Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by the original complainants whose joint complaint came to be dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by its judgement dated 11/08/2010. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-
Complainants for their industrial units through their proprietors had filed consumer complaint no.390/07 alleging deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opponent M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. According to complainants they are in the manufacturing and fabrication business. Their industries are small scale industries. Each of them have got separate industrial unit in Majitia Industrial Estate, Deonar, Mumbai. All the four industrial units are proprietary concern and they are doing manufacturing activity for their livelihood. According to them they are not required to pay demand charges and still the opponent -M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. was issuing bills as per demand charges and since bills are not paid, they have given notice of discontinuation or disconnection of the electricity supply. Hence they filed consumer complaint.
According to them they have taken electricity connection from B.S.E.S. Limited erstwhile company which has been taken over now by M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. Complainant no.1 was having 50 H.P. load. Complainant no.2 was having 46.50 H.P. load for one meter and for second meter he was having 48 H.P. load. Complainant no.3 was having meter of 9 H.P. load and complainant no.4 was having 43 H.P. load. According to complainants, till June 2004 they were being issued bills under LTP 1 tariff but as per Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (MERC) order, the opponent was taking fixed charges and contract demand charges by issuing bills. According to MERC direction all consumers are required to pay fixed charges of `150/- upto 15 H.P. load and for contract demand charges he was required to pay `374/-. Thereafter, by order dated 30/09/2004 the MERC sanctioned 50 H.P. load to all the consumers taking fixed charges of `150/- and contract demand charges of `374/-. According to complainants they can be termed as ‘consumer’ under contract demand only if there is demand agreement between consumer and opponent in terms of Kilo Volt Ampere. If the consumer under agreement can be styled as contract demand there can be contract demand charges recoverable from the supply company. All the four complainants had made correspondence with M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. and had told that they were charging excessive charges in the bills and, therefore, they would not pay the bills. But M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. issued notice dated 18/07/2007 threatening to disconnect electricity supply and in fact disconnected electricity supply of complainant no.3’s industrial unit on 17/07/2007 and this was done by M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. without there being any agreement between themselves and M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. in respect of demand charges and, therefore, asking for payment of demand charges according to complainants is deficiency in service on the part of opponent and, therefore, they had filed consumer complaint praying that it be declared that opponents are not entitled to claim demand charges in their bills, that opponent should be restrained from issuing disconnection notice. Opponent should be directed to issue bill minus demand charges w.e.f. 01/10/2006 and should be directed to give revised bills to them and they also demanded `25,000/- for each of the complainant for mental harassment and cost of the proceedings.
Opponent filed written statement and pleaded that each of the complainant is having large industrial establishment in Majitia Industrial Estate at Deonar, Mumbai.
They were doing manufacturing activity for business purpose and they were earning profit and, therefore, they cannot be treated as consumers within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, they pleaded that the dispute as regards applicability of tariff rate is not within a purview of this Consumer forum in as much as it is the MERC, who is the authority who decides which tariff should be applied to each category of consumers under Electricity Act 2003. They pleaded that as per direction of the MERC, complainants were issued bills and by letter dated 19/02/2007 they were informed that their tariff category was changed from LTP 1 to LTP 2 and w.e.f. October 2006 as per direction of MERC they had been issued bills. They have also informed that those industrial units whose sanctioned load was more than 15 H.P. and those commercial consumers having load of more than 20 kilo watt, could be charged under tariff LTP 2 and, accordingly, as per MERC direction they had been issued bills applying LTP 2 tariff rates and if they failed to pay the bills as per section 56 of Electricity Act 2003, M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. would be forced to disconnect their supply. They therefore pleaded that complaint is without any substance and complaint should be dismissed with cost.
Looking to the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties before them the District Forum was of the view that all the complainants were in manufacturing or commercial activity and they could not be styled as consumers because they were doing manufacturing activities for earning profit and, therefore, they are not entitled to agitate their grievance by filing consumer complaint.
Forum relied upon the judgement of the National Commission in the case of Hotel Corporation of India Ltd. v/s. Delhi Electricity Board and others reported in (III) (206 CPJ 409 (NC). Forum also agreed with the contention of Ld.counsel for the opponent Mr.Hegde that opponent had rightly applied tariff rates looking to the category of the complainants and LTP 2 tariff rates were rightly applied by M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. and whether particular tariff rate is applicable or not is a question that can be agitated only before the MERC and not before the Consumer forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. All disputes of the nature raised by the complainants can be decided rightly by the MERC because they were issuing bills as per tariff rates fixed by the MERC and, therefore, counsel for the opponent rightly argued that the complainants should approach MERC for agitating their grievance against the bills than filing consumer complaint against M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. The District Forum accepted contention of counsel for the opponent and was pleased to hold that the opponent had rightly applied tariff rates as per directions issued by MERC form time to time and if at all they have any grievance, complainants should approach MERC and thus holding, forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint permitting complainants to approach MERC. Against this dismissal complainants filed this appeal.
We heard submissions of Mr.Ashutosh Marathe for the appellants and Mr.U.P.Warunjikar- Advocate for the respondent.
We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing the complaint is appearing to be just and proper. It is sustainable in law. Appellants have raised the dispute about applicability of tariff rates. Tariff rates are applicable to different category of persons as per directions issued by MERC under its jurisdiction under Electricity Act 2003. Whether particular person falls in a particular category in preference to another is a matter which can rightly decided by MERC under Electricity Act and not by Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So forum has rightly dismissed the complaint directing appellants to approach MERC by its impugned order. Said order in our view is appearing to be just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission exercising appellate jurisdiction. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal preferred by the complainants stand dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 15th June, 2011
