CC/09/189

Per Mrs. J.D. Yengal, Hon’ble Memebr

The complaint is directed against the deficiency in service rendered by the opponent – MSEDCL by issuing an exorbitant illegal and unjustified electric bill for the month of Oct.2009 of Rs.38,46,625.02 to the complainant – industry in spite of the fact that the complainant had paid the electric bills issued the opponents regularly  till date.

            Factual matrix of the complaint is as follows:-

1.         The complainant M/s Western Super Fresh Stores Pvt. Ltd., is an industry duly           registered under Companies Act 1956 and is providing services of Cold Storage           and Warehouse and has its business plant and office at Shil Phata, Navi Mumbai.         The opponent is limited company registered under companies Act 1956 and is in         the business of distribution of electricity supply to its consumers and complainant   is the complainant – industry is the consumer of the opponent company.

2.         The complainant is sanctioned HT-I electrical connection with load of 284 KW for industrial purpose by the opponents, which is affected after due inspection of the complainant’s business premises and perusing the necessary documents and duly complied by the incidental requirement as required by the opponents.

3.         The complainant has been regularly paying the bills issued by the opponents and      has paid them even till date.

4.         The complainant received monthly electric bill for the month of Oct.2009 on 31.10.2009, showing arrears as Rs.38,46,625/- in addition to the current bill of Rs.3,95,175/- i.e. totaling to Rs.42,41,800/-, which if not paid by stipulated date i.e. 16.11.2009,  then the complainant would be liable to pay Rs.84,836.01 in addition, as belated charges. It is the contention of the complainant that on enquiry with the opponents regarding the details of the bill, since all the bills were paid up to date by the complainant and also  requesting the opponent to accept the current bill which was to the tune of Rs.3,95,175/-,  the opponents not only refused to accept the current bill but also refused to part with any information regarding the exorbitant bill, which was shown as outstanding and also insisted that the bill should be paid in one stroke, which was not possible for the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant on 12.11.2009 sent legal notice to the opponent, calling upon them to accept the current bill of Rs.3,95,175/- and also to give the details about the bill amount, which was shown as outstanding.  The said notice was accompanied by the cheque dtd.12.11.2009 drawn on Canara Bank for the amount of Rs.3,95,175/-.  The opponent No.1 – Chief Engineer – MSEDCL and opponent No.2 - Dy Executive Engineer MSEDCL refused to accept the legal notice and the cheque, however, the opponent No.3 – Suptdt. Engineer, MSEDCL, Thane (W) accepted the said notice alongwith the cheque on 13.11.2009.  the opponent Nos.1 & 2 were also sent a copy of the notice by Speed Post.

5.         It is the contention of the complainant that without giving any explanation and without following due process of law the opponents issued the exorbitant and unjustified bill itself results into deficiency in service and therefore, complainant has filed  the instant complaint before this Commission and sought for relief of direction to be issued to the opponents to accept the current bill and also to restrain them from disconnecting the electric supply because that would cause irreparable loss to the complainant.

6.         The complainant has filed the copies of the previous bills, legal notice dtd.12.11.2009, copy of the Registration under the Shop & Establishment and copy of the Cheque dtd.10.11.2009.

7.         The opponents were issued with notice after admission and the complainant was also granted interim relief in view of the fact that he had made full payment of the current bill to the extent of Rs.3,95,175/-.

8.         The opponents in their written version to the complaint, have admitted the fact that the complainant is their consumer that he has been paying the bill regularly and that there are no arrears as against the complainant. But they have justified the amount which is shown as arrears by saying that although the complainant has been running an industry and having a business of cold storage and warehouse and in the absence of SSI certificate the said business of the complainant is commercial activity and as per the circular No.7900 dtd.17.03.2009 issued by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) in respect of applicability of appropriate tariff to cold storage, as the industry having SSI certificate, or any other equivalent documents from the relevant authority, has been classified under HT-II commercial category and therefore, the billing per tariff for industrial unit @ Rs.3.95 per unit, which was previously applied, was corrected and correct tariff as HT-II commercial category i.e. @ Rs.7/- per unit is applied and the arrears for a period from June 2008 to July 2009 were accordingly worked out.

9.         Except affidavit in evidence of Mr Raghu K.M., complainant has not adduced any evidence.  He only affirmed what has been stated in the complaint.  He did not answer to the factual situation alleged and unwanted in the written version by the opponent.  The complainant, thus, conceded to these facts, viz. initially tariff rate on provisional basis was applied and subsequently after clarification received from the regulatory authority, the correct tariff rate or tariff category as that of ‘HT-II commercial’ was applied  and accordingly the bill showing  arrears was raised (by way of additional demand). The Opponent within his own right as prescribed by the statute can raise the demand for the arrears as aforesaid.  Therefore, there cannot be any deficiency in service which can be alleged against the opponent in this respect. The reliefs claimed by the complainant, as such, cannot be granted.  The complainant merely alleged that the opponent did not follow procedure prescribed under the statute, but he failed to substantiate the same.  No malafides could be established against the Officers of the opponent while raising additional demand by way of arrears from the complainant in the earlier referred circumstances. Thus, we find, complainant miserably failed to establish the case and holding it accordingly, we pass the following order:-

ORDER

1.         Complaint stands dismissed.

2.         In the given circumstances no order as to costs.

3.         Copies of the order be furnished the parties.

Pronounced on 25.03.2011

sj