Case No. 2 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13 th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: Case No. 2 of 2011 In the matter of Complaint filed by M/s Pace Investment Pvt., Ltd., seeking directions against MSEDCL under Section 142 and Section 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for noncompliance of the Order passed by the IGR Cell, Pune, dated Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member M/s Pace Investment Pvt. Ltd Complainant V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional E.E. and Sub-Div. Dy. E.E., Pune Opponent ORDER Dated: 31 st March, 2011 M/s Pace Investment Pvt., Ltd., the Complainant herein, filed a complaint on affidavit before the Commission on 7 th January, 2011, seeking directions against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ( MSEDCL ), Opponent herein, under Sections 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( EA 2003 ). The Complainant has alleged that MSEDCL has not complied with the Order dated 14 th September, 2010 passed by the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, Pune ( IGR Cell ). 2. The prayers of the Petitioner are as follows: 1. The Hon ble Commission may please direct the Respondents to comply the Order dated passed by IGRC, MSEDCL, Pune. Order_[Case No.2 of 2011] Page 1 of 5

2 2. The Hon ble Commission may please direct the Respondents to refund the illegally collected amount of Rs.1,23,770/- immediately along with interest at bank rate thereon till realization to the Petitioner as provided under section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, The Hon ble Commission may please direct the Respondent to pay cost of IGRC and MERC petition amounting to Rs.25,000/- to the Petitioner. 4. The Hon ble Commission may please initiate appropriate proceeding against the Respondents under the relevant provisions Sec 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and they may be punished accordingly. 5. The Hon ble Commission may please pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper against the Respondents. 3. Brief facts of the matter, as submitted by the Complainant are as under: I. The Complainant M/s Pace Investment Private Limited, Pune, is an Investment Company/ Developer. The complainant had taken four separate electricity connections for the four (4) floors of the premises under reference. However, all the connections are in the name of Complainant, having different consumer numbers although, as submitted, the actual consumers of electricity are four different companies, using the power through separate meters, as per details set out hereunder: Name of company load kw (as sanctioned) 1. Poonawala Investment Pvt.Ltd Adrujee & Brothers Furnishers Serum Institute of India The Poona Stud Farm (P) Ltd. 25 Total 120 For whatever reasons, the complainant seems to have not applied for change of name of the consumer for the aforesaid meters. II. III. IV. The Opponent carried out a verification survey on the said premises, and based on MSEDCL s Commercial Circular no. 102, Revision of Tariff Implementation dated , made a verification Report dated , whereby clubbing of all four connections was recommended as also the tariff had changed from earlier applicable rate for load below 50kW for individuals to the higher rate above 50kW. Also, the rate difference to be charged for six months was recommended. In consonance with the aforesaid report, the Opponent applied the rate for supply as applicable to load above 50kW, and issued the bills at the higher rate for individual meters, totaling to Rs.1,23,770/-. The Complainant submitted that under threat of disconnection, he paid the electricity bills. The Complainant submitted that he had objected to the said bill but did not get any response from the Opponent. Order_[Case No.2 of 2011] Page 2 of 5

3 V. Aggrieved by the action of the opponent, the Complainant filed a grievance with IGR Cell, RPUC, Pune, on The case was heard on The IGR Cell, in its order dated , observed that the representative of MSEDCL, Dy E.E., Wadia Sub-Division, had not produced any evidence during the hearing that those four consumers are one and the same and using electricity for same purpose. IGR Cell Pune passed an order, that the issued bill amounting Rs.1,23,770/- was illegal, and the amount paid, be refunded. VI. VII. The Complainant sent a letter dated to the Opponent to comply with the order of IGR Cell, but did not get any response from the Opponent. The Complainant has therefore filed this complaint with the Commission, under Section 142 and 149 of the EA The Complainant has submitted before the Commission that till the date of filing this complaint before the Commission, the Opponent did not comply with the Order passed by IGR Cell. 5. The Commission vide Notice dated 4 th March, 2011, scheduled a hearing in the matter on 11 th March, At the scheduled hearing, the Complainant was represented by Shri A. V. Huyalkar, while the Opponent was represented by Shri M. T. Achinmane, Executive Engineer, Shri R. L. Rai, Dy. Executive Engineer and others from MSEDCL. 6. Having heard the parties and after considering the materials placed on record, the Commission is of the view that a complaint, so far it seeks to invoke penal provisions of Section 142 for non-compliance of any order for redressal of grievance, would be maintainable only in accordance with the following provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006 ( Regulations 2006 ) :- 8.7 Any order passed or direction issued by the Forum shall be implemented or complied with by the Distribution Licensee or the person required by the order or direction to do so and within the time frame stipulated in the order/ directions and further intimation of such compliance shall also be made to the Forum within the time frame stipulated in that regard in the order/ directions An order passed or direction issued by the Electricity Ombudsman shall be binding on the parties so named in the order or direction and such order or direction shall be implemented or complied with by the Distribution Licensee or the person required by the order or direction to do so and within the time frame stipulated therein and further intimation of such compliance shall also be made to the Electricity Ombudsman within the time frame stipulated in that regard therein. Order_[Case No.2 of 2011] Page 3 of 5

