MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel. No /65/69 Fax Website: Case No. 161 of 2013 In the matter of Complaint filed by M/s. Ruhatiya Spinners Pvt. Ltd., for non compliance by Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL, Akola, of an Order Passed by the CGRF, MSEDCL, Akola Zone read with Regulation 22 & 8.7 of MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, under Sections 142, 146 and 149 of Electricity Act, Shri. Vijay L. Sonavane, Member Smt.Chandra Iyengar, Member M/s. Ruhatiya Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Complainant. Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL, Akola... Opponent. Present during the hearings: 1) For the Complainant: None 2) For the Opponent: Shri. P.R. Lahane, Assistant Law officer, MSEDCL. ORDER Date: December 23, 2013 M/s. Ruhatiya Spinners Private Limited submitted a Complaint on 7 October 2013 in the matter of non compliance by Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL, Akola, of the Order No. CGRF / AKOLA / 185 Dated , passed by the CGRF, MSEDCL, Akola Zone read with Regulations 22 & 8.7 of MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Page 1 of 5

2 Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, under Sections 142, 146 and 149 of Electricity Act, The prayers of the Complainant are as under: 1) to direct MSEDCL to comply the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Akola Zone order Dated ) To direct MSEDCL to give credit of difference of amount from to , with interest of 9%, Compensation Rs.1000/- and cost Rs.2000/- within 15 days. 3) To initiate action against guilty officers of MSEDCL Akola under Section 142, Section 146, Section 149 of Electricity Act ) Applicant prays Hon ble Commission to give any other directives to meet the justice in favour of Petitioner. 3. The Complainant has submitted in his Complaint as below, 1. The Complainant is industrial Consumer of MSEDCL. The Complainant had submitted application for change of tariff from HT continuous to HT noncontinuous on 4 October This application was based on the choice given to Consumer as per MERC clarification Order in Case no.44 dated 12 September 2008 read with MSEDCL Commercial Circular no. 88 dated 26 September 2008 after issue of MSEDCL Commercial Circular no.175 dated 5 November The Complainant requested the effective date as 1 August The Complainant mentioned that, MSEDCL made applicable HT Non- continuous tariff from arbitrary date as 27 February 2013 instead of 1 August Aggrieved by the action of MSEDCL, the Complainant filed a Complaint in the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Akola on 29 April It was contended by the Complainant in CGRF that the MSEDCL has failed to implement the tariff Order of MERC though the complainant has submitted application on 4 October 2012 for making applicable Non continuous (HT1-N) tariff from 1 August 2012 by making reference to MERC Order dated 12 September 2008 in Case No.44 and Commercial Circular of MSEDCL NO.88 dated 26 September 2008 and sought relief of implementation of HT1-N tariff from 1 August 2012 with Page 2 of 5

3 credit of difference of amount recovered from 1 August 2012 to 27 February 2013 with interest at RBI with compensation and cost. 4. MSEDCL submitted its written submission on 21 May MSEDCL submitted that the Complainant has filed the choice to change tariff within time limit on 4 October 2012 which was approved by the Competent Authority vide its letter dated 6 March 2013 and change of tariff HT1C to HT1 N made effective from 27 February The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Akola in its Order dated 28 June 2013 directed MSEDCL to change the tariff from HT1-C to HT1 N from 1 August 2012 instead of 27 February 2013 and to give credit of the difference amount recovered from the complainant till 27 February 2013 by making adjustment thereof in the forthcoming bills of the complainant. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Akola also directed MSEDCL to refund excess amount with 9% and also the compensation of Rs.1000/- apart from the cost of Rs.2000/- of the Proceedings. 6. As Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL, Akola did not comply with the Order of CGRF Akola, The Complainant issued notice to MSEDCL on 23 August 2013 to adjust the credit in the bill for September Despite of this Notice, the Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL, Akola committed non compliance of the CGRF Order and hence the Complainant has filed this Complaint with the Commission for the non compliance under the provisions of (CGRF and EO) Regulation, 2006 under Section 142,146 and 149 of the Electricity Act The Commission, vide notice dated 20 November, 2013 scheduled a hearing in the matter on 11 December, 2013 and directed the Complainant to serve a copy of the Petition on the Opponent and authorized Consumer Representatives. 5. The Opponent, MSEDCL submitted vide its letter no. SE/TRC/M-122 /29844 dated 29 October 2013, that the said Order has been challenged by MSEDCL before the Hon ble Bombay High court, Nagpur bench by filling a Writ Petition no.5437 of MSEDCL also submitted that the Hon ble High court by its Order dated 9 October 2013 has stayed the Order issued by CGRF, Akola. Page 3 of 5

4 6. The Complainant submitted a letter dated 29 November 2013 to the Commission. The Complainant submitted that, the Order of CGRF has been challenged by MSEDCL before the Hon ble High court, in a Writ Petition no.5437 of The Complainant also submitted that the Hon ble High court has stayed the Order issued by CGRF, Akola, hence the matter be postponed till the decision of Writ Petition. 7. During the hearing on 11 December 2013, the Commission heard the Representatives of Opponent. The Complainant remained absent from the hearing. 8. Having heard and after considering the material placed on the record, the Commission noted that the CGRF Order dated 28 June 2013 has been challenged by the Opponent, MSEDCL in Writ Petition No of 2013 before the Hon ble Bombay High Court and the Hon ble Bombay High Court has stayed the said CGRF Order. The Commission also noted that, neither Complainant nor his representatives appeared in the Commission for hearing in this matter however Complainant submitted a letter dated 29 November, 2013, requesting the matter to be postponed till the decision of Writ Petition. Under such circumstances it is not appropriate for this Commission to proceed further in the present matter, which is presently sub judice before the Hon ble Bombay High Court. In view of the above, the present Complaint in Case No 161 of 2013 stands dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to approach the Commission after final judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the above referred Writ Petition. 9. Summary of the findings: The Commission noted that the CGRF Order dated 28 June 2013 has been challenged by the Opponent, MSEDCL in Writ Petition No of 2013 before the Hon ble Bombay High Court and the Hon ble Bombay High Court has stayed the said CGRF Order. The Commission also noted that, neither Complainant nor his representatives appeared in the court for hearing in this matter however Complainant submitted a letter dated 29 November, 2013, requesting the matter to be postponed till the decision of Writ Petition. Under such circumstances it is not appropriate for this Commission to proceed further Page 4 of 5

5 in the present matter, which is presently sub judice before the Hon ble Bombay High Court. In the above circumstances, the present Complaint in Case No 161 of 2013 stands dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to approach the Commission after final judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the above referred Writ Petition. With the above Observations and Directions, the Commission disposes off the Petition in the matter of Case No.161 of Sd / - Sd / - (Chandra Iyengar) (Vijay L. Sonavane) Member Member Page 5 of 5