IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

APPEAL No. 27 OF 2019 Dated : 09.01.2025 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member In the matter of:

1. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

5^th Floor, Plot No. G-9, Station Road, Prakashgad, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Through its Chief Engineer, Commercial.

2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

Vidyut Bhavan, Annabhau Sathe Chowk, Nanded Circle Office, Nanded – 431 602 … Appellant(s)

Versus

1. MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1

13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Through its Secretary

2. M/S JAI CORP LIMITED (JCL), 11 & 12 B, Mittal Towers, B Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Through its Vice President (Com) … Respondent(s)

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Samir Malik Rahul Sinha Nikita Choukse Shaida Das Akash Lamba Himani Yadav Counsel for the Respondent(s) : --

J U D G M E N T

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2018 (hereinafter refereed to as “the impugned order”) passed by the 1^st respondent Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) whereby the Commission has held the appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (in short “MSEDCL”) liable to pay consequential interest also for the period of delay in complying with the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (in short “CGRF”) either through adjustment in the energy bills of the 2^nd respondent M/s Jai Corp Limited (in short “JCL”) or directly to the company.

2. It appears that certain dispute has arisen between the appellant and 2^nd respondent with respect to the refund of amounts pertaining to difference in rates between continuous and non-continuous tariff since June, 2008. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent had approached CGRF by way of case No.1/2015 which was disposed off by the Forum vide judgment dated 06.11.2015 holding the 2^nd respondent entitled to refund of the said rate difference between continuous and non-continuous tariff since June, 2008 in the month in which appellant MSEDCL had not provided continuous supply, but without interest.

3. Since the appellant MSEDCL did not refund the rate difference amount to the 2^nd respondent in compliance with the said judgment dated 06.11.2015 of CGRF despite various letters as well as reminders, the 2^nd respondent approached the Commission by way of a petition purportedly under Section 142 of Electricity Act, 2003 seeking compliance of the said judgment dated 06.11.2015 of CGRF by the appellant. It was contended in the petition that in pursuance of the CGRF judgment, the appellant was required to charge 2^nd respondent at non-continuous power supply tariff and accordingly refund and / or adjust the sum of Rs.3,46,14,313/- in its electricity bills in 12 installments but the appellant has failed to do so. Following prayers were made in the petition by the 2^nd respondent: -

“1) “the Respondent be directed to pay sum of Rs.3,46,14,313 along with 18% p.a. interest from the date of the order i.e. 6th November 2015 i.e. Rs.39,97953/- aggregating to total sum of Rs.3,86,12,266/- till payment and/or realization as more particularly mentioned in the Particulars of Claim being Exhibit-“P”;

2) In the alternative, the Respondent be directed adjust sum of Rs.3,46,14,313 along with 18% p.a. interest from the date of the order i.e. 6th November 2015 i.e. Rs.39,97,953/- aggregating to Rs.3,86,12,266/- till payment and or realization as more particularly mentioned in the Particulars of Claim being Exhibit “P”, against the electricity bill in 12 installments;

3) pending the hearing and final disposal, the Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to direct the Respondent to give credit to the Petitioner in monthly electricity bill; and/or

4) co