by the Licensee

As per Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, the responsibility of installing a standard meter on demand and its maintenance is that of the licensee and hence, the Licensee is required to check the meter for proper functioning at regular intervals. However, if a consumer has reasons to believe that the meter is not functioning properly, he may file application for the testing of his meter together with meter testing fee as applicable with the Asst. Engineer of the area. The Asst. Engineer would attend to the complaint as per provisions laid down in Commission’s Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations (M&B Regulations) as below:

Within 7 days of filing the application together with the testing fee, a tested check meter would be installed in series with the existing meter. If after a reasonable period of time which would not be less than 7 days, the existing meter is found to be slow or fast beyond the permissible limits, then the same would be removed leaving the check meter in its place for future metering. The account of the consumer would be adjusted suitably as per the provisions of the Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations and the testing fee deposited by the consumer would be refunded. However, if the existing meter is found to be correct, the same would be left in place and the testing fee would be forfeited.

(ii) Where meter has been provided by the Consumer

If the meter is the property of the consumer and its testing with the above procedure indicates the need for its replacement, then the Licensee shall leave the test meter at the premises of the consumer. If the consumer wishes to put his meter again he shall inform the licensee for installation. For the period the licensee's meter remains at the consumer's premises, he would pay the meter rental and usual charges as applicable. However, if the Consumer does not put his meter within a period of 1 month, and the cost of the meter shall be recovered from the consumer and meter will be left at the consumer’s premises for all future billings.

In case the problem is not resolved within the time specified, the consumer may lodge the complaint with the Executive Engineer concerned in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the complaint and take remedial action without any delay.

The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS report giving category wise number of the complaints received number of meters tested and number of meters found to be defective

8 Billing Problems

Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations have already been notified on 19th August 2003 and amended from time to time.

The procedure for resolution of complaints relating to billing has been laid in the said regulations. The complaints shall be lodged with the Asst. Engineer for resolution as per the procedure laid down. The Appellate Authority in such matters shall be the Executive Engineer.

9 Periodic Inspection by next higher authority A database comprising the complaints lodged by various categories of consumers,

type of complaint, period of redressal etc shall be maintained by the Licensee. The complaint register maintained at the complaint centre/office will be inspected by the next supervisory authorities every month that will record his views regarding the adequacy of the measures taken and the response time.

94

10 Petition before DERC for grievance redressal

SIt is the obligation on the Licensee to respond to a consumer’s complaint in a timely and effective manner as laid down above. However, if the consumer is not satisfied with the action taken by the Licensee (up to the General Manger level), he may make a complaint to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in accordance with Commission’s Grievance Handling Procedure.

Note: These procedures would be effective from the 1st of July 2003 and would be valid till further orders.

Performa for Complaints

1. Name of the complainant : 2. Address of the complainant : 3. Telephone No., if any of the complainant : 4. Consumer account Number (Optional) : 5. Brief description of the complaint : Date :

______________________ (Signature of Applicant)

--------------------------------Tear at this line--------------------------------

Acknowledgement to be handed over to the consumer

1. Complaint reference No. : (To be given by Licensee) 2. Complaint received on date : 3. Complaint received by : (Name & Designation)

_________ (Signature

95

Annexure III

COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCEDURES RELATING TO DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY (APPROVED BY DERC ON 3rd JUNE 2003)

1. Introduction: This “Complaint Handling Procedure relating to Distribution and Retail Supply” as approved by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby adopted by the licensee. 2. Nature of complaints: • No current/failure of power supply • Voltage fluctuations • Load shedding/scheduled outages • Scheduled outages/ load shedding • Metering Problems • Billing Problems 3. Where to lodge Complaints: The contact telephone number(s) where consumers can lodge their complaints as also the name and contact telephone number of the Asst. Engineer concerned, who can be approached in case of delay in the redressal of complaint would be notified as under:

• By display/dissemination of the above information on separate handouts attached to the electricity bills from time to time

• By display of the above information at the Bill collection centres • By Display on the company Website

4. No Current/failure of power supply Power supply in premises could fail due to one of the following reasons, which could be attributed to Distribution Companies (DISCOM):

i. Fuse blown out tripping of MCB ii. Burnt meter iii. Service line broken iv. Service line snapped from pole v. Fault in distribution mains vi. Distribution transformer failed/burnt vii. HT mains failed viii. Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation ix. Planned/scheduled/emergency Maintenance work. x. Load Shedding

In case of failure or interruption of power supply, complaint can be lodged over the telephone to the Centralized Call Center of the Licensee giving the details of name, address and brief nature of the complaint.

