- (1.) The claim of the petitioner for refund of additional electricity surcharge which was levied and recovered during the period starting from 1992 to 2008 came to be dismissed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Kanpur. The said order of the Forum was subjected to a challenge before the first respondent, the Electricity Ombudsman, who rejected the appeal in light of the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 19631. This petition lays challenge to the aforesaid two orders.
(2.) In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 42 and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission has framed the U.P.E.R.C (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 20072. The Regulations under Clause 3 require every Distribution Licensee to constitute a Grievance Redressal Forum comprising of a judicial member, a technical member and an officer of the licensee. The Forum is an adjudicatory authority, which is enjoined to entertain and adjudicate upon complaints which may be instituted before it by a consumer. Clause 6.9 of the Regulations requires the Forum to adjudicate upon a complaint by means of a speaking order. In terms of Clause 8 any consumer aggrieved by an order passed by the Forum or in a situation where the Forum, in his opinion, has failed to redress the grievance, is entitled to prefer a representation to the Electricity Ombudsman. Such a representation is liable to be made by the consumer within 30 days of the order of the Forum.
(3.) The Ombudsman has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner noting that he had willingly deposited the additional surcharge during 1992 to 2008. It however accepted the submission advanced on behalf of the distribution licensee that the claim was barred by Section 3 of the Act. It is this view taken by the Ombudsman which is assailed before us.;