Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) established under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The CGRF had set aside supplementary bills dated 15.09.2015 for Rs.1,05,22,108 and dated 07.11.2015 for Rs.14,14,341 raised by MSEDCL against M/s Vega Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the respondent consumer. The CGRF directed MSEDCL to rework the bills for the period three months prior to 19.08.2015 (date of detection of defect in metering system) and for the period from 19.08.2015 to 14.10.2016 (date of detection to replacement of new meter) within 20 days. The CGRF also warned of penalty proceedings under Sections 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for non-compliance. MSEDCL contended that the CGRF had no jurisdiction to set aside the bills and that the bills were correctly raised based on the meter readings. The respondent argued that the meter was defective and the bills were arbitrary. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the CGRF had jurisdiction under Section 42(5) and the regulations, and the order was based on evidence. The court found no perversity or lack of jurisdiction in the CGRF's order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the CGRF's order was upheld. The court directed MSEDCL to comply with the order within the stipulated time.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Consumer Grievance Redressal - Supplementary Bills - Defective Metering - Section 42(5) Electricity Act, 2003 - The distribution company raised supplementary bills for alleged short billing due to a defective meter. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum set aside the bills and directed reworking based on actual consumption for three months prior to detection and for the period from detection to replacement. The High Court upheld the Forum's order, holding that the Forum had jurisdiction and the decision was based on evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Electricity Law - Jurisdiction of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum - Section 42(5) Electricity Act, 2003 - The High Court held that the Forum established under Section 42(5) has the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding supplementary bills and metering defects. The petition challenging the Forum's order was dismissed as the Forum's decision was not perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum was justified in setting aside supplementary bills raised by the distribution company for the period prior to detection of a defect in the metering system, and directing reworking of bills based on actual consumption.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Order of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum dated 25.03.2017 upheld. Petitioner directed to comply with the order within the stipulated time.
Law Points
- Electricity Act
- 2003
- Section 42(5)
- Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
- Supplementary bills
- Defective metering system
- MERC Regulations 2006
- Regulation 8.7
- Regulation 22
- Section 142
- Section 149