“No supply” complaints received at the Centralized Call Center shall be immediately acknowledged by providing a unique complaint number to the complainant. The Centralized Call Center shall keep a detailed log of all complaints received in a database/ register.

In case the Centralized Call Center is aware that the complaint is due to any of the reasons listed at (v)-(x) above, he shall inform the complainant the reason(s) for

96

power failure and also indicate the approximate time required for restoration of power supply. Nevertheless, he shall register each complaint received and issue a unique complaint number for such complaints also.

The Centralized Call Center shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centers. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem. Upon resolution of the complaint, the complaint-receiving center (No-current Complaint centre / Centralized Call Center) shall be informed of the status.

In case, the cause of the complaint is more severe, due to any reason(s) listed at (v)-(x) above, the Mobile service group shall inform the nature of the fault and approximate time required for rectification to the complainant and also to the Centralized Call Center. He shall also inform the next higher authority to take appropriate action to deploy additional resources and materials to resolve the complaint.

All complaints shall be monitored by the Centralized Call Center regarding resolution of the complaint within the stipulated time limit as given below:

Nature of cause of power supply failure

Maximum Time Limit for restoration.

Fuse blown out or MCB tripped Within 3 hours Suburban – 8 hours

Service line broken Service line snapped from the pole

Within 6 hours Suburban – 12 hours

Fault in distribution mains

Temporary Supply to be restored within 4 hours from alternate source, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault and thereafter Restoration of power supply within 12 hours

Distribution transformer failed/burnt

Temporary Restoration of supply through mobile transformer or another backup source within 8 hours, wherever feasible Replacement of failed transformer within 48 hours

HT mains failed Temporary restoration of power supply within 4 hours, wherever feasible. Rectification of fault within 12 hours

97

Problem in grid (33 kV or 66 kV) substation

Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hours Roster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Repair and restoration of supply within 48 hours

Failure of Power Transformer

Restoration of supply from alternate source, wherever feasible within 6 hours Roster load shedding may be carried out to avoid overloading of alternate source. Replacement action to be intimated to DERC within 72 hours

Burnt meter

Restoration of supply by bypassing the burnt meter within 6 hours Replacement of burnt meter within 3 days

In case no information is received by the complaint-receiving center within the stipulated time given above, the Call Centre shall escalate the complaint to the concerned Executive Engineer.

The escalation process shall be inbuilt within the system and the calls shall escalate automatically every two hours up to the level of GM (Operations) using the server-based system until the resolution of the complaint is logged. All complaint-handling officers shall be provided with mobile wireless based communication devices for the dissemination of complaint related information.

The concerned authority would then appraise the call center about the resolution of complaint.

In the event that the next higher authority is unavailable or is unable to resolve the problem within the stipulated time, the complaint will be escalated, through the proper channel, to the General Engineer (Operations).

Daily MIS reports shall be provided to the CEO, the GM (Operations) and DGM / Chief Engineers (Distribution) giving the status of pending complaints. MIS reports, giving category-wise total number of complaints received and details of the complaints which could not be attended within the stipulated time, along with reasons thereof, shall be submitted to the Commission on quarterly basis.

5. Voltage Complaints

In the case of Low / High voltage, the complaint should be lodged at the Centralised Call Centre giving name, address of the complainant along with brief nature of the problem faced. The operator on duty shall register the complaint and intimate the complaint number in every case.

98

The Centralized Call Centre shall communicate the complaint to the mobile service groups at the concerned Service Centres. The mobile service group would then proceed to the address provided by the complainant, investigate the cause of complaint and resolve the problem.

In case problem is local e.g. due to loose connection of service line, the mobile group shall rectify the fault themselves. In case the voltage problem is due to some other reason(s), such as, deficiency in the system, the mobile group shall bring this to the notice of the Area Assistant Engineer.

The Area Assistant Engineer shall ascertain if the problem can be rectified by changing the Tap position of the transformer, and if possible, he shall do so after getting the approval from the Executive Engineer. However, in case the Assistant Engineer find that problem is due to deficiency in the distribution system requiring up-gradation of distribution lines, transformers, capacitors etc., he shall inform the Executive Engineer for taking further necessary action.

The voltage problem shall be resolved with the time limits specified in Table given below:

S.No. Cause of Problem related to voltage

variation

Time limit for the rendering

service

Authorised Person

Next higher level for

complaint

1 Local problem Within 4 hours Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

2 Tap of transformer Within 3 days Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

3 Repair of distribution line / transformer / capacitor

Within 60 days Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

4 Installation & Up-gradation of HT / LT System

Within 180 days

Assistant Engineer

Executive Engineer

The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS reports giving category-wise number of complaints received and the complaints, which could not be resolved within the stipulated time and reasons thereof.

