Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13 th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976 Email: mercindia@mercindia.org.in Website: www.mercindia.org.in Case No. 111 of 2012 In the matter of Complaint filed by Shri.Manoj Kanji Hariya, Bhiwandi under Section 142 and Section 146 of Electricity Act, 2003 (EA 2003) against MSEDCL for non-compliance of the Order passed by the CGRF, Bhandup dated 23 November 2011 Shri. V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri. Vijay L. Sonavane, Member Shri Manoj Kanji Hariya, 711/10, Mahavir Society, R.No.306, Near Waghmare Hosp. Bhiwandi-Thana Road, Bhiwandi- 421302...Complainant V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited (MSEDCL) Nodal Office- Bhiwandi...Opponent Present during the hearing: For the Complainant: Shri Manoj Kanji Hariya For the Opponent: Shri B. B. Jadkar, MSEDCL (Representative) Shri A. L. Deshapande, MSEDCL (Representative) Shri V.V.Babar, MSEDCL (Representative) ORDER Dated: 26 December, 2012 Shri. Majoj Kanji Hariya filed a Complaint under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against MSEDCL for non-compliance of the Order dated 23 Order_Case No. 111of 2012 Page 1 of 5
November,2011 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Bhandup in Case No.386. 2. The prayers of the Complainant are as follows: Institute or punish U/s 142, 146 of electricity act 2003. The amount prayed by the petitioner should be return in case with compounding interest of 12 percent and other amount of thief with compounding charges should be detected from the bill. No malpractice will be accepted by any of the officers. 3. The facts mentioned in the Complaint are as under: (a) On 27 September, 2005 flying squad of the Opponent raided the Complainant s premises where electricity connection was released for Power Loom Industry. The Opponent had issued electricity connection in the name of Shri. Chaganlal Mepa Hariya, however, the Opponent had lodged First Information Report (FIR) against Shri. Rajesh Kanji Hariya (who is occupier of the premises) on the same day under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act 2003. The Complainant paid the civil liability (Theft Charges) of Rs. 48,615/- on 3 October, 2005 and compounding charges of Rs. 12,000/- on 12 December, 2005. The Court of the Special Judge (Electricity), Thane acquitted the accused from the offence on 1 April, 2010. (b) The Complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly. Even though the energy consumed were 30 HP, the Complainant is paying the bills as per 39 HP. The raid of flying squad was fake and with the motive to put the Complainant in trouble. The name of consumer is Shri. Chaganlal Mepa Hariya, however First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against Shri. Rajesh Kanji Hariya who is a relative of the Complainant. However, assessed amount for theft was paid by the Complainant in order to restore its supply. (c) The Complainant approached CGRF, Bhandup for refund of assessed amount and compensation for mental agony. The CGRF Bhandup allowed refund of assessed amount along with interest. The Complainant submitted that as directed by CGRF, Bhandup in Order dated 23 November, 2011; the Opponent has not deducted other theft amount from his electricity bills. Also, the Opponent has not given any interest on theft amount. (d) Aggrieved with the decision of the CGRF, Bhandup the Complainant approached the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai seeking compensation for mental agony and damages caused by filing false FIR and non-submission of load survey report to the CGRF by the Opponent. However, the Ombudsman vide Order dated 29 March, 2012 rejected the Complainant s representation. Order_Case No. 111of 2012 Page 2 of 5
(e) Thereafter, the Complainant filed Review application before the Ombudsman against the above said Order dated 29 March 2012. The said review application was rejected on dated 17 July, 2012 without looking at the material evidence placed on record. 4. The Commission, vide notice dated 18 October, 2012 scheduled a hearing in the matter on 1 November, 2012 and directed the Complainant vide letter dated 18 October, 2012 to serve a copy of the Complaint to the Opponent and authorised Consumer Representatives. 