SHRINIWAS YADGIRI SUDHAMANI Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD
LAWS(ET)-2015-1-7
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Decided on January 08,2015

Shriniwas Yadgiri Sudhamani Appellant
VERSUS
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Shri. Shriniwas Yadgiri Sudhamani, 955, New Kaneri, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi has filed a Petition on 3 September, 2014 seeking penal action under Section 142 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) for non -compliance of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Bhandup Zone's Order dated 23 April, 2014 in Case No. 527.
(2.) The Petitioner's prayers are as follows: - " 1) Please instruct MSEDCL to issue me the bill of Rs. 8,957/ - for payment.The MSEDCL has not complied the CGRF Order, Hence, please take action against MSEDCL officers U/s 142 and U/s 146 of E.A. Act - 2003 for non -compliance of CGRF Order. 2) Cost of Rs. 10,000/ - should be levied on MSEDCL for cost of litigation. 3) I am harassed mentally, physically, financially from July -2000 to the last 14 years to charge the penalty to MSEDCL officers and compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - may kindly be granted to me..."
(3.) The Petition states that: (a) The Petitioner is a Low Tension (LT) category consumer (powerloom and lighting load) of MSEDCL, situated at Bhiwandi. The CGRF, Bhandup Zone has directed the Superintending Engineer (SE), MSEDCL, Bhiwandi to rectify the average billing from December, 2000 to June, 2004, and to withdraw the Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) and interest charged. However, the SE has calculated the amount wrongly and not in accordance with the CGRF Order. (b) The Petitioner had applied for disconnection in July, 2000 due to non -use. MSEDCL has rectified the wrong billing for the period from July, 2004 to January, 2007. The amount of average bills, with interest and DPC, has to be waived for the balance period from December, 2000 to June, 2004. (c) After considering the above, the arrears outstanding in December, 2000 was Rs. 14,626/ - (i.e. Rs. 11,731/ - principal and Rs. 2,226/ - interest) Of this, the Petitioner has paid Rs. 5,000/ - in November, 2004. Hence, only Rs. 9,626/ - was outstanding against him. As per the CGRF Order, interest is not applicable on the disputed amount. Therefore, the Petitioner is liable to pay only Rs. 8,957/ - (11,731 ­ 5,000 + 2,226 interest). Instead, MSEDCL has asked for Rs. 47,337/ -. (d) On 14 December, 2005, the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC) directed levy of mimimum charge, but MSEDCL did not implement this and added interest and DPC. ;


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