6. Scheduled outages/load shedding:

In case of frequent load shedding or scheduled outages (excluding statutory power cuts), amounting to more than 12 hours on any day, the complaint can be lodged with the Executive Engineer of the concerned area in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the receipt of such complaint and arrange to prevent such recurrences.

7. Metering Problems (i) Where meter has been provided by the Licensee

As per Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, the responsibility of installing a standard meter on demand and its maintenance is that of the licensee and hence, the Licensee is required to check the meter for proper functioning at regular intervals. However, if a consumer has reasons to believe that the meter

99

is not functioning properly, he may file application for the testing of his meter together with meter testing fee as applicable with the Asst. Engineer of the area. The Asst. Engineer would attend to the complaint as per provisions laid down in Commission’s Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations (M&B Regulations) as below:

Within 7 days of filing the application together with the testing fee, a tested check meter would be installed in series with the existing meter. If after a reasonable period of time which would not be less than 7 days, the existing meter is found to be slow or fast beyond the permissible limits, then the same would be removed leaving the check meter in its place for future metering. The account of the consumer would be adjusted suitably as per the provisions of the Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations and the testing fee deposited by the consumer would be refunded. However, if the existing meter is found to be correct, the same would be left in place and the testing fee would be forfeited.

(ii) Where meter has been provided by the Consumer

If the meter is the property of the consumer and its testing with the above procedure indicates the need for its replacement, then the Licensee shall leave the test meter at the premises of the consumer. If the consumer wishes to put his meter again he shall inform the licensee for installation. For the period the licensee's meter remains at the consumer's premises, he would pay the meter rental and usual charges as applicable. However, if the Consumer does not put his meter within a period of 1 month, and the cost of the meter shall be recovered from the consumer and meter will be left at the consumer’s premises for all future billings.

In case the problem is not resolved within the time specified, the consumer may lodge the complaint with the Executive Engineer concerned in the format given at Annexe. The Executive Engineer shall acknowledge the complaint and take remedial action without any delay.

The licensee shall submit quarterly MIS report giving category wise number of the complaints received number of meters tested and number of meters found to be defective

8 Billing Problems

Performance Standards (Metering & Billing) Regulations have already been notified on 19th August 2003 and amended from time to time.

The procedure for resolution of complaints relating to billing has been laid in the said regulations. The complaints shall be lodged with the Asst. Engineer for resolution as per the procedure laid down. The Appellate Authority in such matters shall be the Executive Engineer.

9 Periodic Inspection by next higher authority A database comprising the complaints lodged by various categories of

consumers, type of complaint, period of redressal etc shall be maintained by the Licensee. The complaint register maintained at the complaint centre/office will be inspected by the next supervisory authorities every month that will record his views regarding the adequacy of the measures taken and the response time.

10 Petition before DERC for grievance redressal

It is the obligation on the Licensee to respond to a consumer’s complaint in a timely and effective manner as laid down above. However, if the consumer is not satisfied with the action taken by the Licensee (up to the General Manger level),

100

he may make a complaint to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in accordance with Commission’s Grievance Handling Procedure.

Note: These procedures would be effective from the 1st of July 2003 and would be valid till further orders.

Performa for Complaints

1. Name of the complainant : 2. Address of the complainant : 3. Telephone No., if any of the complainant : 4. Consumer account Number (Optional) : 5. Brief description of the complaint : Date :

______________________ (Signature of Applicant)

--------------------------------Tear at this line--------------------------------

Acknowledgement to be handed over to the consumer

1. Complaint reference No. : (To be given by Licensee) 2. Complaint received on date : 3. Complaint received by : (Name & Designation)

_________ (Signature)

101

Annexure IV

DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Viniyamak Bhavan, C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017

Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal

Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011. No. 11(29)/DERC/2003-04/1265 In exercise of the powers conferred on the Commission, by Section 181 read with sub-section (5) to (7) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act 2003 (36 of 2003) and all powers enabling it in that behalf, the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission hereby frames the following Regulations, namely: 1. Short title These Regulations may be called the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011.

2. Commencement and application i. These Regulations shall be applicable to all Distribution & Retail Supply Licensees. ii. These Regulations shall extend to all the areas under the jurisdiction of the Commission. iii. These shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official Gazette.

