Report of Indian Institute of Public Administration ... - Ministry of Power

Rajasthan
Corporate
level
Cases Settled in Settlement committee at
Chief
engineer
Circle Division
6.45
Subdivision
Total
cases
settled
2001-02 145 623 3338 5975 1628 11709
2002-03 135 671 3515 10802 1781 16904
2003-04 106 440 3401 10353 1579 15879
2004-05 127 467 2620 9813 1623 14650
Apart from the above, a full-fledged division at the corporate level under Executive
Engineer (Grievance) is in operation to receive and redress all type of grievances from
general consumers regularly.
Ombudsman
This institution has been constituted under clause 53 of Terms and Condition of
Supply of Electricity, 2004. Any consumer, aggrieved by non-redressal of his
grievance, may under Clause 51 or 52 make representation for redressal of his
grievance to the ombudsman, appointed by the Commission. The Divisional
Commissioners, located at the headquarters of the DISCOMs, i.e., Jaipur, Jodhpur and
Ajmer, have been designated as ex-officio ombudsmen. Each ombudsman is assisted
by a retired engineer. They are supposed to dispose of the complaints within 90 days.
i) The grievance redressal mechanism except the Settlement Committees is very
weak. If the committees function with a judicial approach, they would inspire
confidence and the consumers would prefer to approach them rather than rush to
Courts. On the other hand, if a deliberately biased and pro-DISCOM view is
taken by these committees, as appears to be the latest trend then the consumers
would lose faith in such committees and this is what has happened gradually.
Purely internal committees of the DISCOMs do not inspire the due confidence.
Under Section 42(6) of the EA, 2003, the Ombudsman is the first independent
authority to handle such disputes. Since Clause (5) of this Section lays down that
prior to approaching the Ombudsman, the channel of internal committee must be
exhausted, this provision has rendered the institution of Ombudsman nonfunctional.
Out of three Ombudsmen appointed in Rajasthan, one has not handled
any matter and another has decided just one case and the third has decided barely
four cases, since they were appointed. There are no pending cases with
Ombudsmen. The reason is obvious. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to