Case No. 85-11 Page No. 1 of 1 - MAHADISCOM

CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
NASHIK ZONE
(Established under the section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003)
Phone: 6526484 Office of the
Fax: 0253-2591031 Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
Kharbanda Park, 1 st Floor, Room N. 115-118
Dwarka, NASHIK 422011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. / CGRF /Nashik/NUC/N(U-!)Dn./268/C. No.85-2011/ Date:03/04/2012
To.
1) M/s .Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Plot No. 89, M.I.D.C.
Satpur Nashik 422007
(Consumer No. 049069000702)
(BY R.P.A.D.)
2) Nodal Officer ,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Com. Ltd.,
Urban Circle office, Shingada Talav,
Nashik
3) Executive Engineer (U-1)
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Com. Ltd.
Kharbanda Park, Division office
Nashik
DECISION
Date of Submission of the case : 01/03/2012
Date of Decision : 03/04/2012
Appellant
Distribution Licensee
(Respondent)
M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., M.I.D.C. Satpur HT Industrial consumer ( hereafter referred as
the Appellant) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ( hereafter referred as the
Respondent) is charged commercial tariff for some activities in their Industrial Plant. Appellant filed a
complaint regarding this with the Internal Grievance Redressal Committee of Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. But not satisfied with the decision of the Respondent, the consumer has
submitted a representation to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in Schedule “A”. The representation
is registered at Serial No.57 of 2011 on 01 /03/2012.
The Forum in its meeting on 06/03/2012, decided to admit this case for hearing on 27/03/2012 at 11.30
am in the office of the forum . A notice dated 07/03/2012 to that effect was sent to the appellant and the
concerned officers of the Distribution Company. A copy of the grievance was also forwarded with this
notice to the Nodal Officer, MSEDCL, Urban Circle Office Nashik , for submitting para-wise comments to
the Forum on the grievance within 15 days under intimation to the consumer. The copy of this notice was also
endorsed to the Chief Engineer, Nashik Zone, the Superintending Engineer, Urban Circle Office Nashik ,
and the Executive Engineer (U-1) ,Nashik .
Shri S. S. Kakade , Nodal Officer, MSEDCL, Urban Circle Nashik , Shri C. U. Patil , Executive
Engineer , Shri. S. R. Tike, Dy. Executive Engineer represented the Distribution Company during the
hearing. Shri S. S. Shah , Shri, T. N. Agrawal, Shri D.V. Kanse, Shir. S. Rastogi appeared on behalf of the
consumer.
Case No. 85-11 Page No. 1 of 1

Consumers Representation:
1. The Appellant is not performing any commercial activity in the plant, but some units are charged under
the tariff of commercial head at the rate of Rs. 7.95 per unit, in each month. The details of the load
connected on two sub-meters are as under.
o Meter SI. No. 07100816 : Connected load is 173.5 KW used for sub station lighting,
equipments, control panels etc.
o Meter SI. No. MSU 14021 : Connected load is 41.44 KW, mainly related with the lighting
load, AC, PCs etc. required for Plant Vehicle Team (PVT)
Form the above it is clear that the load is not of commercial activity. The consumption on these sub
métiers is 1.5 % of total consumption.
2. The Appellant had written to the SE, Urban Circle on 25/09/11 regarding this issue. But as there was
no reply the grievance was submitted to IGRC on 20/12/2011 . Accordingly decision has been passed
by IGRC vide order No. 001243 dated 24/02/2012. They are not satisfied with the decision of IGRC
3. Attention is invited to the tariff order (Case No. 111/2009) passed by MERC for the year 2010 which has
made applicable w.e.f. 1 st Sept. 2010. The relevant extract of clause No. 5.4 Commission Tariff
philosophy in the above order reads as under .
“For instance, within a Factory, there could be canteens, recreation rooms for staff gymnasium, time
office, crèche for employees’ children, dormitory for workers, guest houses for visiting officers, etc which
are related to an incidental to the main purpose of the factory premises, and are intended for use by the
staff/workers employed within the factory premises, and are not offered on commercial payment basis to
people not employed within the factory premises. The factory cannot function in the absence of such.