3. Definitions In these guidelines, unless the context otherwise requires:-

(a) ―Act� means the Electricity Act, 2003;

(b) ―Chairperson� and ―member� shall mean the Chairperson of the Forum and the member, respectively and unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ‗member‘ shall also include the Chairperson;

(c) ―Commission� means Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission;

(d) ―complainant� means—

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) an applicant for a new electricity connection;

(iii) any consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any law relating to registration of societies and /or Charitable institutions or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iv) any unregistered association or group of consumers, having common or similar interests;

(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heirs or authorised representatives;

(vi) Any other person claiming through or authorized by or acting as agent for the consumer and affected by the services or business carried out by the distribution licensee.

(e) ―complaint� means any grievance in writing made by a complainant that—

(i) an unfair practice has been adopted by the distribution licensee in providing electricity service;

(ii) the electricity services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from defect or deficiency in any respect;

102

(iii) a distribution licensee has charged or recovered for electricity services mentioned in the complaint, a price or charge in excess of the price or charge fixed by the Commission; 2

(iv) electricity services which are hazardous to life and safety when availed, are being offered for use to the public in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force or of any license ;

(v) violation of any law or terms and conditions of license requiring the distribution licensee to display the information in regard to the manner or effect of use of the electrical services;

(vi) breach of any obligation by the distribution licensee which adversely affects any consumer;

(g) ―consumer� any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;

(h) ―consumer grievance� means a complaint/protest/objection filed by the Consumer;

(i) ―distribution licensee� means a licensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply;

(j) ―defect� means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, or standard of service, equipment or material which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or under any license or as is claimed by the distribution licensee in any manner whatsoever in relation to electricity service;

(k) ―deficiency� means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any license or has been undertaken to be performed by distribution licensee in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to electricity service or performance standard; viz Interruption/ failure of Power supply, Voltage complaints, metering problems including meter shifting, charges/ payments (billing problems), disconnection/reconnection of power supply to the consumer, new connections/extensions in load, notice of supply interruptions, violations of Electricity Supply Code, contravention of Act, rules or regulations made there under with regard to consumer interest;

(l) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the term the ―electricity service� means supply, billing, metering & maintenance of electrical energy to the consumer and all other attendant sub-services etc;

(m) ―Forum� means ‗Forum for redressal of consumer grievances‘ constituted by distribution licensee under section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003;

(n) ―Ombudsman� means an authority appointed/designated by the Commission, under sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the Act;

(o) ―Commission� means the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission;

(p) Words and expressions used and not defined in these Regulations but defined in the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) or in the Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000 or in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in these Acts and in case of any conflict, the meaning assigned in the Electricity Act, 2003 shall prevail. 3

103

CHAPTER I – FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES OF THE CONSUMERS 4. Constitution of forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers (1) Every distribution licensee, shall within six months from the appointed date or grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish one or more Forums for redressal of consumer grievances in accordance with these Regulations. The Forum shall be independent of the Commission and distribution licensee. (1A) The Commission shall decide appropriate number of forums for each distribution Licensees to ensure adequacy of number of forums to consider all matters and direct the distribution licensee to establish such number of Forums. (2) Forum shall consist of not more than three members including the Chairperson of the Forum. The Commission shall invite applications for selection of Chairman and Members of the Forum and may prepare a panel of persons who are eligible according to the qualifications hereinafter prescribed and shall appoint them on behalf of the distribution licensee. (3) No person shall be eligible to be appointed to the Forum within two years of his retirement if, immediately before such retirement, he has been in the service of a distribution licensee or in the holding company or subsidiary of such holding company of a distribution licensee. 4) No person shall be appointed to the Forum or continue to be a member if he suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Regulation 5 (2) or if he has reached the age of 65. Provided that the above change in age limit from the limit prescribed in the ―Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Guidelines for establishment of Forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers and Ombudsman) Regulations 2003� would not be applicable to the Chairman and Members, who have occupied the position before the date of notification of these Regulations, till the completion of their respective tenure. (5) No persons shall be eligible to be appointed to the Forum unless he has the following qualifications: (i) Chairperson of the Forum shall be a person possessing degree in electrical engineering, having served not below the rank of Superintending Engineer and having experience in the distribution of electricity. (ii) One member shall be a person possessing degree in law and having at least 10 years of experience in legal matters, which preferably includes experience in electricity sector for a period of at least three years; Provided when the Chairperson of the Forum is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the member indicated in Regulation 4(5) (ii) shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson, until the day on which the Chairperson assumes office. (iii) Another member shall be a representative of a registered society or NGO/Consumer Organization having one of its main objectives as consumer protection, with at least 5 years of standing or alternatively the representing member should have five years of experience in consumer related matters. (6) Subject to clause (4) the term of the members of Forum shall be upto a period of three years from the date of joining the Forum. 4

