Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in Website: www.mercindia.org.in / www.merc.gov.in Case No. 99 of 2014 In the matter of Complaint filed by M/s. Jay Plastic under Section 142 & 146 of the Electricity Act 2003 for part non-compliance of the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai s Order No. 96 of 2012 dated 8 January, 2013. Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Chairperson Shri Vijay. L. Sonavane, Member Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member M/s. Jay Plastics....Complainant 1) The Chief Engineer, Kalyan Zone, Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Limited. (MSEDCL) 2) The Superintending Engineer, Vasai Circle, MSEDCL. 3) The Executive Engineer, Vasai Division, MSEDCL. Present during the hearing: Representative/Advocate for the Complainant : Shri. Harshad Sheth (Rep)...Opponents Representative/Advocate for the Respondent : Shri. Rahul Sinha, Advocate for MSEDCL : Shri R.N. Nalgirkar, MSEDCL. : Shri. S.S. Umbarje, MSEDCL. ORDER Date: 17 July, 2014 M/s. Jay Plastics, Vasai East, Dist. Thane has submitted a Complaint on 2 April, 2014 under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for part non-compliance by MSEDCL of the Electricity Ombudsman Mumbai s Order No. 96 of 2012 dated 8 January, 2013. MERC Order_ Case No. 99 of 2014 Page 1 of 5
2. The Complainant s prayers are as follows: a) Invocation of section 142 & 146 of Electricity Act for non compliance of CGRF order, E.A.2003 & non implementation of ACT, Rules & regulations. b) Supplementary bill of Rs. 15, 31, 470 to be deleted, along with DPC & interest charged from bill c) Raise the 2 years bill after deducting the refund claimed by consumer as per CGRF order & refund our excess amount of Rs.13, 341. c) The cost of the petition to the petitioner 3. The Complainant, M/s. Jay Plastics, has submitted that: a) It is a Consumer of MSEDCL. The Electricity Ombudsman has directed MSEDCL to set aside the supplementary bill of Rs. 15, 31,470/-, raise the revised bill for the difference and submit a compliance report within 30 days. b) The Complainant has already paid the billed amount of the two year period as per the Electricity Ombudsman s Order, but MSEDCL has not withdrawn the supplementary bill. c) Due to these fictitious arrears, the Complainant has to approach the billing office every month for the payment of the current bill with correction. It has to forego the prompt payment discount, and the lineman visits the premises for disconnection as the arrears appear on the record of MSEDCL. d) Hence it has submitted a Complaint on 2 April, 2014 under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act 2003 for part non-compliance of the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai s Order No. 96 of 2012 dated 08.01.2013. 4. In its submission dated 5 May, 2014, MSEDCL has stated that it has challenged the Ombudsman s Order, before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. WP 3746 of 2014 on 7 February, 2014 and hence the matter is subjudice before it. 5. In its submission dated 22 May, 2014, the Complainant stated that it has received the copy of the Writ Petition filed by MSEDCL. 6. In its additional submission dated 5 June, 2014, MSEDCL has stated that; MERC Order_ Case No. 99 of 2014 Page 2 of 5
a) MSEDCL has filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the Ombudsman s Order dated 8 January, 2013 only to the extent that it restricts MSEDCL from demanding the amount of difference arising from the wrong multiplying factor. On a similar issue, the High Court, Bombay, vide its Order dated 24 January, 2012, in Writ Petition 10764 of 2011, has referred the matter to a larger Bench, which is also pending. b) MSEDCL has complied with the Order of the Ombudsman and has taken the amount of difference for a period of two years as directed by him. The balance amount shown in the bill is only for the purpose of claiming it in future after the decision on the Writ Petition filed in the Bombay High Court. c) MSEDCL is not asking the Complainant to pay for the arrears. The Complainant is only paying for the current consumption of electricity. Thus there is no non- compliance of the Order. 7. The Commission scheduled a hearing on 12 June, 2014 and directed the Complainant to serve a copy of the Complaint on the Opponents and Authorised Consumer Representatives. The hearing was postponed and rescheduled to 19 June, 2014. 8. At the hearing, Shri. Harshad Sheth appeared on behalf of the Complainant and Advocate Shri. Rahul Sinha, Shri R.N. Nalgirkar and Shri. S.S. Umbarje, appeared on behalf of the Respondents. The Complainant set out its grievance and raised the issue of not getting the benefit of prompt payment discount because of the arrears shown in the bill. 9. Subsequent to the hearing, MSEDCL has informed the Commission that the High Court, in an ad interim Order, has directed that no coercive steps be taken against the officers of the MSEDCL till the next date of hearing of the Writ Petition before it. Commission s Analysis and Rulings: 10. The Complainant has approached the Commission for non - compliance of the Order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman. However, MSEDCL has submitted that the bill is revised and paid by the Complainant as per the Ombudsman s Order. MSEDCL has also submitted that it is not asking the Complainant to pay the MERC Order_ Case No. 99 of 2014 Page 3 of 5
differential amount. The Complainant has mentioned that it has paid the revised bill for two years as per the Order. However, the Complainant is aggrieved that he is deprived of the benefit of prompt payment discount because of the arrears shown in the bill. 11. The Electricity Ombudsman s Order states inter alia that;..it has been held by this Electricity Ombudsman, in several cases, that past arrears for a period of more than two years, preceding the date of demand / supplementary bill, are not recoverable, in terms of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Respondent is therefore, entitled to recover the difference amount considering MF=2, instead of MF=1, for a limited period of two years preceding the demand made in July, 2012, i.e. from July, 2010 to June 2012, in this case, and for that purpose cut off supply of electricity in terms of the Provision of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. For recovery of the remaining difference amount for the Period prior to July, 2010, the Respondent is not entitled to cut off supply of electricity of the Appellant, for which it may, if it so desires, seek remedy by way of civil suit before appropriate court of Law. The impugned supplementary bill/ demand of Rs. 1531470 raised in July, 2012, is therefore set aside. The Respondent is directed to raise revised bill for the difference considering the MF=2, instead of MF=1, for a limited period of two years from July, 2010 to June 2012, for recovery in terms of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Forum s Order is hereby set aside. 12. The Commission notes the submission of MSEDCL that it has filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the Ombudsman s Order dated 8 January, 2013 only to the extent that it restricts MSEDCL from demanding the differential amount due to the wrong multiplying factor. The Commission also notes MSEDCL s submission that it has shown the amount in the Complainant s bill only for the purpose of retaining a legal claim for the amount in future after the decision on Writ Petition. The Complainant is being required to pay only for the current consumption of electricity. However, the Commission directs MSEDCL to ensure that the entry in the bill does not deprive the Complainant of benefits (such as prompt payment discount) for which he may be otherwise eligible, or cause him any other difficulty. 13. Regarding refund of an excess amount cited by the Complainant, the Ombudsman has asked MSEDCL to raise revised bill for the difference considering the MF=2, instead of MF=1, for a limited period of two years from July, 2010 to June 2012 for recovery. The Commission is not the proper forum to look in to the computations. However, MSEDCL may review and clarify its computations to the Complainant. MERC Order_ Case No. 99 of 2014 Page 4 of 5
14. In view of the above, the Commission does not find any wilful or deliberate violation of the Electricity Ombudsman s Order. Case No. 99 of 2014 is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Azeez M. Khan) (Vijay L. Sonavane) (Chandra Iyengar) Member Member Chairperson MERC Order_ Case No. 99 of 2014 Page 5 of 5