Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), challenged the order dated 22/01/2016 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur, in Representation No.100/2015. The Ombudsman had set aside the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) dated 03/07/2015 and allowed the complaint of respondent no.1, Shilpa Steel & Power Limited, an industrial consumer. The consumer had been billed at commercial tariff since the beginning, but as per the MERC tariff order dated 12/09/2010, the main purpose of the premises being industrial, the consumer should have been billed at industrial tariff. The consumer claimed a refund of the difference between commercial and industrial tariff from January 2010 to March 2015, amounting to Rs.19,97,747/-. The Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC) rejected the complaint on 29/04/2015 on the ground of limitation under Clause 6.6 of the MERC (CGRF & EO) Regulations, 2006, which provides a three-year limitation period from the date of cause of action. The CGRF upheld the rejection. The consumer then filed a representation before the Electricity Ombudsman, who allowed it, holding that the wrong classification was a continuing wrong and the complaint was within limitation. The High Court upheld the Ombudsman's order, reasoning that each monthly bill gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and the complaint filed on 24/04/2015 was within limitation for bills issued within three years prior to that date. The court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the Ombudsman's order.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Limitation - Continuing Wrong - Clause 6.6 of MERC (CGRF & EO) Regulations, 2006 - The issue was whether a complaint for refund of excess tariff charged due to wrong classification from January 2010 to March 2015 was barred by limitation. The court held that the wrong classification and billing at commercial tariff instead of industrial tariff constituted a continuing wrong, and the cause of action arose each month when the bill was issued. Therefore, the complaint filed on 24/04/2015 was within limitation for bills issued within three years prior to that date. (Paras 2-6) B) Electricity Law - Tariff Classification - MERC Tariff Order dated 12/09/2010 - The court considered the MERC clarification that consumer categorization should reflect the main purpose of the premises and offices of industries cannot be levied with commercial tariff. The court held that the consumer was entitled to be billed at industrial tariff for the period from January 2010 to March 2015, and the Ombudsman correctly allowed the refund of the difference. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the consumer for refund of excess tariff charged due to wrong classification was barred by limitation under Clause 6.6 of the MERC (CGRF & EO) Regulations, 2006.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Order of the Electricity Ombudsman dated 22/01/2016 upheld.
Law Points
- Limitation period
- continuing wrong
- tariff classification
- consumer grievance redressal
- MERC Regulations 2006