104

(7) The Commission shall, on behalf of the distribution licensee, for the purpose of appointment of the Chairman and the Members of the Forum, invite applications through public advertisement and after receipt of the applications, shall select a panel of candidates, in order of merit, against each post, through a method as decided by the Commissions on case to case basis. (08) Every member of the Forum shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe to an oath in such manner and before such authority as the Commission may direct. (09) The Chairman and Members appointed shall devote their whole time to the affairs of the Forum. They shall not undertake any other part-time or honorary work. (10) The Chairman shall exercise general powers of superintendence and administrative control over his office including Members / Secretary / Staff, and shall be responsible for the conduct of business of the office. (11) The Commission shall invite applications, to select and appoint Secretary for the Forum, through an appropriate mode of selection such as Contract basis, Deputation . (12) Without prejudice to any other arrangement, the salary and allowances, if any, to be paid to the Chairman, Members and Secretary of the forum shall be paid by the Commission. The distribution licensees as may be determined by the Commission, through a mechanism as specified by the Commission from time to time shall reimburse such expenditure. The Commission may also specify the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members of the Forum. (13) The distribution licensee shall give wide publicity to the formation of the Forum and shall necessarily obtain a post box number and start a web based complaint registration mechanism, to facilitate easy registration of grievances by consumers. (13A) The address of the Forum shall be displayed at all the office(s), website(s) and in the electricity bills of the distribution licensee and wide publicity shall be given in their areas of operation (14) The Secretary shall call for the meeting of the Forum to be held at such time and at such place as directed by the Chairperson. (15) The Forum shall have sittings at the headquarters of the Forum or at any other place in the distribution licensee‘s area as may be decided by the Chairperson (16) The quorum for the Forum meeting shall be two and each member shall have one vote and in case of equality of votes on any issue or resolution, the Chairperson or as the case may be, the member of the Forum discharging the functions of the Chairperson under Regulation 4(5) (ii) presiding over the meeting shall, in addition, have a casting vote. 17) All decisions of the Forum shall be on the basis of majority of the members present and voting 18) The Commission shall direct the distribution licensee to provide secretariat and such staff to the forum, identified through the process as specified by the Commission, as it may consider necessary. Without prejudice to any other arrangement that may be made, the Commission may also direct the distribution licensees to make available such staff for the forum as it considers necessary and the distribution licensees shall promptly

105

comply with such direction. The staff so provided for the forum shall work under the administrative control of the Chairman of the forum for the duration in the forum. No staff member shall continue in the office upon attaining the age of 65 years. However, positions of staff, including that of Secretary, filled under the mode of Deputation, shall be governed by the age limit as specified by the Commission from time to time. 5. Removal of the members (1) No member shall be removed from office except in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation. (2) The Commission, by order remove from office any member, if he – (i) has been adjudged an insolvent; (ii) has been convicted of an offence which in the opinion of the appropriate Commission involves moral turpitude; (iii) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a member; (iv) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member; (v) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest; (vi) has been guilty of proved misbehavior. (3) A member shall be liable to be removed from his office in the event of any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-regulation (1) arising or being discovered: Provided that, no member shall be removed from his office on any ground specified in clauses (iv), (v) or (vi) of Sub-Regulation. (2) unless any member or nominee of the Commission, has on an inquiry held by him reported that such member ought on such ground or grounds to be removed. (4) No member of the Forum shall be removed without prior approval of the Commission .In case an enquiry as specified in the proviso to the foregoing clause has been conducted, such approval shall be granted only after the Commission has considered the report of such inquiry. 6. Other conditions of appointment (1) The Commission shall be free to consider members of the forum for re-appointment for another term, not exceeding three years, on case to case basis, with duly recorded reasons thereof, subject to fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility and no further re-appointment shall be made. (2) Remuneration and other terms of office of the members shall not be varied to the disadvantage of the member after his appointment. 7. Jurisdiction of the forum (1) The Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the complainants with respect to the electricity services provided by the Distribution Licensee except the grievances arising u/s 126,127,135 to 139, 152 and 161 of the Act and to take up a matter suo-moto if the same fulfils the requirements specified in Regulation clauses (i) to (vi) of sub-regulation (f) of Regulation 3. 6 (2) The Forum shall entertain only those complaints where the complainant has approached the appropriate authority of the distribution licensee as prescribed in the complaint handling procedure of the distribution licensee approved by the Commission

