Case No. 113 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, 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. 113 of 2012 In the matter of Complaint filed by M/s Orange City Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., against MSEDCL under Sections 142 & 146 of the EA, 2003, alleging non-compliance of the Order dated 18 April, 2012, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman (Nagpur). Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member M/s Orange City Steel Indstries Pvt. Ltd., 215, Small Factory Area, Opp. Wardhaman Nagar Chowk, Bagadganj, Nagpur Complainant V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through the Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle Opponent Present during the hearings: For the Complainant: Shri R. B. Goenka (Representative for the Complainant) For the Opponent: Shri Ankush Nale ORDER Dated: 24, December 2012 Orange City Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a complaint, on 11 October, 2012 against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited ( MSEDCL ), the Opponent, under Sections 142 & 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( EA 2003 ), alleging non-compliance of the Order dated 18 April, 2012, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman (Nagpur). 2. The prayers made by the Complainant, are as under: (a) Penalize the Respondent under section 142 & 146 of the EA 2003 for contravening the directions issued in the order of Ombudsman. Order-Case no. 113 of 2012 Page 1 of 6

2 (b) Direct the Respondent to comply with the order of Ombudsman and apply non continuous tariff from the date as directed in Ombudsman order and to refund excess amount charged along with interest. (c) Any other relief deems fit as per facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Complainant s submissions are as under: a) The Complainant is having an Industrial unit situated within the area of supply of the Opponent. b) Since 02 November 2002 the Complainant was having 33kV HT electricity supply (Non-Express Feeder) from the Opponent with Contract Demand of 1200 kva. For this connection the complainant was charged HT-I tariff for Non- Express feeder as per the Commission s Tariff Order applicable from August 2009 and thereafter Tariff Order applicable from September c) With effect from December 2010 the Opponent suddenly changed the tariff category from HT-I tariff for Non-Express feeder to HT-I for Express feeder without any communication to the Complainant. d) The Complainant vide its letter dated 04 January, 2011 communicated to the Opponent that it had not opted for any Continuous Supply as its factory was working in single shift and also the concerned feeder was a Non-Express feeder and there are more than one consumer connected on this feeder. It was further requested to charge it a Non-Express feeder tariff and refund the excess amount charged in the energy bills. e) The Opponent (the Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle, MSEDCL), vide its letter dated 22 March, 2011 directed the Executive Engineer, CC, O&M, MSEDCL, Nagpur to verify whether the Complainant is observing staggering day or not and further in the same letter asked the Complainant to submit a declaration that it did not need a Continuous Supply and will observe staggering day without fail. f) The Complainant replied to the above letter vide letter dated 24 March, 2011 confirming that it did not need Continuous Power Supply and shall observe staggering day without fail. g) As the Opponent did not reply, the Complainant vide letters dated 13 May, 2011 and 27 July, 2011 reminded the Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle, Order-Case no. 113 of 2012 Page 2 of 6

3 MSEDCL about the declaration as above and requested to change the Tariff to Non-Continuous tariff and refund the excess amount charged. In the letter dated 27July, 2011, the Complainant mentioned once again that it never requested for any independent feeder and accordingly it was being billed at Non-Continuous Tariff. 4. The Opponent vide its letter dated 17 August, 2011 expressed its inability to charge Non-Continuous Tariff to the Complainant sighting the reason that the same feeder from which the supply was extended to the Complainant was also feeding Continuous Supply to other consumers who expressly required Continuous Power Supply. The Opponent further asked the Complainant to go on separate feeder if it wished to avail the facility of Non-Continuous Tariff. 5. The Complainant in response to the Opponent s above mentioned letter (dated 17 August, 2011) submitted vide letter dated 05 September, 2011 that he was billed for Non-Continuous Tariff till November, 2010 and never requested for any change of supply from Non-Continuous to Continuous and further expressed its strong objection to the suggestion of the Opponent to go on separate feeder for availing facility of Non-Continuous Tariff. The Opponent did not respond to this. 6. On 02 November, 2011 the Complainant filed his grievance before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ( CGRF ). After hearing the parties the majority of the members of the forum opined that the bills served to the Complainant were proper and as per the Tariff Orders and hence the forum rejected the application on majority vote. 7. Aggrieved by the CGRF Order, the Complainant filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur on 13 February, 2012 on the following grounds: a) The Complainant should not be charged Continuous Tariff since the Complainant s feeder is not an express feeder as per the definition provided in the MERC (Electricity supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, b) The Complainant s feeder is not an Express feeder as there is more than one consumer connected on the same feeder. The Commission in the Tariff Order applicable from 01 June, 2008 and further in the clarificatory Order in case No. 44 of 2008 stated that, only HT industries connected on express feeder and Order-Case no. 113 of 2012 Page 3 of 6

