TRAVANCORE OXYGEN LIMITED vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

ORIGINAL Petition No. 115/93 has been filed by Travancore Oxygen Ltd. against the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Complainant is a corporate body engaged in the manufacture of oxygen and allied gases. The substance of the petition is that for the past several years there has been irregularity in the supply of and mercurial fluctuation in the voltage of electricity given to the Petitioner by the O.P. Board. According to the Petitioner, a very serious situation developed due to the low voltage of electricity supply during the peak load hours as a result of which the plant had to be switched off during the low voltage period to avoid damage to equipment and products and this frequent stoppage of plant every day for 3 to 4 hours resulted in production loss. The Petitioner has placed on record a copy of its agreement dated September 1, 1982 with the O.P. for the supply of electricity; copies of the Petitioner''s communications, sent during September 1989-November 1990 with details of interruptions and low voltage in electricity supply, to various levels of officials in the O.P. Board requesting them for rectification of the defects have also been produced. In one of these communications, it was brought to the notice of the O.P. Board that the BIFR had identified the unit as a sick unit and that huge production losses sustained by the unit due to low voltage and power failure affected the survival of the unit. The OP in their reply in March, 1991 to the Complainant''s communication of November, 1990 stated that the low voltage in the Petitioner''s factory was the result of drop in EHT Voltage due to system constraints which was the force majeure condition throughout the State and requested the Petitioner to install capacitors in its installations for maintaining its power factor at or above 0.85 so that KSEB can correctly assess the works to be done from outside. The O.P. Board also mentioned that steps were being taken to improve the system parameters. The Complainant informed the O.P. in October, 1991 that it had already installed the required capacitors, though in its opinion such installation was not really required but that the problem persisted even after that. The Complainant alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Board since the fluctuations in voltage went beyond the range of 12.5 per cent. specified in the agreement. It was further contended that while it continued to incur losses on account of low voltage in the supply of electricity, the Board did not make any reduction in the levy and collection of electricity charge which amounted to unfair trade practice. The Complainant has worked out that it was entitled to receive Rs. 30 lakhs from the O.P. Board as compensation on the date of filing the complaint i.e. March 4, 1993 and has also claimed compensation for future loss being suffered by it. The Petitioner has pointed out that although it has been sustaining losses for the past several years it is confining its case only to the loss suffered from December, 1989 to avoid any contention based on law of limitation. The Petitioner has also prayed for cost and expenses and requested for direction to the OP to ensure flawless voltage fluctuation-free supply of electricity to the Petitioner.

IN their version, the KSEB have, inter alia, referred to clause 1(b) of the aforesaid agreement between the parties according to which "the frequency and pressure of electrical energy at the point of delivery of power to the consumer shall be subject to the fluctuations that are ordinary, usual and incidental to the generation and transmission of electrical energy, but such fluctuation shall not except, owing to extraordinary reasons beyond the control of the Board, be more than plus or minus three per cent. (3%) on the frequency and plus or minus twelve and a half percent (12.5%) On the pressure". Based on this clause, the OP Board have worked out the permissible range of fluctuation in voltage at 467 and 363 volts and shown that in all, even according to the Complainant''s data, there were only three occasions when the voltage came down below the lower limit of 363 volts and also that the 11 KV voltage recorded at the sub-station disproved these data. The Board further contended that the Petitioner''s plant can operate even at that voltage. The OP Board have further explained in general the problems of power supply in the State in the context of the burgeoning demand for power. Though various new works relating to several schemes for enhancement of power supply are being planned and taken up, the Board referred to the need for clearance from environment angle and legal cases instituted by land owners besides financial constraints. Further, the Board have to fulfil certain welfare measures like Harijan Colony electrification, agricultural connections, Kutir Jyoti etc. The Board have pointed out that they cater to the needs of more than 30 lakh consumers in the State and that there is no need for them to indulge in ''unfair trade practice'' to extract money from the Petitioner or to cause any loss or damage to it. The Board have stated that although they are making every endeavour to maintain the required voltage level, low voltage is being experienced in some areas due to reasons beyond control and that this phenomenon is not confined to the Petitioner alone but is experienced in different parts of the State. The Board have pleaded that they have not shown any wilful negligence for not keeping satisfactory voltage to the Petitioner.

IN its reply to the version of the OP, the petitioner''s main contentions are that as per the name plate details of the transformer, when the voltage of supply at 11 KV side of the transformer is 11,000 volts, the voltage at the LT side of the transformer will be 433 volts and therefore the range of permissible voltage fluctuation as per agreement is between 379 and 487 volts and that the voltage recorded by the volt meter installed by the Petitioner in the absence of meter from the side of the OP showed that the fluctuation was beyond these limits. It is also pointed out by the Petitioner that as per the manufacturer''s direction the plant cannot he operated efficiently below 379 volts. In view of the sharp difference between the parties on the basic figure of system voltage i.e. whether it is 415 or 433 volts over which the permissible limits of voltage fluctuation is reckoned the Commission directed the OP Board to file affidavits explaining how they have arrived at the figure of 363 volts as the minimum lower limit by applying the principles laid down in clause 1(b) of the agreement, The OP Board filed their affidavit in May, 1996 and the Petitioner filed their counter affidavit.

WE have carefully gone through the records and heard the counsel on both sides. The Board have shown that as per the IS 585/62/4.1 prevalent in 1983 i.e. at the time of the execution of agreement and as per IS 12360/1988 superseding IS 585/62), the system voltage for 3 phase is 415 volts and the admitted variations of plus or minus 12.5% on that basis works out to 467 volts and 363 volts whereas the Petitioner is basing its calculation on three phase voltage of 433 volts which according to the Board it is not expected to maintain as per IS specifications. The Board have further pointed out that 11 KV voltage recorded at the Edappon Sub-Station and connected voltage drop calculations disprove the allegations of the Petitioner of drop in voltage below the lower limit of 363 volts (vide calculations furnished by the Board in their affidavits dated April 25, 1996 on pages 144 to 146 of volume-1 of the paper book). However, the Petitioner has referred to clause 2(a) of the agreement according to which the point of delivery of power at 11,000 volts shall be at the consumer side maintaining current transformers installed by the Board in the outdoor/indoor switch gear station at the consumer''s premises. The plea of the Petitioner is that : (i) the OP Board had not installed a voltameter at 11 KV point of supply (ii) it had installed a volts transformer to receive supply of 11 KV, (iii) since there is a specific provision to maintain 11 KV voltage in the factory premises of the Petitioner the calculations should be based on 433 volts and the lower limit is then 379 volts, (iv) the specification IS 12360/88 is not applicable to it and (v) it is not convinced that the voltage meters used by the OP for recording readings in the log book at Eddapan Sub-Station on specified dates have been tested to find out accuracy during the relevant period and therefore these readings are not acceptable to it. The main dispute between the parries revolves round the permissible range of fluctuations. Clause 1(b) of the agreement specifies the, permissible range of fluctuations only in terms of percentage and not in absolute terms. It is the agreement which is binding on both the parties and hence the entire dispute about the absolute values of the permissible range of fluctuation i.e. whether it should be around 433 volts or 415 volts does not flow from the agreement. Further clause 2(a) has referred to the force majeure condition under which the OP cannot be held responsible for any defective supply of electricity. There is nothing in the complaint which goes to show that there was any wilful action on the part of the OP-Board resulting in the - alleged voltage fluctuation to the petitioner. It is also not established by the Petitioner that the alleged losses in production are solely due to power constraints.

IN the facts and circumstances of this case we are unable to deduce any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party Board. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed with the liberty to the Petitioner to seek redressal by way of civil suit, if so advised. No costs.