5. During the hearing held, on 1 November, 2012 the Complainant was not present and the Opponent was heard by the Commission. The Opponent submitted that Flying squad unit of utility raided the premises of Shri.Chaganlal Hariya with Electric connection for power loom and found tampering in the meter. Subsequently, on nonpayment of assessment bill, FIR was lodged. Case proceeded in the Thane Court vide Sp. Case No.1163/06. Hon. Court acquitted the accused from the consequences of Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act 2003. Thereafter, the Complainant filed his grievance before CGRF and CGRF Ordered refund of the theft amount with interest. Accordingly, MSEDCL directed Torrent Power Ltd (MSEDCL s Franchisee in Bhiwandi Area) to give credit adjustment in the electricity bill of the said theft amount along with interest. In February 2012 credit adjustment of Rs. 67088.32 was given in electricity bill of the Complainant. 6. During the hearing held on 19 December, 2012, the Complainant was present and stated that a false case was lodged by the Opponent, which led to mental agony and harassment. It was also submitted that compensation for mental agony and harassment has not been given to him. He submitted that CGRF s Order has not been complied by the Opponent. The Opponent reiterated the submissions made during the first hearing held on 1 November, 2012 and informed that CGRF, Bhandup Order dated 23 November,2011 has already been complied with in the month of February 2012 electricity bill. 7. Having heard the parties and after considering material placed on records, the Commission has observed that, (a) CGRF Bhandup in its Order dated 23 November 2011 has ruled as follows: Accordingly to the Hon ble Thane Court Sp. Case no 1163/06 the order passed on 15/06/2010 is as follows: 1) Shri. Rajesh Kanji Hariya is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 135 and 138 of Electricity Act 2003. 2) His bill bond shall be cancelled. 3) He is set Liberty forthwith. Order_Case No. 111of 2012 Page 3 of 5
From the above Forum observed that as pleaded by the utility the compensation is not awarded by the Hon ble Court but the theft bill assessed towards civil liability should have been cancelled or payment made by the Applicant should have been refunded. Forum also observed that the utility should credit the interest at the rate of R.B.I for holding the theft amount Rs.48615/- from Oct-2005 till refund of this amount. The utility is therefore directed to refund the theft amount along with the interest as said above. The applicant consumer could not justify the demand for the compensation for harassment and mental agony, hence forum therefore decline to award the same. (b) The CGRF, Bhandup had directed the Opponent to refund the theft amount along with the interest.the CGRF, Bhandup did not allow the claim of compensation for mental agony was not allowed by the CGRF. (c) Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Ombudsman in Case No 20 of 2012. The Ombudsman in its Order dated 29 March 2012 ruled as follows: Records further show that the matter of theft of electricity and assessment bill raised under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is already decided by the Civil Court, without any order as to cost or compensation. The Assessment bill amount recovered is refunded to the Appellant with applicable interest. The Forum considered Appellant grievance in this regard and held that the appellant could not justify the demand for the compensation. The Appellant has not pointed out any reason to interfere in the Forum s order, in this regard. In view of above Appellants representation is liable to be and is hereby rejected. (emphasis added) (d) Through the present complaint, the Complainant has come before the Commission alleging non-compliance of the CGRF Order. In the Order of the Ombudsman which was submitted by the Complainant itself and as reproduced above, it has been clearly mentioned that the Assessment amount is refunded to the Complainant with applicable interest. The CGRF Order dated 23 Novembe,2011 has been already been complied with by the opponent. (e) Moreover, the Ombudsman has already decided the matter against the present Complainant. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006 do not entitle the complainant to file a complaint seeking compliance of CGRF s Order especially when the further representation by the complainant before the Electricity Ombudsman has been rejected. Order_Case No. 111of 2012 Page 4 of 5
8. In view of the aforesaid observation, Commission rules that, the present complaint is not maintainable, and is therefore dismissed. Accordingly, Case No 111 of 2012 stands dismissed as not maintainable Sd/- (Vijay L. Sonavane) Member Sd/- (V. P. Raja) Chairman Order_Case No. 111of 2012 Page 5 of 5