Ancillary activities, In such cases, the categorization of such consumers should be ‘Industrial’ and the
distribution licensee should not install sub-meter or separate meters for such ancillary and incidental
activities, and charge them at commercial or any other rate as has been dome in some cases”
4. From the above it is observed that even facilities like canteen, recreation room, gymnasium, crèche, guest
house etc. provided in the plant are not directly related with part of production .All such activities should
be charged under industrial consumption. In contrary to this, the activities like sub-station lighting/
control room, PVT office etc. are very much essential for the part of production, then how such activities
can not be considered as part of production for charging under industrial consumption. Although the
word “Sub-Station lighting/ control panel, PVT office is not mentioned in the order issued by MERC , by
common sense these activates being essential part of the production process should have been considered
by IGRC while passing decision.
5. Further it is very surprise to see the conclusion of IGRC at point No. 3 that MSEDCL’s sub stations are
billed under commercial tariff category. This could be due to reason that MSEDCL’s Sub Stations are
commercial establishments and not registered with the DIC/Industries Dept. As such this point has got
no relevance and can’t be equated with out industrial production activities.
6. Also it is to bring to your notice that in the billing of many other large scale industries, no separate
commercial units are billed by MSEDCL some of the sample bills of Nashik Circle are submitted.
Consumers Demands:
1. Remove the commercial category from our energy bill for both the sub-meters and charge all units
consumptions at industrial tariff only as per the MERC’s order for case No. 111/2009 .
2. Allow refund of tariff difference for excess payment charged from September 2010 onwards
3. The refund amount should be credited along with accrued interest at PLR rate.
4. Compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards man hour, traveling/ incidental expenses incurred by us & also
mental agony.
5. To take appropriate action as per SOP against MSEDCL’s errant officers for not complying MERC’s
tariff order.
Arguments from the Distribution Company.
The Distribution Company submitted a letter dated 26/03/2012 from the Nodal Officer, MSEDCL,
Circle Office and other relevant correspondence in this case. Putting forth the arguments on the points raised
in the grievance the representatives of the Distribution Company said that:
Case No. 85-11 Page No. 1 of 2

1. Dy. Executive Engineer Satpur has carried out Spot Verification and submitted Spot Verification
Report under letter dated 19/01/2012 bringing out the following points:
There are two lighting meters provided at 132 KV Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (PPS Dept.)
Plant-1, Satpur
Meter No. 1 :7100816 is utilized at 132 KV M & M Switchyard, Control Room, D.G. Set &
Battery chargers & Lighting of area. The connected load found is 186.60 KW and the billing of
the same is done on average basis of 6000 units every month.
Meter No. 2: MSU14021 is installed and used for plant vehicle team office (PVT). Total load is
41.44 KW. This load is utilized for the office purpose. The bill is issued as per consumption
every month.
2. The IGRC heard the case on 02/02/12. After hearing both the parties the IGRC concluded that :
One sub meter is used for substation lighting , control room and other equipments.
The other sub meter is used for office
The section 5.4 of the said Tariff Order by MERC do not make mention of substation or office.
All offices are applied commercial tariff. Even MSEDCL substations are applied commercial
tariff.
The commercial tariff charged for supply through both the sub meters is correct.
Observations by the Forum:
The Forum records following observations based on the documents submitted and the say of the
appellant and the respondent and the prevailing rules and regulations related to the case:
1. The Forum has gone through the contents of the para 5.4 of the order dated 12 th September 2010 by
the Hon’ble Commission in the Case No. 111 of 2009 in the matter of MSEDCL’s Petition for Truing Up
for FY 2008-09, Annual Performance Review for FY 2009-10 and Aggregate Revenue Requirement and
Tariff Determination for FY 2010-11.