106

from time to time and either is not satisfied with the response of the distribution licensee or there is no response within the time prescribed therein or within reasonable time: The complaint shall be entertained if it is filed before the Forum within three months from the date the consumer exhausted the remedy under the complaint handling procedure or when no action is taken by the authority prescribed in that procedure within the period prescribed therein, from the expiry of such period as aforesaid, whichever is earlier; Provided further that the Forum may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain a complaint which does not meet the aforesaid requirements; (3) The Forum shall not entertain a complaint if it pertains to the same subject matter for which any proceedings before any court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or any other Forum is pending or a decree, award or a final order has already been passed by any competent court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or forum; 8. Grievance filing (1) Every grievance to the Forum must be submitted in writing or through e-mail or website based grievance registration process to the Forum stating; (a) the name of the individual or the organization, postal address, K No, and telephone number, fax number and the E-mail address (if any) of the complainant; (b) the name of the office of the origin of complaint, name of the electricity district etc; (c) a full description of the matter, which is the source of the grievance, including copies of any relevant and supporting documents, if any; (d) the relief prayed for. (e) a statement that the matter is not pending before any other court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or forum. (2) A copy of response if any from the distribution licensee shall be enclosed. 9. Grievance handling procedure for the forum (1) On receipt of the consumer grievance, the Secretary shall make an endorsement on the grievance subscribing his dated initial. (2) Within 7 days of receipt of a consumer grievance, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement to the applicant. Consumer grievances received shall be registered and serially numbered for each year, and shall be referred e.g. C.G. No. 1/2002, 2/2003 and so on. A copy of the grievance shall be forwarded simultaneously to the concerned officer of the distribution licensee for redressal or to file objection if any in writing within 10 days, in case the distribution licensee is not agreeable to the request of the complainant. 7 (3) The employee nominated / authorized in this regard by the distribution licensee or the employee named in the complaint shall furnish the parawise comments on the grievance within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter from the Forum, failing which the Forum shall proceed on the basis of the material available on record. (4) The Forum may call for, any record of the distribution licensee or from the complainant relevant for examination and disposal of the grievance and the parties shall be under obligation to provide such information, document or record as the Forum may call for. (5) On receipt of the comments from the distribution licensee or otherwise and after conducting or having such inquiry or local inspection conducted as the forum may consider necessary, and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties,

107

the Forum shall pass appropriate orders for disposal of the grievance, as far as possible, within 60 days of filing the complaint. Provided also that in the event of grievance being disposed of after the maximum period specified above, the Forum should record in writing, the reasons for the same at the time of disposing the said grievance and inform the Ombudsman. (6) The proceedings and decisions of the Forum shall be recorded and shall be supported by reasons. The decision/s of the Forum shall be based on the opinion of the majority members of the Forum present and voting. The certified copy of the order of the Forum shall be communicated to the Complainant and distribution licensee in writing within 7 days from the date of order. The distribution licensee shall comply with the order of the Forum within 21 days from the date of issue of the order. (7) The Forum may, subject to the Regulations made by the Commission in this regard, award such compensation to the complainants as it considers just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Such compensation shall be borne by the distribution licensee and would not be allowed in the ARR petition filled by the distribution licensee. (8) The Forum may issue such interim orders pending final disposal of the complaint as it may consider necessary. (9) The Forum may settle any complaint in terms of an agreement reached between the parties at any stage of the proceedings before it and there shall be no right of representation before the Ombudsman against such order. (10) The Forum shall not be bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code 1908(Act 5 of 1908). Subject to these Regulations the Forum may evolve procedure conforming to the principles of fair play and justice for efficient discharge of its functions. (11) Any complainant aggrieved by orders of the Forum may prefer a representation before the Ombudsman appointed/designated by the Commission. (12) In case of complaints received through web based registration mechanism, Clauses 9(1) and 9(2) would be applicable in such manner, as prescribed by the Commission. 8 10. Reasoned Orders Every Order made by the Forum shall be a Reasoned Order and signed by the members conducting the proceedings. Where the members differ on any point or points, the opinion of the majority shall be the Order of the Forum. The opinion of the minority shall however, be recorded and form part of the Order. 11. Orders of the Forum to be binding Subject to the right of the representation before the Ombudsman specified in these Regulations, the Orders of the Forum shall be binding on the consumers and the distribution licensee. 12 Inspection of records and supply of certified copies (1) The consumer and the distribution licensee may obtain certified copies of the Orders, decisions, directions and reasons in support thereof given by the Forum in respect of the complaint.

