STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI (1) Appeal No. A/17/633 (Arisen out of Common Order dated 31/03/2017 passed in Complaint No.404 OF 2016 by District Commission, Pune)

Dr.Rajeev N. Patwardhan Through its Authorised Signatory Kamlesh Dilip Mutha, Near PCMC School, Mohan Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune – 411 019 ....... Appellant Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through Chief Engineer, (O And M), MSEDCL, Pune Zone, Adm. Building, Power House, ………Respondent Rasta Peth Pune – 411 011.

(2) Appeal No. A/17/634 (Arisen out of Common Order dated 31/03/2017 passed in Complaint No.739 OF 2016 by District Commission, Pune) Dr.Shivaji Shankarrao Khaire, Office at Sr.No.171, Chapekar Chowk, Chinchwad Gaon, Pune – 33, Through its Authorised Signatory Kamlesh Mutha, (R/o Near PCMC School, Mohan Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune – 19) ....... Appellant Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through Chief Engineer, (O And M), MSEDCL, Pune Zone, Adm. Building, Power House, ………Respondent Rasta Peth Pune – 411 011.

BEFORE Justice S.P.Tavade – President Mukesh V. Sharma - Member For the Appellant(s) : Advocate Anand Mamidwar.

For the Respondent(s) : Advocate S.S. Jinsiwale.

COMMON ORDER

(29/04/2024)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma – Member:

1. The present appeals are preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned common Judgment and Order passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in CC/404/2016 and CC/739/2016. The Appellants were original complainants, sought redressal against the deficiencies of service allegedly committed by the Respondent, an Electricity Supplier operating within the major area of Maharashtra. Appellants are dissatisfied with the common order passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune as the main grievance is that the interest is not awarded by District Forum on excess amount which were ordered to be returned to the Appellants.

2. Relevant facts of the case in short are that the Appellants / Org.

Complainants are medical professionals running hospital in Pune, contends that the Respondent, entrusted with the distribution license by the Maharashtra State Electricity Commission (MERC). Respondent installed electricity meters in the Appellants hospital premises. However, a dispute arose concerning the classification of the Appellants hospital under the consumer category. Despite the Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) being the authority to determine consumer categories, the Appellants were billed under the LT-II Commercial Consumer category instead of the LT-X Public Services Consumer category, as per the tariff order issued by MERC.

3. The Appellants assert that the District Forum’s judgment, while partially granting relief, failed to adequately address the Appellants grievances. The Appellants contend that the Respondent, despite admitting the misclassification, refused to refund the excess amount charged. Furthermore, the District Forum failure to consider the change in tariff ordered by MERC in August 2012 and the Respondent’s obligation to comply with statutory duties are cited as grounds for appeal. The Appellants argued that the District Forum’s findings are contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

4. The Appellants highlighted Section 62 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which mandates the refund of excess charges by licensees or generating companies along with interest. Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is reproduced as follows :

62. Determination of tariff.-

(1) The Appropriate Commission shall determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of this Act for—

(a) supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee: Provided that the Appropriate Commission may, in case of shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and maximum ceiling of tariff for sale or pu