4 demanding continuous supply will be deemed as HT continuous industry and given continuous supply, while all other HT industrial consumers will be deemed as HT non-continuous industry. The Complainant prayed that: a) Direct MSEDCL to change the tariff of the applicant to non-express feeder tariff and revise all energy bills of the applicant from December 2010 till date considering and applying non-express feeder tariff as per directives of the Commission issued in the tariff order and Clarificatory order stated above. b) Direct MSEDCL to refund the excess amount paid by the applicant along with interest under section 62(6). 8. The Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur passed its Order in this case No. 11 of 2012 dated 18 April, 2012, as below: a. The representation is partly allowed, b. The order of Forum dated 02.Jan.2012 is quashed and set aside, c. The Opponent is directed to refund within one month from the date of order the additional amount of bill from Dec-2010 onwards till opportunity is given to the Complainant to exercise its choice between continuous and non-continuous supply, along with interest 12% p.a. from the date of deposit of the said amount till its refund. d. No order as to costs. 9. The Complainant vide letter dated 14 May, 2012 requested Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle, MSEDCL to comply with the Order of the Hon ble Ombudsman, Nagpur till 17 May, 2012, change the Tariff category of the Complainant and refund with interest the excess amount paid by the Complainant. 10. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle, MSEDCL issued a letter to Chief Engineer (Commercial) Mumbai dated 30 June, 2012 conveying him about the advise received from the Legal Advisor to follow the Hon ble Ombudsman s Order directing to change the Tariff category of the Complainant and to refund within one month the difference of amount billed on Continuous Tariff since December It further mentioned that the required change in Tariff to be Order-Case no. 113 of 2012 Page 4 of 6

5 made was fed to IT system but it is not accepted and therefore the bill for the month of June 2012 was being issued as per Continuous Tariff. 11. The Complainant vide letter dated 30 August, 2012 reminded the Opponent to comply with the Order of the Hon ble Ombudsman and also invited attention to the fact that non issuance of the bills as per Non-Continuous Tariff would violate the orders of Ombudsman and would attract punishment under sections 142 and 146 of the EA, Further in reference to the Commission s Tariff Order dated 16 August, 2012, the Complainant submitted a letter to Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle, MSEDCL dated 11 September, 2012 and opted for its choice for future application of Tariff to its Electricity Supply as Non-Continuous Tariff. The Complainant further submitted that Commission s Clarificatory Order dated 12 September, 2008 (Case No. 44 of 2008) states that,.. it is clarified that the consumer getting supply on express feeder may exercise his choice between continuous and noncontinuous supply only once in the year, within the first month after issue of the Tariff Order for the relevant tariff period. 13. The Complainant further submitted that the Chief Engineer, Nagpur Urban Zone, MSEDCL issued letter to Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle, MSEDCL dated 14 September, 2012 directing him to follow up the matter with Head Office and resolve the issue as per Ombudsman s Order. 14. The Complainant submitted that the aforesaid Ombudsman s Order has not been complied with by the Opponent, therefore the present complaint is filed before the Commission. 14. The Commission vide Notice dated 19 October, 2012, scheduled a hearing in the matter, on 01 November, During the hearing held on 01 November, 2012 the Complainant submitted that it had never asked for a Continuous HT supply. While the Opponent submitted that the Complainant is connected on an Express feeder on which other Continuous Category Consumers are connected. Therefore giving a Non-Continuous Supply to the Complainant was not feasible because supply to the other Continuous Category Consumers, on the same line cannot be switched off. It also submitted that the Complainant can avail supply from a Dedicated feeder by paying the shifting charges and then can claim the change of Tariff from Continuous to Non-continuous Category. Order-Case no. 113 of 2012 Page 5 of 6

6 17. After hearing both the parties the Commission directed to implead Chief Engineer (Commercial), MSEDCL and Chief General Manager (IT), MSEDCL as parties in the matter. 18. The Commission vide Notice dated 07 November, 2012, scheduled a further hearing in the matter, on 27 November, The Complainant submitted the affidavit impleading the above two parties on 22 November, In the hearing held on 27 November, 2012, the Opponent submitted that it is in process of challenging the Order passed by Hon ble Electricity Ombudsman by way of a Writ Petition before the Hon ble High Court, Nagpur and requested for an adjournment in this matter. 21. On specific query of the Commission regarding compliance of the Ombudsman s Order, the Complainant informed that the refund amount is around Rs. 50 lakh as against monthly energy bill of Rs. 15 to 20 lakh. The Opponent expressed difficulty in adjusting such refund amount in one month energy bill. The opponent requested to allow the refund to be made within six months. The Complainant showed his concurrence for the same. As both the parties are agreed, hence the Commission directs the Opponent, MSEDCL to comply with the Electricity Ombudsman s Order dated 18 April 2012 and adjust the money to be refunded with interest in electricity bills of the complainant within six months. 22. In view of above directives there is no need to invoke provisions of Section 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act, Also the complainant had not pressed for the same. With the above, Case No. 113 of 2012 stands disposed of. sd/- (Vijay L. Sonavane) Member sd/- (V.P. Raja) Chairman Order-Case no. 113 of 2012 Page 6 of 6