ORDER

TANGEDCO is before this court with this petition challenging the majority decision of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum dated 03.07.2018.

2. The basic facts that led to the filing of this petition may be briefly bullet pointed:

On 23.08.2013, the Superintending Engineer of TANGEDCO issued ●

a notice to respondents 2 and 3 requiring it to bring down the harmonics within the specified limit, within a period of three months or to face a 15% compensation of the respective tariff on default. This is in tune with the regulation 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Code and r/w Regulation 6(1) of the Tariff Order for high tension supply consumers of the same code.

On 24.12.2014, the officials of the TANGEDCO took field ●

measurement for harmonic distortion and found that it exceeded the prescribed limit of 8% by almost 100%. This was informed to the respondents 2 and 3 by the Superintending Engineer vide his communication dated 11.03.2015, and directed its rectification within three months. Subsequently, vide correspondence dated 01.06.2015, the respondents 2 and 3 informed the Superintending Engineer, that it has commissioned a harmonic suppression equipment and that the harmonic level was brought within limits prescribed. This was followed by a second field inspection on 12.06.2015 during which it was found that the harmonic distortion is marginally higher than the prescribed limit at 8.086 %, and not within the limit. This is followed by another correspondence of the respondents 2 and 3 dated 20.06.2015, under which it informed the TANGEDCO that it has now successfully brought the harmonic distortion within the prescribed limit. In the third field inspection which took place on 23.06.2015 it was found that the harmonic distortion is brought well below the prescribed limit.

On 05.04.2018, TANGEDCO informed the respondents 2 & 3, that ●

for the harmonic distortion during the period from 24.12.2014 to 23.06.2015 the consumer would be liable to pay a compensation at 15% on the tariff, in accordance with the notification dated

23.08.2013, and raised a demand for Rs.1,29,34,387/-.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 2 and 3 approached the ●

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act. This forum caused an enquiry into the grievance raised by these respondents, and came out with its divided decision vide its order dated 03.07.2018. The two-members of the Commission would find the demand for harmonic charges though is legal and justifiable, still is not sustainable as it was demanded well beyond the two years period stipulated under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. The Chairman of the Commission in a separate order would state that Section 56(2) will not apply.

According to the petitioner, the expression 'first due' in Sec. 56(2)

●

denote the date on which the bill is raised.

Since the majority view was against the TANGEDCO, it is now before this court in this petition.

2. Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel appearing for the TANGEDCO took this court extensively through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.7235 of 2009 dated 05.10.2021] and made two pointed submissions:

(a)The CGRF itself will not have jurisdiction to entertain the grievance, since under Regulation 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, only as regards those grievances which fall within Regulations 3 to

17, and not the one falling under Regulation 21;

(b) The decision of the Chairperson of the CGRF is not in consonance with the settled legal position that the phrase 'first due' in Section 56(2) denotes the date of the bill, and it cannot be related to the date on which the consumer might have defaulted in compliance vis-a-vis the notice informing harmonic distortion.

3.1 Mr.N.L.Rajah, the learned senior counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 made the following submissions:

Under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, only a consumer ●

w