2. It is observed that the Respondent have relied upon the list of the items mentioned in the said order and
concluded that since there is no mention of the substation or office in the list, these items could not be
included in the Industrial Tariff. But it should be noted that the list of the items is just illustrative and
not exhaustive because the word “etc” has been used to cover more such items. . Any activity carried
out in the factory premises which is incidental and ancillary to the main industrial activity and not
used by outsiders by paying charges is intended to be covered in this list. The activities of Switchyard,
Control Room, D.G. Set & battery chargers & Lighting of area and plant vehicle team office in this case
are certainly incidental and ancillary to the main industrial activity of the Appellant. The Appellant is
not carrying out these activities on chargeable basis for the outsiders . These are confined for their
captive use only. Hence they can not be termed as commercial according to the Tariff Philosophy as
envisaged by the Hon’ble Commission in the said order dated 12 th September 2010
3. The argument by the Respondent that “Even MSEDCL substations are applied commercial tariff.” is not
correct. Because CE (Commercial) MSEDCL ,Mumbai has issued a Circular no. 143 dated 03/05/2011
in which it has been clearly instructed that:
“The recorded consumption for all points of auxiliary consumption at EHV & MSEDCL sub
stations shall be billed as per Industrial tariff.”
4. The Appellant has also submitted bills of 2011 of M/S Raj Rani Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd. , Malegaon
MIDC, Sinnar and M/S Jindal Saw Ltd. , Malegaon MIDC, Sinnar where no separate commercial units
are billed by MSEDCL ,This is anomaly and indiscrimination amongst consumers.
5. In view of the observations in the preceding paras , the Forum directs the Respondent to apply industrial
tariff for supply through the sub meters to Switchyard, Control Room, D.G. Set & battery chargers &
Lighting of area and plant vehicle team office w.e.f. 1 st September 2010 and refund the excess amount
recovered to the Appellant with interest at bank rate of the Reserve Bank of India from the date of receipts
of the excess amounts till the date of refund, as stipulated in section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003,
read with Regulation 11.3 of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Condition of
Tariff) Regulations, 2005.
6. The Appellant has demanded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards man hour, traveling/ incidental
expenses incurred and also mental agony. As the MERC regulations do not provide any such
compensation hence denied.
7. In the present case there is an issue of the proper interpretation of the MERC tariff order. The concerned
officers of the Respondent have applied the tariff as per their understanding and there is no deliberate
intention to harass the consumer. It is not default in service . MERC (Standards of Performance of
Distribution Licensees, Period for Giving Supply and Determination of Compensation) Regulations, 2005
Case No. 85-11 Page No. 1 of 3

do not provide any compensation for such case. The demand for compensation under S.O.P. regulations
is also not justified.
ORDER
After considering the grievance submitted by the consumer, comments and arguments by the
Distribution Licensee, all other records available, the following order is passed by the Forum for
implementation:
1. The Respondent should apply industrial tariff for supply through the sub meters to Switchyard,
Control Room, D.G. Set & battery chargers & Lighting of area and plant vehicle team office w.e.f. 1 st
September 2010 and refund the excess amount to the Appellant with interest at bank rate of the
Reserve Bank of India from the date of receipts of the excess amounts till the date of refund, as
stipulated in section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Regulation 11.3 of Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Condition of Tariff) Regulations, 2005.
2. As per regulation 8.7 of of the MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006 , order passed or direction issued by the Forum in this order shall be
implemented by the Distribution Licensee within the time frame stipulated and the concerned Nodal
Officer shall furnish intimation of such compliance to the Forum within one month from the date of
this order.
3. As per regulation 22 of the above mentioned regulations , non-compliance of the orders/directions
in this order by the Distribution Licensee in any manner whatsoever shall be deemed to be a
contravention of the provisions of these Regulations and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
Commission can initiate proceedings suo motu or on a complaint filed by any person to impose
penalty or prosecution proceeding under Sections 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. If aggrieved by the non-redressal of his Grievance by the Forum, the appellant may make a
representation to the Electricity Ombudsman, 606, ‘KESHAVA’, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra
(East), Mumbai 400 051 within sixty (60) days from the date of this order under regulation 17.2 of
the MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006.
(Rajan S. Kulkarni )
Member
(Ratan L. Sonule )
Member-Secretary
& Executive Engineer
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
Nashik Zone
Case No. 85-11 Page No. 1 of 4
(Suresh P.Wagh)
Chairman
Copy for information and necessary action to:
1. Chief Engineer , Nashik Zone, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ,
Vidyut Bhavan, Nashik Road 422101
2. Chief Engineer (Load Management) , Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ,
Head Office , Prakash Gad, Bandra , Mumbai 400051
3. Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ,
Nashik Urban Circle office, Nashik