BEFORE THE UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Quorum
Shri Desh Deepak Verma, Chairman
Smt. Meenakshi Singh, Member
Shri I. B. Pandey, Member
In the matter of:
Sub: Petition under section 142 of the Electricity Act 2003 for non compliance of Electricity Ombudsman’s order in accordance with section 14 of UPERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulation 2007.
M/s Om Cold Storage, Village Bhatoli, District Rura, Kanpur Dehat. ------Petitioner
Versus
Executive Engineer (Electricity Distribution Division), Akbarpur, Rania, Kanpur Dehat.
------Respondent
ORDER
(Hearing on 23.4.2015)
The petitioner M/s Om Cold Storage, Village Bhatoli, District Rura, Kanpur Dehat, filed a complaint under section 142 of the Electricity Act 2003 regarding non compliance of Electricity Ombudsman’s order dated 26.9.2005.
The operative part of the Electricity Ombudsman’s order dated 26.9.2005 is:
**esllZ vkse dksYM LVksjst ,.M vkbl QSDVªh izkbosV fy0 dkuiqj nsgkr us miHkksDrk O;Fkk fuokj.k Qksje dkuiqj e.My ds le> f”kdk;r ;kfpdk izLrqr dh FkhA f”kdk;rdrkZ@vihydrkZ ds vuqlkj Qksje ds le{k yfEcr f”kdk;rh ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k fofu/kkZfjr vof/k esa ugh gksus ds dkj.k vihydrkZ@f”kdk;rdrkZ }kjk ;g vihy izLrqr dh x;h gSA
mijksDr vihy bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad 30@8@2005 dks nkf[ky dh x;hA vihy esa vxzsrj dk;Zokgh vkjEHk gksrh mlds iwoZ gh mHk;i{kdkjksa ds vf/koDrkx.k }kjk fnukad 9@9@2005 dks mifLFkr gksdj lqfpr fd;k x;k fd miHk;i{kdkjksa ds e/; le>kSrk gks x;k gSA vr,o vc f”kdk;r@vihy yfEcr j[kus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugh gSA
mHk;i{kdkjksa }kjk “kiFk lfgr le>kSrk izi= Hkh nkf[ky fd;k x;kA
vr,o ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA**
The agreement between the petitioner and the respondent executed on 1.9.2005 and submitted to Electricity Ombudsman vide letter no. 1881 dated 1.9.2005 is as follows:
**mijksDr yfEcr nksuksa vihyksa ds lEcU/k esa vkt fnukad 01@09@2005 dks vihydrkZvksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh xksiky Lo:Ik vksej] ,MoksdsV dk lwpuk i= ,oa vihyksa dh izfr izkIr gq;h mDr vihyksa ds lUnHkZ esa voxr djkuk gS fd voj vfHk;Urk :jk ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh f}rh; :jk dh vk[;k fnukafdr 20@7@2005 ds vuqlkj vihy drkZvksa dks lu 1998&1999 ls yxkrkj xzkeh.k lsM;wy ¼fojy Js.kh½ dh fo|qr vkiwfrZ 132 ds0oh0 milaLFkku fnO;kiqj ls 33@11 ds0oh0 milaLFkku :jk dks izkIr gks jgh gSA tks miyC/krk ds vk/kkj ij nksuksa vihydrkZvksa dks iznku dh tk jgh gSA mijksDr vk[;k fnukafdr 20@7@2005 ds vk/kkj ij [k.M dk;kZy; fyfid dks vihydrkZvksa ds leLr fcy la”kksf/kr djds vf/kd tek /ku dk lek;kstu djus ,oa xzkeh.k “ksM~;wy ¼fojy Js.kh½ ds vuqlkj fcfyax djus ds vkns”k dj fn;s x;s gSaA
vr% fouez vuqjks/k gS fd vihydrkZvksa ls ikjLifjd le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij yfEcr vihy lWa0 1@2005 ,oa 2@2005 dks fuf.kZr djus dh d`ik djsaA
izFke i{k izfroknh ¼f}rh; i{k½
1- es0 vkse dksYM LVksjst xzke HkVkSyh ,0 ch0 f=ikBh
iksLV :jk dkuiqj nsgkr vf/k”kk’kh vfHk;Urk
2- es0 :jk dksYM LVksjst ,.M vkbl fo|qr forj.k [k.M
QSDVªh izk0 fy0 :jk dkuiqj nsgkr nf{k.kkWapy fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy0
}kjk xksiky Lo:Ik vksej] ,MoksdsV jfu;k&vdcjiqj] dkuiqj ¼nsgkr½
During the hearing on 3.9.2014 the respondent was represented by Shri A. S. Rakhra, Advocate. The petitioner was present himself and was represented by his learned Advocate Shri Siddiqui.
