- (1.) M/s. Arihant Universal Realty Pvt. Ltd. (AURPL), Kharghar, Navi Mumbai has filed a Petition on 14 December, 2012 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), Bhandup Zone's Order dated 09.07.2010.
(2.) The Petitioner's substantive prayers are as follows: " b. That the Opponent be directed to comply with the order and direction dated - - - - - of the Hon'ble Forum; c. That the Opponent carry out the necessary acts in providing for utility under the scheme as applied for; d. That the opponent be directed not to restrict the Applicant to a scheme which will be detrimental when options are available under the act and governing law;... f. It is also prayed that the compensation to the applicant be allowed for harassment and compelling the applicant to carry out the work on his own by shirking away the directions of the forum." In its covering letter to the Petition, AURPL has also sought directions for refund by MSEDCL of Rs. 45.29 lakh (including supervision charges, etc.), being the estimated amount of the works.
(3.) The Petition states as follows: a. M/s Poonam Electrical Corporation had applied for 176 (166 single phase and 10 three phase) new electric connections for its residential complex named as Arihant Universal Reality Pvt. Ltd. to MSEDCL, Panvel Division. b. The Petitioner paid processing fees of Rs.4,650 on 23 March, 2009. MSEDCL intentionally delayed the survey of installation and issue of demand note. The Superintending Engineer (SE), Vashi Circle was also approached by the Petitioner, but took no cognizance. c. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached CGRF, Bhandup Zone. In its Order dated 9 July 2010, the CGRF ruled in favour of the Petitioner as follows: " The Applicant consumer should be awarded the compensation towards SOP for Rs.6200/ - for delay in issue of demand note. The Opponent utility should convey the necessary charges to the consumer Applicant immediately. The electric supply should be released as per MERC Rules and Regulations as mentioned in observations in forgoing paragraphs. The compliance should be reported to this Forum within 30 days." d. The Petitioner approached Chief Engineer, Vashi Circle for compliance of CGRF Order. On 8 September, 2010 the Chief Engineer gave directions to the SE, but these were not in consonance with the CGRF Order. Subsequently, the SE, Vashi Circle, vide letter dated 17 September, 2010 issued to the Executive Engineer and the Petitioner, communicated that the work would be carried out under the Dedicated Distribution Facility (DDF) scheme, which was contrary to the CGRF Order. e. MSEDCL is shifting the blame for its lapses and non -compliance to CIDCO, which was rejected by the CGRF. It is insisting on the DDF scheme when other options for which the Petitioner qualifies and are his prerogative are available. ;