108

(2) Any person may obtain copy of the Orders of the Forum subject to payment of such fee and after complying with such other terms, which the Forum may specify. 13 Reports and Returns to be submitted by the Forum (1) The Forum will keep a record of consumer grievances reported to it and the results thereof. (2) The Forum shall submit monthly and quarterly report on disposal of grievances and yearly report containing a general review of the activity of the Forum to the distribution licensee, Commission and Ombudsman. The report should be submitted within 15 days of the close of the month and the quarter and within 45 days of the close of the year as per the format prescribed by the Commission from time to time. (3) Without prejudice to any other arrangement, the salary and allowances to be paid to the Chairman, Members and the staff and all other expenses to be incurred in connection with this office and establishment shall be borne by the distribution licensee as per the budget approved by the Commission. CHAPTER II - REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES BY OMBUDSMAN 14. Appointment of Ombudsman The Commission shall designate or appoint a person to be known as Ombudsman to carry out the functions entrusted to him by the Act and these Regulations. The Commission may appoint more than one Ombudsman if so deemed necessary. The Commission shall, for the purpose of appointment of the Ombudsman, invite applications through public advertisement and after receipt of the applications, shall select a panel of candidates, in order of merit, against each post, or through a method as decided by the Commission on case to case basis. 15. Qualifications, terms of appointment and removal of Ombudsman (1) (a) The Ombudsman shall be a person of integrity and repute and standing in any of the areas of law, management, engineering, finance, commerce, public administration or in non-government organizations. (b) Ombudsman shall be appointed from among such persons who have served at the level of the Secretary to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi or equivalent and in case of the persons having served in any public or private sector 9 undertaking or an NGO, whose level of experience, in the opinion of the Commission, can be treated as comparable to the aforesaid. (c) No person shall be eligible to be appointed as Ombudsman within two years of his retirement if, immediately before such retirement, he has been in the service of a distribution licensee or in the holding company or subsidiary of such holding company of such distribution licensee. (2) The appointment of Ombudsman shall be for a period of three years. (3) The Ombudsman appointed under sub-clause (1) shall devote his whole time to the affairs of his office. He shall not undertake any other part-time or honorary work. (4) The Ombudsman shall be paid such salary and allowances as the Commission may by order, decide. (5) The Ombudsman shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe to an oath in such manner and before such authority as the Commission may specify.

109

(6) The conditions mentioned in Regulation 4 regarding age and the other terms and conditions of appointment of the Chairperson & Members of the Forum specified in Regulation 6 shall, mutatis mutandis apply to the appointment of the Ombudsman. (7) The Commission may, by order in writing, remove the Ombudsman from his office on the grounds and in the manner specified in Regulation 5. (8) The Commission shall invite applications through public advertisement for appointment of the Ombudsman. 16. Location of office and temporary headquarters The office of the Ombudsman shall be located at such place as may be specified by the Commission. In order to expedite disposal of complaints, the Ombudsman may hold sittings at such other places within his area of jurisdiction as he may consider necessary. 17. Staff The Commission shall provide secretariat and staff which includes a Secretary, an Advisor (Engineering) and an Advisor (Law) to the Ombudsman, with appropriate qualifications and experience, and other necessary terms and conditions, it may consider necessary from time to time. Without prejudice to any other arrangement that may be made, the Commission may also direct the distribution licensees to make available such staff for the Ombudsman as it considers necessary and the distribution licensees shall comply with such direction/order. The staff so provided shall work under the administrative control of the Ombudsman. No staff member can continue in the office upon attaining the age of 65 years. The Commission may also specify the other terms and conditions of service of the Ombudsman, Secretary, Advisors and staff from time to time. However, positions of staff, including that of Secretary, Advisors, filled under the mode of Deputation, shall be governed by the age limit as specified by the Commission from time to time. 10 18. Expenses on Ombudsman Without prejudice to any other arrangement, the salary and allowances to be paid to the Ombudsman and to the staff and all other expenses to be incurred in connection with his office and establishment shall be shared by the distribution licensees in the proportion of power drawl during the previous year and as per the budget approved by the Commission. 19. Powers and duties of the ombudsman The Ombudsman shall have the following powers and duties: (1) To receive the representation from complainants or distribution licensee aggrieved by any order of the Forum and to exercise all the powers as are available to a Forum under these Regulations and such other powers as may be delegated by the Commission from time to time. (2) The Ombudsman shall exercise general powers of superintendence and control over his office and shall be responsible for the conduct of business of the office. (3) To advise the Commission on redressal of grievances of the Consumers.