The compliance report has been filed by licensee. The copy of the same has also been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner has raised some issues regarding the calculation, interest, installment etc. in the matter.
The Commission’s order dated 24.9.2014 is as follows:
“The Commission directs the CGRF to look into the matter and decide within one month as to whether the compliance has been done duly and properly.
The matter is disposed off.”
After that the petitioner filed writ petition no. 62702 of 2014 and Hon’ble High Court passed order dated 9.12.2014. The Hon’ble High Court in its order directed the Commission to decide the matter and further directed that the Commission, who is invested with statutory duties, power and function, should decide the matter dispassionately and in accordance with law.
The Hon’ble High Court further ordered that the complaints of the petitioners under section 142 of the act of 2003 are restored for reconsideration of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, who shall deal with the same in accordance with law and take appropriate decision thereupon expeditiously. The operative part of Hon’ble High Court’s order is as follows:
“The contesting parties through their respective counsel shall stands at notice to appear before the Commission on 7.1.2015.”
The case was accordingly fixed in Commission for hearing on 7.1.2015. The names of parties were called out. Shri Gopal Swroop appeared on behalf of Om Cold Storage and Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra appeared on behalf of the licensee.
The Commission enquired the counsel of Om Cold Storage that as to why he filed the copy of Honorable High Court order dated 9.12.2014 on 6.1.2015 when he had already received the authenticated copy on 21.12.2014. The council gave no reply to this.
After brief argument the next date of hearing was fixed for 5.2.2015.
During the hearing on 5.2.2015, the petitioner questioned the compliance and raised some issues regarding the calculation, interest, installment etc. in the matter. The respondent objected to it and said that these are the new issues and the Commission cannot adjudicate the individual consumer disputes in reference to section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act 2003, the Commission has jurisdiction only to ensure compliance of an order passed by CGRF / Ombudsman and is not mandated to look into the merits of CGRF/Ombudsman order as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case No. Appeal (civil) 2846 of 2006 in the matter of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs Reliance Energy Ltd. & Ors. and judgment dated 14.8.2007 and Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal in appeal no. 42 of 2006 in case of UPPCL and Others Vs. M/s Premier Ispat Pvt. Ltd. After hearing both the parties and in compliance of Honorable High Court’s directions, the Commission thought it proper that in the interest of justice, the report may be called for from Electricity Ombudsman in terms of section 11.0 (d) of UPERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007, therefore Commission referred the matter to Electricity Ombudsman and ordered that the Ombudsman will submit its report within three weeks and both the parties will appear before the Electricity Ombudsman on 13.2.2015 and submit their pleadings before him. The Commission asked the petitioner and the respondent that whether they have any objections regarding calling of report from Electricity Ombudsman. The petitioner and the respondent replied in negative
The Electricity Ombudsman submitted his report vide letter no. 360 dated 8.4.2015. The relevant extracts of the report of the Electricity Ombudsman are as follows:
