Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1917
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited - Petitioners
Versus
M/s Vega Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No.8613 of 2017
Decided On : 18-12-2018
For the Petitioner:Shri. A.S. Shelke, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate a/w Shri. A.V. Hon, Advocate
Headnote:
Detection of defect - Supplementary bill amount - Rejection of request - Replacement of new meter - Agreeing to deposit - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 42(5), 142 - Regulation 22 - Petitioner is aggrieved by order delivered by Consumer Grievance Redressed Forum of Electricity Act, 2003 vide which, grievance of Respondent has been accepted and following order has been passed :" Forum sets aside supplementary bills and raised by Distribution Company and directs Distribution Company to rework bill for period 3 months prior to date of detection of defect in metering system and also bill for period of defect to date of replacement of new meter within 20 days from date of issue of this order - Order passed or direction issued by Forum in this order shall be implemented by Distribution Licensee within time frame stipulated and concerned Nodal Officer shall furnish intimation of such compliance to Forum within one month from date of this order - As per regulation 22 of above mentioned regulations, non compliance of orders/directions in this order by Distribution Licensee in any manner whatsoever shall be deemed to be a contravention of provisions of these Regulations and Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission can initiate proceedings on a complaint filed by any person to impose penalty or prosecution proceeding under S142 and 149 of Act, 2003- Held, Therefore, Respondent Industry who has consumed energy, has to pay for same - He, therefore, prays for rejection of request - In alternative, he submits that if 50% of supplementary bill amount is deposited by Respondent, Petitioners may agree for request for a period of four weeks - Learned Advocate for Respondent/Company submits, on instructions, that Respondent is not willing to deposit even 50% of supplementary bill raised - learned Advocate for Petitioners, therefore, opposes said request- Considering above, Court unable to accede to request of Respondent/Company, which court could have, had Respondent shown its bonafides by agreeing to deposit 50% of bill amount raised - As such, request for staying this judgment is rejected – Ordered accordingly
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2017 delivered by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (established under the Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003) vide which, the grievance of the Respondent has been accepted and the following order has been passed :"
1. The Forum sets aside the supplementary bills dated 15.09.2015 of Rs.1,05,22,108/-and dated 07.11.2015 of Rs.14,14,341/-raised by the Distribution Company and directs the Distribution Company to rework the bill for the period 3 months prior to 19.08.2015 (date of detection of defect in metering system) and also bill for the period 19.08.2015 to 14.10.2016 (date of detection of defect to the date of replacement of new meter) within 20 days from date of issue of this order.
2. As per regulation 8.7 of the MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, order passed or direction issued by the Forum in this order shall be implemented by the Distribution Licensee within the time frame stipulated and the concerned Nodal Officer shall furnish intimation of such compliance to the Forum within one month from the date of this order.
3. As per regulation 22 of the above mentioned regulations, non compliance of the orders/directions in this order by the Distribution Licensee in any manner whatsoever shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of these Regulations and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission can 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 Electricity Act, 2003.
4. If aggrieved by the non-redressal of his Grievance by the Forum, the Complainant may make a representation to the Electricity Ombudsman, 606, 'KESHAVA', Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 within sixty (60) days from the date of this order under regulation 17.2 of the MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006."
3. The Petitioner is the Electricity Distribution Company. The Respondent is a High Tension (HT) consumer since 08.09.2004 having a contract demand of 400 KVA and availing power supply 11 KV Non Express Feeder Line from 33/11 KV Sub Station at J Zone, MIDC, Jalgaon.
4. The three phase connection of the Respondent was earlier handled by M/s Crompton Greaves Limited, which was in-charge of the HT Consumers from Jalgaon and Bhusawal. The contract between the Petitioner and M/s Crompton Greaves Limited was from 01.11.2011 for a period of five years. Subsequently, the contract concluded and the Petitioner took over the HT Consumers.
5. On 19.08.2016, the Petitioner conducted periodical testings. The load test of the Respondent was conducted as per the mutual consent dated 24.08.2016, on 25.08.2016. The recording of HT meter of the Respondent indicated less recording of electricity consumed. Prior thereto, the HT meter readings along with the LT meter readings were conducted from 19.08.2016 to 24.08.2016. It was noticed that the wires of R phase of the Current Transformer (CT) were required to be connected to the R phase of the Potential Transformer (PT). Similar wires have to be connected as regards the Y phase and B phase. These wires were not properly connected and because of the cross connection, though more electricity was consumed, the meter was under recording and did not reflect the proper consumption.
6. Since the periodical testing and the load test indicated some mischief, the matter was referred to the Testing and Quality Assurance Laboratory at Nashik, which submitted it's report on 21.11.2016. The said report indicated an erroneous recording. Consequentially, the bills were raised by the Petitioner, after drawing an average of the consumption, for payment of arrears.
7. The Respondent approached the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell. An order was passed on 12.01.2017,
