1 WP2032/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2032 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Rural Circle, Aurangabad, Through its, Shri Somnath Namdeo Pawar, Age 52 years, Occupation Service as a Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Rural Circle, Mill Corner, Aurangabad, Aurangabad Petitioner V E R S U S 1 M/s Kaygaon Paper Mills Ltd., “Manisha” Behind AXIS Bank, Aurangabad Respondents 2 The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Aurangabad, Zone Aurangabad, Through its President Shri Bipinchandra Mantri or The Member Secretary Mr. Uday S. Malte, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pawar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 1st July, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel Shri. Uday S. Malte for the petitioner and Shri. Pawar for the respondent No.1. Respondent No. 2 is a formal party. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before respondent No. 2 for recovery of amount of Rs.2,89,231/- etc against the petitioner-company. Respondent No. 2 is the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply and other Conditions of Supply) Regulations 2005. These regulations are enacted under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner is a Electricity Distribution Company and the respondent is its consumer. 2 WP2032/11 The gist of the ‘grievance’ filed by respondent No. 1, can be narrated as under : 3. Respondent No. 1 had established a factory for which the petitioner- company had already installed an electric meter etc. In 2007-2008, on two occasions, respondent No. 1 requested the petitioner-company to enhance supply of the electric power through high tension electric wires. In order to supply such enhanced electricity, certain equipments were installed in the factory premises of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 complained that though it is the responsibility of the petitioner-company to provide the equipments, such as meter etc., they asked respondent No. 1 to procure the equipments at their cost and get them installed. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 spending their own funds, procured the equipments and got them installed. They spent a sum over Rs.2,00,000/- for this work. They said that they are entitled to refund of this amount, because, it is the petitioner- company, who is under statutory obligation to provide such equipments at their factory site. 4. On above premise, the complaint was filed before respondent No. 2 – Forum. The petitioner opposed the complaint saying that as per the agreement between the parties, respondent No. 1 agreed to bear the cost of equipments etc. The learned Members of the Forum however rejected the contention of the petitioner-company and directed them to reimburse the amount to respondent No. 1. 5. Challenging this order in this writ petition, the main grievance raised by the petitioner-company is that the grievance was not maintainable before respondent No. 2 – Forum, because the complaint was not a ‘grievance’, as contemplated by the provisions of the above mentioned Regulations. Regulation 2.1 (c) defined term “grievance” as under: 3 WP2032/11 “Grievance” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed by a Distribution Licensee in pursuance of a license, contract, agreement or under the Electricity Supply Code or in relation to standards of performance of Distribution Licensees as specified by the Commission and includes inter alia (a) safety of distribution system having potential of endangering of life or property, and (b) grievances in respect of non-compliance of any order of the Commission or any action to be taken in pursuance thereof which are within the jurisdiction of the Forum or Ombudsman, as the case may be.” By no stretch of imagination the grievance of respondent No. 1, mentioned above, would be covered by this definition. A consumer’s grievance contemplated under the Regulations is basically a complaint about fault or inadequacy in quality of performance of the Electricity Distribution Company. In this case, admittedly, there is no grievance that performance of the petitioner-company, as distribution licensee, had been imperfect or otherwise. The grievance of respondent No. 1 is in respect of breach of statutory obligation allegedly committed by the petitioner-company. So, the grievance would not fall within the four corners of the term “grievance” defined under the Regulations. 6. Shri. H.F. Pawar, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 contended that the dispute even in respect of refund of expenses incurred by a consumer would be a ‘grievance’, as contemplated by the definition of the term ‘grievance’, mentioned above. In order to support this contention, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 first tried to show me a circular issued by the petitioner-company, in which it was mentioned that when the petitioner-company is under obligation to refund the expenditure 4 WP2032/11 incurred by the consumer, the same should be adjusted in monthly bills of such consumer. Indeed, the dispute of this case could have been resolved through the application of the circular. But, the petitioner-company has refused to refund the amount raising some objections, and therefore, this has become a dispute between the parties. Shri H.F. Pawar, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 then tried to show me certain orders passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in the matter of complaint filed by certain consumers of the petitioner-company for refund of the amount etc. The Commission directed the petitioner-company to refund the amount to the consumer in those cases. I am afraid, even though in similar situation, the petitioner-company was directed by the Commission to refund the amount to their consumers, still such orders are not capable of being utilized as precedent. I have made sufficiently clear above that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and would not be covered by the term ‘grievance’. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which had passed the impugned order, apparently did not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of this nature. Respondent No. 2- Forum thus could not have decided the dispute of this nature. Therefore, the orders passed by the Commission will be of no use to respondent No. 1. 7. In view of this, without expressing any view on merits of the claim / defence / Forum’s decision, I am inclined to allow this petition. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Forum stands set aside. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to them. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/2032/11/1/7/11ok 5 WP2032/11