- (1.) M/s Supreme Industries Ltd. (Unit No. III) (SEL), Gadegaon, Tal. Jamner, Distt. Jalgaon has filed a Petition on 12 June, 2014 under Sections 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 for non -compliance by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) of the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai's Order dated 6 March, 2013 in Representation No. 10 of 2013.
(2.) The Petitioner's prayers are as follows: - "1) Refund of differential PF incentive amount for the month of Dec. 2011 and Jan 2012 as directed by Ombudsman's order dt. 06.03.2013 for case no. 10/2013. 2) Interest as per section 62(6) of EA 2003 on the PF incentive amount retained by MSEDCL for the period from April 2013 till date of actual refund. 3) Action as per Section 142 and 149 of EA Act, 2003: We appeal to initiate Punishment for non implementation of ombudsman's order dt. 06.03.2013 for case no. 10/2013. 4) Compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - towards cost incurred for filing petition, attending hearings, man -hr cost, traveling expenses, mental agony etc. 5) Penalty as worked out above as per section 142 of Elect. Act 2003. 6) Cost of the complaint be awarded..."
(3.) The facts as stated in the Petition are as follows: - a. SIL (Unit No. III) is a consumer of MSEDCL since 2007 with Contract Demand of 9 MVA and connected load of 21,000 kW connected on 132 kV EHV level. In December, 2011 and January, 2012, MSEDCL wrongly calculated Power Factor (PF) incentive of 5% instead of 7% although the PF was more than 0.995. As per the Commission's Tariff Orders, incentive of 7% is applicable for maintaining PF higher than 0.995. Accordingly, SIL approached MSEDCL for rectification of bills, and then took up its complaint through the grievance redressal mechanism, lastly upto the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai. b. In his Order dated 6 March, 2013 in Representation No 10 of 2013, the Ombudsman held that SIL was entitled to 7% PF incentive for those two months. MSEDCL was directed to work out the incentive in terms of the Tariff Order and pass necessary credit in the bill for April, 2013 towards rectification of the error. Compliance was to be reported within 30 days. c. MSEDCL has not complied with the Order. Instead, it filed a Writ Petition (No. 8325 of 2013) on 1 October, 2013, after a lapse of 7 months, in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. As of June, 2014, it had not been admitted by the High Court and no stay had been granted. d. Regulation 17.18 of the MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006 reads as follows: "17.18 An order passed or direction issued by the Electricity Ombudsman shall be binding on the parties so named in the order or direction and such order or direction shall be implemented or complied with by the Distribution Licensee or the person required by the order or direction to do so and within the time frame stipulated therein and further intimation of such compliance shall also be made to the Electricity Ombudsman within the time frame stipulated in that regard therein." The Ombudsman had allowed MSEDCL 30 days for implementation of his Order. e. Regulation 22 reads as follows: "22. Punishment for non -compliance of orders - Without prejudice to any penalty which may be imposed or prosecution proceeding which may be initiated under the Act, non -compliance of Regulations 8.7 or 17.18 in any manner whatsoever shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of these Regulations and the Commission may initiate proceedings suo motu or on a complaint filed by any person to impose penalty or prosecution proceeding under Sections 142 and 149 of the Act." Since the High Court has not stayed the Ombudsman's Order (nor admitted MSEDCL's Writ Petition) so far, MSEDCL has violated Regulation 17.18 and is, therefore, liable to be punished under S. 142 and 149 of EA, 2003. f. By not implementing the Ombudsman's Order and retaining the amount due to SIL for nearly 15 months, MSEDCL is required to pay interest to SIL on that amount under Section 62 (6) of EA, 2003. Under Section 142 of EA, 2003, MSEDCL is also liable to pay a penalty not exceeding Rs.1 lakh for contravention of the Ombudsman's Order and, due to continuing failure from April 2013 onwards, with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000 per day. The amount of penalty MSEDCL is required to pay is Rs.1 lakh plus Rs 6,000 x 450 days, i.e. Rs 28 lakh. ;