Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Maharashtra State Electricity - Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7152, 7198, 7199 of 2019 with Interim Application No. 270 Of 2020 with Interim Application No. 13109 and 12491 of 2023 Writ Petition No. 9554 of 2021
Decided On : 16-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.
2. These group of petitions arises out of orders passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in individual complaints. As common issues arises, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. By consent Writ Petition No.7152 of 2019 is taken as lead Petition and the facts of the said Petition are referred in the judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. As various orders passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) form the background of the present controversy in as much as the applications made to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) alleged non-compliances by the petitioners-herein i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) of the orders of MERC, for ease of reference the orders of MERC as discerned from the record are set out in tabular form as under:
| 3rd September, 2013 | MERC in Case No.28 of 2013 filed by Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (MSPGCL) seeking implementation of judgment of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) passed an order allowing MSPGCL to recover a total amount of Rs.106.44 Crore (including carrying cost) on account of impact of ATE Judgment in Appeal No.34 of 2012 from MSEDCL in six equal monthly installments starting from October, 2013. MERC also allowed MSPGCL to recover the total amount of Rs.628.90 Crores (including carrying cost) on account of impact of ATE judgment in Appeal No.47 of 2012 from MSEDCL in six equal monthly installments starting from October, 2013. |
|
| MERC permitted MSEDCL to recover the variation in energy charge component of the amount billed by MSPGCL to MSEDCL from the consumers through Fuel Adjustment Charge (FAC) mechanism and also allowed MSEDCL to recover the variation in fixed charge component of the amount billed by MSPGCL to MSEDCL from the consumer in proportion to billing average rate of respective consumer categories. |
| 4th September, 2013 | MERC in Case No.48 of 2013 permitted MSPGCL to recover the under-recovered fuel cost of Rs.28.05 Crores for infirm power supplied to MSEDCL in three monthly installments, after issuance of the order and also permitted MSEDCL to recover this amount through FAC mechanism. MERC permitted MSPGCL to recover the difference in revenue recoverable in accordance with the Tariff approved in the order vis-a-vis the Provisional Tariff charged by MSPGCL in 6 equal monthly installments from October, 2013 onwards and to recover the fixed cost and energy charges as per the tariff approved till tariff for FY 2013-2014 is approved. MERC permitted MSEDCL to recover variation in energy charge from consumers through FAC mechanism and to recover the variation in fixed charge component in proportion to average billing rate of respective consumer categories. |
| 5th September, 2013 | MERC in Case No.95 of 2013 in respect of suomotu determination of supplemental charges of MSEDCL to give effect of other orders, directed MSEDCL to recover two additional charges from its consumers in the form of additional energy charge in the following manner : "a. To recover the accumulated under-recovery of Rs. 2037.78 Crore accrued till the month of August 2013, which shall be levied by MSEDCL for a period of six (6) months with effect from the month of September 2013 till the month of February 2014. Category wise Additional Energy Charge (AEC-1) to be levied to all consumer categories in the proportion to the approved Average Billing Rate of respective consumer categories, under intimation to the Commission. b. To recover monthly fixed expense of Rs. 235.39 Crore. This shall be levied by MSEDCL from the month of |
MSEDCL's recovery of excess AEC and FAC charges violated MERC orders, necessitating refunds with interest under the Electricity Act.
The court established that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) had jurisdiction to adjudicate individual billing grievances, rejecting the argument that such disputes should be referred to ....
The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction to direct revisions of energy bills and grant subsidies, which fall under the authority of the Government of Maharashtra.
The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction to revise energy bills or grant subsidies, which are matters for the Government of Maharashtra.
The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints related to theft of energy under the Electricity Act, which are to be addressed by specific statutory forums.
The court established that an electricity company can issue revised bills for bona fide mistakes in billing, reinforcing the consumer's obligation to pay based on accurate meter readings.
Electricity – Regulation 6.6 of the Regulations, 2006 for admitting grievance of a consumer is directory.
The court emphasized that the circulars were issued to encourage consumption of electricity during lean hours and not to confer benefits retrospectively, and that the circular could not be made effec....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
