Case No. 134 of CORAM Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Chairperson Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak J. Lad, Member

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13 th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: Case No. 134 of 2014 In the matter of Petition of M/s. Arihant Universal Realty Pvt. Ltd. regarding non-compliance by MSEDCL of CGRF, Bhandup Zone s Order dated CORAM Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Chairperson Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak J. Lad, Member M/s. Arihant Universal Realty Pvt. Ltd Vs Executive Engineer, O.& M. Division, Panvel Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.. Petitioner.Respondent Appearance For the Petitioner : Shri. Rameshwar Gite, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. Rahul Sinha, Advocate ORDER Date: 3 rd December, M/s. Arihant Universal Realty Pvt. Ltd. (AURPL), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai has filed a Petition on 14 December, 2012 under Section 142 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 for non-compliance by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Bhandup Zone s Order dated Order_Case No. 134 of 2014 Page 1 of 6

2 2. The Petitioner s substantive prayers are as follows: b. That the Opponent be directed to comply with the order and direction dated of the Hon ble Forum; c. That the Opponent carry out the necessary acts in providing for utility under the scheme as applied for; d. That the opponent be directed not to restrict the Applicant to a scheme which will be detrimental when options are available under the act and governing law; f. It is also prayed that the compensation to the applicant be allowed for harassment and compelling the applicant to carry out the work on his own by shirking away the directions of the forum. In its covering letter to the Petition, AURPL has also sought directions for refund by MSEDCL of Rs lakh (including supervision charges, etc.), being the estimated amount of the works. 3. The Petition states as follows: a. M/s Poonam Electrical Corporation had applied for 176 (166 single phase and 10 three phase) new electric connections for its residential complex named as Arihant Universal Reality Pvt. Ltd. to MSEDCL, Panvel Division. b. The Petitioner paid processing fees of Rs.4,650 on 23 March, MSEDCL intentionally delayed the survey of installation and issue of demand note. The Superintending Engineer (SE), Vashi Circle was also approached by the Petitioner, but took no cognizance. c. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached CGRF, Bhandup Zone. In its Order dated 9 July 2010, the CGRF ruled in favour of the Petitioner as follows: The Applicant consumer should be awarded the compensation towards SOP for Rs.6200/- for delay in issue of demand note. The Opponent utility should convey the necessary charges to the consumer Applicant immediately. Order_Case No. 134 of 2014 Page 2 of 6

3 The electric supply should be released as per MERC Rules and Regulations as mentioned in observations in forgoing paragraphs. The compliance should be reported to this Forum within 30 days. d. The Petitioner approached Chief Engineer, Vashi Circle for compliance of CGRF Order. On 8 September, 2010 the Chief Engineer gave directions to the SE, but these were not in consonance with the CGRF Order. Subsequently, the SE, Vashi Circle, vide letter dated 17 September, 2010 issued to the Executive Engineer and the Petitioner, communicated that the work would be carried out under the Dedicated Distribution Facility (DDF) scheme, which was contrary to the CGRF Order. e. MSEDCL is shifting the blame for its lapses and non-compliance to CIDCO, which was rejected by the CGRF. It is insisting on the DDF scheme when other options for which the Petitioner qualifies and are his prerogative are available. 4. Vide letter dated 19 June, 2014 the Commission asked MSEDCL to inform it of the steps taken for compliance of the CGRF Order. Under letter dated 7 August, 2014 MSEDCL submitted that it has taken the following actions in compliance: a. Compensation of Rs.6200/- has been paid by Cheque dated 03/07/2014. b. MSEDCL has conveyed to the applicant the charges required through quotation dated 29 November, 2010 amounting Rs.15, 000/- c. Electricity supply has been released on 7 January, At the hearing on 11 November, 2014, MSEDCL reiterated its compliance. The Commission directed the Petitioner and MSEDCL to file their further submissions the same day, including as to whether AURPL had applied under the DDF scheme or not. 6. In its additional submission dated 11 November, 2014, AURPL has set out in greater detail the background and sequence of events underlying the Petition and the nature of non-compliance as follows: Order_Case No. 134 of 2014 Page 3 of 6

