- (1.) Shri. Rajesh Shah @ Dedhia filed a Petition under affidavit on 17 January, 2014, under Section 128, of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( E.A. 2003) for Enquiry against BEST undertaking for unfair trade practices of withholding refund to consumer even when final claim is less than the amount deposited at the time of raid.
(2.) The Petitioner in its Petition has made following Prayers: MERC Order_ Case No. 32 of 2014 Page 1 of 6 "a. that this Hon'ble Commission may order a detailed enquiry u/s 128 Electricity Act 2003 against the Respondent whereby the Respondent is directed to: - i. Furnish list of all cases wherein excess amount is ordered not to be refunded. ii. Call for paper and proceedings of all such cases wherein excess amount is ordered not to be refunded. b. that this Hon'ble Commission may direct Respondent to forthwith withdraw / setaside Direction recorded in Document dated 28.12.2011 bearing reference No. ESO/DGM[ES]/2882/2011 with subject "Record Note Determination and issuance of final assessment in vigilance cases registered prior to 16.08.2010. Meeting dated 14.12.2011." c. that this Hon'ble Commission may direct Respondent to forthwith withdraw / set aside Direction/ order by which refund is refused to consumers; d. that this Hon'ble Commission may direct Respondent to forthwith deposit the excess amount with interest with the Commission till such time the excess amount is not claimed by the consumer. e. that this Hon'ble Commission may grant permission to the complainant to assist in the enquiry so ordered against the Distribution Licensee i.e. B.E.S.T Undertaking f. that this Hon'ble Commission may direct Respondent to intimate such affected consumers to lodge their claim for the refund of such amount and / or get the credit for the same in their account. g. that this Hon'ble Commission may order Punitive action as per the provisions of the law against the Respondent and its officers h. that this Hon'ble Commission may grant cost of the complaint. i. that this Hon'ble Commission may grant liberty to the Petitioner to carry out alterations, additions, modifications or deletions to the petition at a future date. j. For such further and other reliefs as the Hon'ble Commission may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."
(3.) The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted as under: 3.1. Shri. Rajesh Shah @ Dedhia has submitted a Petition under affidavit on 17 January, 2014, under Section 128, of the Electricity Act, 2003 for Enquiry against unfair trade practices of withholding refund to consumer even when final claim is less than the amount deposited at the time of raid. 3.2. The GM, BEST issued a direction to avoid making payment of Refund even when the amount paid by the consumer exceeds that of the vigilance claim amount. The said direction is recorded in document dated 28 December, 2011 with subject name as Record note "Determination and issuance of final assessment in vigilance cases registered prior to 16 August, 2010. Meeting dated 14 December, 2011." 3.3. The Petitioner submitted that the said direction of the Respondent is illegal and inconsistent to the provisions of the Electricity Act,2003 3.4. The Petitioner submitted that the Respondent has collected monies from the consumer in the theft cases registered under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by making provisional claims for a period of two years without appreciating that even the special court is not empowered to determine civil liability for a period of more than 12 months. 3.5. It is submitted that the Respondent malpractices in refusing to refund the excess amount when the law does not permit them to retain such amount. 3.6. The Petitioner submitted two such cases wherein the Respondent has refused to refund the amount. The Petitioner mentioned that it has reason to believe that there must be many such cases where the Respondent by misuse its monopolistic power has retained and/or refused to refund the excess amount. 3.7. The Petitioner submitted that the Model Supply Code of the Forum of Regulators also provides for the refund of excess amount. 3.8. The Commission has powers to investigate such illegal act practiced by the Respondent which is against the interest of consumer. 3.9. The Petitioner submitted that the cause of action has arisen on 28 December, 2011. The Petitioner became aware of the said decision on 4 October, 2013 when he received copy under Right to Information. Hence there is no delay for filing the Petition. However if the Commission comes to the conclusion that there is delay in filing the Petition, the same may be condoned. 3.10. The Petitioner submitted that it has no other efficacious and alternate remedy and the remedies prayed for hereunder would give full and final relief to the affected consumers on whose behalf the instant application is being moved. ;