DERC penalises BSES Rajdhani for violation of rules
Delhi's power regulator DERC has slapped a Rs 20,000 penalty on a distribution company for "violation" of rules in a 10-year-old case...
Delhi's power regulator DERC has slapped a Rs 20,000 penalty on a distribution company for "violation" of rules in a 10-year-old case of power theft. The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) imposed the penalty on BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) on a petition filed by the director of AK Mehta and Company, alleging violations of provisions of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007.
The Commission in its order on June 14 found that respondent BRPL has violated provisions of Regulations 52(viii) and 53(ii) of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007. "For violation of Regulations 52 (viii) and 53(ii) the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs 20,00, Rs 10,000 for each violation, to be paid within 30 days of the order," it said.
In a case of dishonest abstraction of energy(DAE), a power meter of the petitioner was sent to National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) and he was informed through a letter of the respondent(BRPL) dated December 10, 2008. "The respondent failed to produce evidence of seizure memo of the date of removal of meter. The meter was removed on December 10, 2008.
Hence, the respondent violated the Regulations 52 (viii) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007," the order stated. Regulation 52 (viii) of Supply Code, 2007, says that in case of suspected theft of power, the authorized officer will remove the old meter under a seizure memo and seal it in the presence of the consumer or his representative. The order also found a violation of Regulation 53 (ii) of Supply Code, 2007, according to which after the personal hearing, the licensee(discom) will pass within three days, a speaking order as to whether the case of theft is established or not.
The Commission observed that the personal hearing was held on October 06, 2009. However, the speaking order was issued on December 4, 2009 -after one month and 28 days from the date of personal hearing. The respondent clarified that the delay was caused by the necessity to verify records submitted by the consumer. It further submitted that the provision of passing a speaking order within three days is the only directory and not mandatory in nature.
However, the Commission observed that the regulation must be complied with whether it contains a mandatory or a directory direction. "It is not the free will of the discom to comply or not to comply with the provisions of regulations," DERC observed and considered the "omission" on part of the respondent as a violation.