4 a. Under the Commission s Standards of Performance (SoP) Regulations, 2005 and the EA, 2003, MSEDCL is obliged to develop infrastructure and provide power within a year of application if additional infrastructure is required, but did not do so. AURPL had not sought supply under the DDF scheme which, as per the Commission s dispensation, is to be applied only when specifically sought for. As per the CGRF Order, MSEDCL was to intimate the service connection charges. Instead, MSEDCL issued load sanction under the DDF scheme requiring AURPL to execute the work itself at an estimated cost of over Rs. 45 lakh plus 1.3% supervision charges to MSEDCL. Considering the urgent need and pressure from its clients for power supply, and also pressure from MSEDCL, AURPL was left with no option but to proceed accordingly, but under protest. b. MSEDCL has executed an agreement with CIDCO for power in that Node of Navi Mumbai (the PSID charges agreement) under which one or the other body has to create the electrical infrastructure depending on plot size. In this case, CIDCO has recovered PSID charges of Rs. 29,15,551 from AURPL on 5 August, However, CIDCO failed to create the infrastructure, nor did MSEDCL do so as per its obligation under EA, 2003, instead issuing load sanction under the DDF scheme. c. Regarding MSEDCL s submission to the Commission that it had issued a quotation of charges of Rs. 15,000, no such quotation has been received. d. AURPL has also received a letter dated 29 May, 2013 from CIDCO stating that MSEDCL had released permanent power connection without its prior clearance, which is not in line with the PSID charges agreement. On this ground, CIDCO has not agreed to refund the PSID charges paid to it by AURPL. 7. In its submission dated 11 November, 2014, MSEDCL has stated that: a. CGRF had awarded compensation of Rs. 6200, considering SoP provisions, for delay in issue of demand note. MSEDCL has complied on 3 July, 2014, and tenders its apology for the inadvertent delay. Order_Case No. 134 of 2014 Page 4 of 6

5 b. As regards the CGRF direction that required charges should be conveyed to the consumer, execution of work under DDF was allowed by MSEDCL on 17 September and firm quotation given on 28 September, c. CGRF s third direction was that the electricity supply should be released as per the Regulations. Articles of Agreement dated 22 October, 2010 were entered into between the AURPL, MSEDCL and M/s Poonam Electrical Corporation under which the latter was to execute works for providing power to the residential buildings as per MSEDCL s specifications. Electricity was released to the Petitioner on 7 November, 2011 after completion of these works under DDF. d. Except for prayer (b), the rest are additional prayers on issues which were never before the CGRF nor decided by it. Commission s Analysis and Rulings 8. The Commission notes that, following the CGRF Order dated 9 July 2010, a tripartite Agreement was entered into between MSEDCL, the Petitioner AURPL and M/s Poonam Electrical Corporation (PEC) on 1 November, 2010 (a copy of which has been submitted with the Petition). The Agreement states that AURPL has assigned to PEC the work (sanctioned by MSEDCL) of providing power supply to its residential buildings by undertaking various components mentioned in the Agreement as per MSEDCL specifications. The Agreement also states that supervision charges of Rs. 58,864/- have been paid by AURPL on 30 September, 2010 against MSEDCL s demand note. Under the Agreement, AURPL has given a guarantee for the work and electrical material used by PEC, which would finally be taken over by MSEDCL as its assets. Future maintenance would be MSEDCL s responsibility. Thus, having consciously entered into such Agreement with MSEDCL not long after the CGRF Order, the Petitioner cannot now claim to be aggrieved for any non-compliance on this count. 9. Citing the SoP, the CGRF directed MSEDCL to pay the Petitioner Rs. 6,200 within a month of its Order for the delay in issue of the demand note. Instead, Order_Case No. 134 of 2014 Page 5 of 6

6 MSEDCL has made the payment on 3 July, 2014, nearly two years later. The Commission directs MSEDCL to pay the Petitioner applicable interest for the period of delay within a month. 10. AURPL has stated that CIDCO has recovered charges amounting to Rs. 29,15,551 from it on 5 August, 2010 towards creating electrical infrastructure as as per the PSID charges agreement between MSEDCL and CIDCO. The Commission expects MSEDCL to take up with CIDCO the treatment to be given to these charges recovered by CIDCO since the work has in fact been executed by the Petitioner, with payment of 1.3% supervision charges to MSEDCL. 11. While deprecating the delay in full compliance of the CGRF Order, the Commission notes that electricity supply has been released by MSEDCL on 7 January, In the light of this fact and the observations and directions given above, the Commission is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further against MSEDCL under Section 142 of the EA, The Petition of M/s Arihant Universal Realty Pvt. Ltd in Case No. 134 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Deepak J. Lad) (Azeez M. Khan) (Chandra Iyengar) Member Member Chairperson Order_Case No. 134 of 2014 Page 6 of 6