SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD
LAWS(ET)-2015-2-1
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Decided on February 13,2015

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) M/s Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. (SEAC), Navalakh Umbre, Tal. Maval, Distt. Pune has filed a Petition on 2 June, 2014 under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 for non -compliance by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) of the Order dated 31 January, 2014 in Case No. 20 of 2013 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Pune Zone.
(2.) SEAC's prayers are as below: "a) It is therefore prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed under section 142 of the E.A. 2003 and Respondent be directed to strict compliance of order dated 31.01.2014 passed by CGRF, Pune in grievance case no. 20 of 2014. b) The respondent be directed to pay Rs. 1000/ - per day fine amount against non - compliance of order dated 31.01.2014 passed by CGRF, Pune in grievance no. 20 of 2013 from the date of 03.04.2014 to till compliance of order. c) Cost of the petition be awarded..."
(3.) The facts as stated in the Petition are as follows: - 3.1. SEAC runs an industry at Navalakh Umbre, Distt. Pune. Vide load sanction letter dated 12 December, 2007, MSEDCL has provided it a High Tension (HT) Industrial connection on 7 February, 2008 on 22 kV dedicated feeder, with Contract Demand of 9 MVA. 3.2. Vide load sanction letter dated 1 June, 2011, MSEDC, sanctioned additional load of 14.625 MVA on 22 kV (total of 24 MVA), and released the load vide letter dated 9 November, 2012 with the following conditions: "f) This load sanction has a condition about acceptance of the said methodology of whichever is higher between meter at EHV S/S end and consumer end ( premises). The metering CT's , PT's and meter at EHV S/S end and consumer end should be of same rating and class of accuracy and its cost involved will be borne by SEAC. g) Further SEAC shall abide to pay the additional surcharge, whatever will be determined by MERC for power supply on lower voltage level than prescribed voltage as per Standard of performance." 3.3. Accordingly, SEAC has installed the identical metering arrangement with the same class of accuracy and same ratio at both points, paying MSEDCL's supervision charges. Inspite of this, MSEDCL has charged 2% as voltage surcharge from August, 2011 to July, 2013 without considering the "whichever is higher billing methodology" stipulated in its sanction letter. 3.4. SEAC asked MSEDCL to stop charging the extra 2% as voltage surcharge and refund the excess collected, through letters dated 12 July and 25 July, 2013, with reference to the Commission's Orders dated 5 March, 2010 in Case No. 71 of 2010 (levy of voltage surcharge only prospectively from the date of the Order) and 12 September, 2010 in Case No. 111 of 2009 (no voltage surcharge in case of only one connection on a non -express feeder, in which case tariff is to be charged on the basis of consumption recorded by meters at the supply source (EHV level) and at the consumer's end, whichever is higher). 3.5. Thus, (a) MSEDCL has to refund the 2% voltage surcharge if collected from the date of connection to 5 March, 2010; (b) no refund is expected from March, 2010 to July, 2011 as the non -dedicated feeder has been provided directly from the switching station and not from the EHV Sub Station; and (c) since MSEDCL has provided dedicated feeder (single connection) from its EHV Sub Station from August, 2011, voltage surcharge recovered from August, 2011 to July, 2013 has to be refunded. MSEDCL has stopped charging 2% voltage surcharge only from the billing month of August, 2013, and without refund for the prior period. 3.6. Hence SEAC approached MSEDCL's Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC), Pune. On 17 October, 2013, the IGRC directed, inter alia, MSEDCL's Pune Rural Circle to immediately take action as per rules and submit a proposal to the competent authority for refund of additional 2%. 3.7. SEAC then approached the CGRF, Pune Zone on 24 October, 2013 in Case No. 20 of 2013, for non -compliance of the Commission's directions regarding levy of voltage surcharge and refund thereof. MSEDCL submitted to the CGRF that 2% voltage surcharge is not being levied from the August, 2013 bill, and that the surcharge billed from 30 August, 2011 to August, 2013 is under process as per rules and regulations. 3.8. In its (majority) decision dated 31 January, 2014, the CGRF ruled as follows: i) "MSEDCL is directed to refund the excess amount for 2% extra units from date of connection till 5th March 2010 along with interest at bank rate as provided in section 62(6) of the Electricity Act 2003 till the date of refund. ii) MSEDCL is permitted to charge 2% voltage charges during period between 5.3.2010 till the date of providing dedicated feeder. iii) MSEDCL is directed to calculate the charges towards 2% voltage surcharge recovered from the date of providing dedicated feeder till July 2013 and refund the said amount along with interest at bank rate as provided in section 62(6) of the Electricity Act 2003. iv) MSEDCL shall carry out the order within a period of 60 days and report compliance." 3.9. MSEDCL has not complied with the CGRF Order, hence the present Petition. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.