SHUBHASHREE AUTO PARTS SALES & SERVICE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD
LAWS(ET)-2014-12-21
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Decided on December 19,2014

Shubhashree Auto Parts Sales And Service Appellant
VERSUS
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) M/s. Shubhashree Auto Parts Sales and Service (SAPSS), MIDC, Mirjole, Ratnagiri, through its Proprietor Shri Sidharam B. Patil, has filed a Petition on 18 June, 2014 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), Ratnagiri Zone's Order dated 18.02.2014.
(2.) The Petitioner's substantive prayers are as follows: "Mahavitaran [MSEDCL] failed to make payment. We have reminded Mahavitaran on 28/05/2014 and on 12/06/2014 (copies enclosed) but there is no any response hence we are filing this complaint for non compliance with CGRF order. Under Section 142 of E.A. 2003. We request you to order Mahavitaran to make payment of Rs. 43780/ - + Rs.1000/ -+ interest as per Bank rate immediately."
(3.) The Petition states as follows: (a) SAPSS is in the business of selling of spare parts and servicing of vehicles. It was an Industrial consumer of MSEDCL and paying bills accordingly since 27 January, 2005. Though there has been no change in its activity, SAPSS' tariff classification was changed by MSEDCL to the Commercial category from October, 2012. MSEDCL has demanded the differential amount arising therefrom from September, 2009 to December, 2011 amounting to Rs 43,780/ -. Current bills have also been raised as per the Commercial tariff from January, 2012 till date. (b) SPSS objected to both the past and current claims under letter dated 16 September, 2013. However, it paid under protest on 5 September, 2013 as MSEDCL had served 15 days' notice of disconnection. Since MSEDCL did not reply even after three months, SAPSS filed a Complaint with CGRF, Ratnagiri Zone pleading that MSEDCL could not change the classification retrospectively and that bills may be claimed as per the new tariff category only from October, 2012 onwards. MSEDCL could not claim any arrears at the revised rate. (c) Vide Order dated 18 February, 2014, the CGRF accepted SAPSS' contention and quashed the impugned bill. It directed MSEDCL to refund Rs. 43,780/ -, with interest as per SBI rate, and to pay compensation of Rs 1000/ - to SAPSS for the inconvenience caused to it. MSEDCL has not done so. ;


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