Ekk0 fo|qr yksdiky dk fnukad 26-09-2005 dk vkns”k mHk;i{k ds le>kSrs ij vk/kkfjr gS rFkk ek0 fo|qr yksdiky ds le{k “kiFk lfgr le>kSrk izi= nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA ifjoknhx.k }kjk izLrqr “kiFk&i= ds lkFk ifjoknhx.k }kjk dk;kZy; Kki la0 1880 fnukad 01-09-2005 layXu fd;k x;k gS rFkk “kiFk&i= ds izLrj 7 esa ;g Li’V mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd vf/k”kklh vfHk;Urk us i=kad 1880 fnukad 01-09-2005 ds }kjk vihydrkZ }kjk ekaxs x;s leLr vuqrks’kksa dks Lohdkj dj Kkiu fuxZr dj fn;k gSA bl dk;kZy; Kki la0 1880 fnukad 01-09-2005 esa Li’V mYys[k gS fd vf/kd tek /ku ij iw.kZ lek;kstu gksus rd dksbZ Hkh fo|qr fcy nksuksa bdkbZ;ksa dks ns; ugha gksxk rFkk vf/kd tek /ku ij dksbZ C;kt Hkh ugha fn;k tk;sxkA vr% Li’V gS fd ek0 fo|qr yksdiky ds le{k izLrqr “kiFk lfgr le>kSrs izi= dk Hkkx gksus ds dkj.k dk;kZy; Kki la0 1880 fnukad 01-09-2005 ifjoknhx.k ij ykxw gS rFkk ek0 fo|qr yksdiky ds vkns”k dk ,d Hkkx gSA vr% ek0 fo|qr yksdiky ds vkns”k esa mYysf[kr ^^liFk lfgr le>kSrk izi=^^ ds vuqlkj vf/kd tek /ku ij dksbZ C;kt ugha fn;k tkuk gSA
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
ek0 loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g O;oLFkk nh x;h gS fd ;fn ;kfpdk esa dkbZ vuqrks’k ;kph }kjk ugha ekax fd x;h gS rks mls l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk viuh vksj ls ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% bl dkj.k ls Hkh orZeku ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dh C;kt dh ekax ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
The Electricity Ombudsman in its report finally opined as follows:
**ek0 fo|qr yksdiky }kjk fnukad 26@9@2005 dk fn;k x;k fu.kZ; mHk; i{kksa }kjk muds le{k izLrqr **”kiFk lfgr le>kSrk izi=** ij vk/kkfjr gS ftldk dk;Zdky Kki la0 1880 fnukad 1@9@2005 ,d fgLlk gS bl bl dk;kZy; Kki ds vuqlkj ifjoknh dks vf/kd tek /kujkf”k ij dksbZ C;kt ns; ugh gSA vr% ifjoknhx.k }kjk ek0 m0 iz0 fo|qr fu;ked vk;ksx ds le{k fo|qr vf/kfu;e 2003 dh /kkjk&142 ds vUrxZr py jgh dk;Zokgh ds v/khu C;kt dh ekWax fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA**
The Commission during the hearing heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusal the record of file. It has been argued vehemently on behalf of the consumer applicant that the Executive Engineer is obliged to pay interest on the amount deposited in excess under Clause 19.1 (c) and 19.2 (ii) (b) of Regulation, 2007 as the delay to adjust money deposited in excess by revising the bills in terms of the award made by the EO for a period of more than 9 years is solely attributable to the Executive Engineer. The learned counsel of the respondent has argued that what expressly has not been awarded by the learned Electricity Ombudsman in final order, cannot be permitted to be given to consumer therefore the respondent cannot be punished for the omission not required to be done on his part.
From the perusal of record it is evident that before the Electricity Ombudsman, it was never the matter in issue that the consumer is entitled for the interest or not. The main issue before the Electricity Ombudsman was leaving of rural schedule in place of urban schedule which was finally decided by Electricity Ombudsman on the basis of agreement held between the parties. There appears no special agreement between the parties as to payment of interest to consumer on the residue of the amount liable to be set off in present case. In a matter u/s 142 of the Electricity Act 2003, the Commission acts in the capacity of executing Court. This is the cardinal principle of Law that executing Court cannot go behind the decree therefore the Commission is only to adjudge whether the respondent has complied with the order finally passed by Ombudsman or not. It makes no difference whether the final order has been passed on merits or on the basis of compromise made or agreement executed between the parties. Finally the Commission is of the considered view that for want of any express order in the order under compliance passed by learned Electricity Ombudsman, the interest as demanded by consumer applicant is not payable by the respondent in compliance of the order passed by Electricity Ombudsman.
(I. B. Pandey) (Meenakshi Singh) (Desh Deepak Verma)
Member Member Chairman
Dated: 7.5.2015
Page 6 of 6