Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Savita Chandrashekhar Thodage, applied to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) for a new electric supply infrastructure for her layout under the Dedicated Distribution Facility (DDF) scheme. The respondent supplied electricity to her layout. However, the petitioner alleged that the supply was categorized as Non-DDF instead of DDF, and she sought a refund of the amount she spent on the infrastructure. She approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), which dismissed her complaint on 24/09/2020, holding that she was not a 'consumer' under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Ombudsman upheld this order on 04/02/2021. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner argued that the definition of 'consumer' should not be restricted to deny rights to a person who has been supplied electricity, and that similar matters had been decided in her favor by the same court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. M/s. Darpan Multi Polypack (India) Private Limited (Writ Petition No.468 of 2018) and Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Mohan Pundlikrao Manmode (AIR ONLINE 2019 BOM 3238). The respondent contended that electricity was supplied for the layout, not for the petitioner's personal use, and therefore she was not a consumer, and not entitled to a refund. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the petition. The court held that the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not restricted to personal use and includes any person who is supplied electricity for own use, including for a layout. The court followed the binding precedents of its coordinate bench in Darpan Multi Polypack and Mohan Manmode, which held that a person in similar circumstances is a consumer and entitled to refund of infrastructure costs. The court set aside the orders of the CGRF and Ombudsman and directed the respondent to refund the amount spent by the petitioner on infrastructure, with interest as per the applicable rules.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Consumer Definition - Section 2(15) Electricity Act, 2003 - The petitioner applied for new electric supply under DDF for her layout and was supplied electricity. The CGRF and Ombudsman held she was not a 'consumer' as electricity was not for personal use. The High Court held that the definition of consumer is not restricted to personal use and includes any person supplied electricity for own use, including for layout development. The court relied on earlier judgments in Darpan Multi Polypack and Mohan Manmode to hold that the petitioner is a consumer and entitled to refund of infrastructure costs. (Paras 3-8) B) Electricity Law - Refund of Infrastructure Costs - DDF Scheme - The petitioner spent on infrastructure for electricity supply under DDF. The respondent supplied electricity under Non-DDF category. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount spent on infrastructure, following the precedent in Darpan Multi Polypack and Mohan Manmode. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who applied for and was supplied electricity under Dedicated Distribution Facility (DDF) for her layout, is a 'consumer' under the Electricity Act, 2003 and entitled to refund of infrastructure costs.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The orders of the CGRF dated 24/09/2020 and Ombudsman dated 04/02/2021 are set aside. The respondent is directed to refund the amount spent by the petitioner on infrastructure for electricity supply, with interest as per applicable rules.
Law Points
- Definition of consumer under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act
- 2003 includes any person who is supplied electricity for own use
- not limited to personal use
- refund of infrastructure costs under DDF scheme
- binding precedent of coordinate bench.