4 22. Punishment for non-compliance of orders Without prejudice to any penalty which may be imposed or prosecution proceeding which may be initiated under the Act, noncompliance of Regulations 8.7 or in any manner whatsoever shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of these Regulations and the Commission may initiate proceedings suo motu or on a complaint filed by any person to impose penalty or prosecution proceeding under Sections 142 and 149 of the Act. A conjoint reading of the above regulations would indicate that only when an order of the CGRF or the Electricity Ombudsman is not implemented, then only the aforesaid penal provisions could be invoked. The above regulations do not indicate that penal provisions could be invoked when the first authority as notified by the Distribution Licensee and which has been contacted by the consumer for redressal of his/her Grievance, viz., the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell or IGR Cell seeks redressal of the grievance by the Distribution Licensee and the Distribution Licensee does implement the decision of the IGR Cell. In fact, under Regulation 6.1, the Distribution Licensee shall have an Internal Grievance Redressal Cell to record and redress Grievances in a timely manner, and the Distribution Licensee shall endeavour to redress Grievances through its IGR Cell. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, it would appear that it is not as if the Distribution Licensee is not implementing the decision of the IGR Cell, it is that the Distribution Licensee through its IGR Cell has failed to redress the grievance of the Complainant. In this situation, the Complainant will need to follow the provisions of the Regulations 2006, where as a first step the following regulation will apply:- 6.4 Unless a shorter period is provided in the Act, in the event that a consumer is not satisfied with the remedy provided by the IGR Cell to his Grievance within a period of two (2) months from the date of intimation or where no remedy has been provided within such period, the consumer may submit the Grievance to the Forum. The Distribution Licensee shall, within the said period of two (2) months, send a written reply to the consumer stating the action it has taken or proposes to take for redressing the Grievance. 7. In the present case, no remedy has been provided to the consumer. Thus, the consumer may submit its Grievance to the Forum. However, the consumer Complainant has skipped the provisions of the Regulations 2006 and submitted the present complaint in order to invoke penal provisions under Sections 142 and 149 of the Act. The Complainant is presently at the stage where it could prefer filing its grievance before the concerned CGRF. The procedural requirements for filing a grievance is specified in the Regulations These procedures cannot be wished away. Due process must be followed. Order_[Case No.2 of 2011] Page 4 of 5

5 8. In the circumstances, the present Complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. In the passing though, the Commission notes a disturbing trend of the IGR Cell coming to a conclusion that is different than that of the Distribution Licensee or rather not implemented by it. The IGR Cell was envisioned in the Regulations 2006 as clearly defined to mean:- 2(d) Internal Grievance Redressal Cell or IGR Cell means such first authority to be contacted by the consumer for redressal of his/her Grievance as notified by the Distribution Licensee;. It was not envisioned that the IGR Cell and the Distribution Licensee would function in a segregated manner where both would not be ad idem with each other. In the spirit of the Regulations 2006 it is expected that in future no such similar eventually would take place. The Regulations expressly state that The Distribution Licensee shall endeavour to redress Grievances through its IGR Cell. Accordingly, the present complaint in case no. 2 of 2011 stands dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (Vijay L. Sonavane) Member Sd/- (V. P. Raja) Chairman (P.B. Patil) Registrar, MERC Order_[Case No.2 of 2011] Page 5 of 5