110

20. Filing of Representation before the Ombudsman (1) Any complainant, aggrieved by orders of the Forum may himself or through his authorized representative make a representation in writing, or through e-mail or website based grievance registration process to the Ombudsman. (2) The representation shall state clearly: (i) the name/s and address of the consumer/s, service connection number, category, the name of the local distribution licensees‘ office, against which the representation is made, the facts giving rise to the representation, the grounds thereof, the relief sought from the Ombudsman. (ii) the name of the Forum, date of order or decision of the Forum shall, as the case may be, mentioned in or enclosed with the representation. (3) No representation to the Ombudsman shall lie unless: (i)The consumer had, before making a representation to the Ombudsman approached the Forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for redressal of his grievance; Provided it pertains to the same subject matter for which any proceedings before any court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or any other Forum is not pending or a decree , award or a final order has not already been passed by any competent court, tribunal, commission, arbitrator, authority or forum; (ii)The representation may be made within 30 days from the date of issue of the order of the Forum: Provided that the Ombudsman may entertain a representation beyond 30 days on sufficient cause being shown by the person filing the representation that he had sufficient reasons for not filing the representation within the aforesaid period of 30 days . 11 (iii) The person filing the representation deposits an amount equal to one third of the amount assessed by the Forum in cash or by way of bank draft with the distribution licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit is enclosed with the representation. 21. Procedure before the Ombudsman (1) Within 7 days of receipt of a consumer grievance, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement to the applicant. Consumer grievances received shall be registered and serially numbered for each year, and shall referred be referred e.g. C.G. No. 1/2002, 2/2003 and so on. Within seven days of registration, the Ombudsman shall call for records relating to the representation from the concerned Forum. The concerned Forum shall send the entire records within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice to the office of the Ombudsman. (1A) In suitable cases, the Ombudsman may endeavor to promote a settlement of the grievance through conciliation or mediation and in doing so, the Ombudsman may follow such procedure, as he considers appropriate. (2) The Ombudsman may determine the manner, the place, the date and the time of the hearing of the matter as the Ombudsman considers appropriate. (3) The Ombudsman may hear the parties and direct the parties to submit written statements /submissions in the matter. (4) The Ombudsman shall pass a written order giving reasons for all his findings and award.

111

(5) The Ombudsman shall pass an award as early as possible but in any case, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Where there is delay in disposal of a representation within the said period of three months, the Ombudsman shall record reasons of such delay. A copy of the order or award shall be sent to the parties within 7 days from the date of order. (6) The distribution licensee shall duly comply with and implement the decision of the Ombudsman on the representation filed by the Complainant within 21 days of the issue of the Order. (7) Non Compliance of the Ombudsman‘s order shall be treated as contravention of these Regulations and punishable u/s 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 22. Finality of award The award or the orders of the Ombudsman shall be final and binding on the parties. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the complainant and the distribution licensee to seek appropriate remedy against the order passed by the Ombudsman before other appropriate judicial bodies. 23. Power to call information For the purpose of carrying out his duties, Ombudsman shall have the same powers to call for records or information as are available to the Forum under Regulation 9(4). 12 24. Power to remove difficulties If any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these regulations, the commission may, by general or special order, do anything, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003, which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulties. 25. General (1) The Ombudsman shall submit to the Commission, a monthly / half-yearly report on all the representation filled during the period and a yearly report containing general review of the activities of the Ombudsman office. The report should be submitted within 30 days of the close of the period to which it relates as per the format prescribed by the Commission from time to time. (2) The Commission may, if it considers necessary in the public interest so to do, publish the reports of the Ombudsman in such consolidated form or otherwise as it deems fit. (3) The Commission may by order provide for or clarify any matter on which no provision is made in these Regulations or the provision made is insufficient. (4) The Forum and Ombudsman shall exercise such other powers as the Commission may, by order, delegate from time to time. (5) Chairman and Members of the Forum, the Secretary and the staff thereof, the Ombudsman and the staff thereof, when purporting to act under any provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 or under any provision of these Regulations or directions or orders issued there under shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

112

(6) Subject to these Regulations, the Forum and the Ombudsman shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall have powers to regulate their own procedure. 26. Power to relax

The Commission may, in public interest and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any provision of these Regulations. 27. Inherent powers of the Commission

Nothing in these Regulations shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Commission to make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Commission. 28. Repeal and Savings (1) Nothing contained in these regulations shall affect the rights and privileges of the consumers under any other law for the time being in force, including the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). (2) The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers and Ombudsman) Regulations 2003 shall stand repealed with effect from the date of notification of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011.