9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les 2004 - The assesse had elaborately explained before the Authority below that the process of the industry was not simple refilling LPG Cylinder - It was explained that the activity comprises of LPG suction, vapour distribution, degassification, compression of LPG vapour, external and internal cleaning, hydro pressure test, refilling, sealing, quality control etc. Whether the assesse carried on a manufacturing activity when it was running its Gas Bottling Plant, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Electricity Ombudsman - Held that:- The Ombudsman had not considered all the Judgments and had dismissed the representation of the assesse - Rule was made partly absolute by setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in Representation No.82 of 2011 and the matter was remanded back to the Electricity Ombudsman for a de novo hearing - the Ombudsman shall apply his mind to the Provisions of the definition of the word “manufacture” under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the term “manufacture of Gas” under the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 . - WRIT PETITION NO.9455 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2012 - G.S. GODBOLE, J. Mr. Bhalwal i/b. M/s. Vyas Bhalwal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustrial/ production activity. Also as per the guidelines of MERC, the consumers category is determined based on the purpose of usage of supply. Hence the HTII (Commercial) tariff is appropriate tariff for such depots as per recent tariff order. It is therefore requested to take necessary action and inform the consumer at your end. 6. The Section Engineer, Sangli thereafter, sent reply dated 22 nd October, 2008 to the Petitioner contending that HTII was the appropriate tariff for the Petitioner. But the Petitioner did not immediately approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum created by the MSEDCL under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 at the relevant time but filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Sangli. By Judgment and Order dated 28th July, 2010, the said complaint was dismissed as not maintainable. Immediately thereafter on 14th October, 2010, the Petitioner submitted a complaint before the Internal Consumer Grievance Forum Cell, Circle Office, Sangli. The Executive Engineer (Adm.) and MSEDCL Internal Consumer Grievance Cell, Circle Office, Sangli sent a reply to the Petitioner on 27th October, 2010 that the grievance of the Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulatory Commission. The Appellant cannot take much help by citing judgments on tariffs applicable to other states. The Forum rejected Appellant's prayer in this regard. The Appellant has not pointed out any reason or jurisdiction to interfere in the Forum's order. The Forum's reasoned order does not apparently suffer from any error or infirmity. 9. Thus, the case of the Petitioner has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, Limitation provided by Regulation No.6.6 and second on the ground that the activity is not a manufacture activity. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 10. In so far as the first ground is concerned, I propose to decide the question of limitation by this Order and in my opinion, the grievance made by the Petitioner was well within limitation. Regulation No.2(c) of the MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006 ( herein after referred to as the 2006 Regulations), defines the term grievance. Regulation Nos.2 (d), (e) and (f) reads thus:- 2(d) Internal Grievance Redressal Cell or IGR Cell means such first authority to be contacted by the consumer for redressal of his/her Grievance as notified by the Distribution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGR Cell acknowledgment of the receipt of the Grievance to the consumer shall be provided by return email as promptly as possible. Provided further that the IGR Cells shall keep such electronic records in hard form for ease of retrieval. Provided further that where the Grievance is submitted by email hard copies of the same shall be submitted forthwith separately to the IGR Cell. (b) Notwithstanding subclause (a), the written acknowledgment of receipt of grievance provided by officials (who are not part of the IGR Cell) shall be deemed to be the acknowledgment for the purposes of these Regulations. 6.4 Unless a shorter period is provided in the Act, in the event that a consumer is not satisfied with the remedy provided by the IGR Cell to his Grievance within a period of two (2) months from the date of intimation or where no remedy has been provided within such period, the consumer may submit the Grievance to the Forum. The Distribution Licensee shall, within the said period of two (2) months, send a written reply to the consumer stating the action it has taken or proposes to take for redressing the Grievance. 6.5 Notwithstanding Regulation 6.4, a Grievance maybe entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded on an erroneous assumption that cause of action has arisen on 1st July, 2008 and, hence, the grievance filed before the Forum at Sangli on 14th October, 2010 is beyond two years. Thus reasoning clearly over looks the definition of the word Grievance as provided under Regulation 2 (c) of the 2006 Regulations. Though time spent by the Petitioner before the Consumer Court cannot be excluded, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the Petitioner approached the Internal Consumer Grievances Cell for the first time on 14th October, 2010 and that grievance was rejected by the Internal Consumer Grievances Cell on 27th October, 2010. This, according to me is the date on which the cause of action for filing a complaint or Grievance before the Forum as defined under Regulation 2(c) really arose. It is necessary to quote subsections 5 and 6 of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads thus :- Sub Section 5 : Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man, but unfortunately those Judgments have not been discussed and considered. The Petitioner had relied upon the Judgment in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v/s. State of Gujarat Others wherein Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited was also a a party and the said Judgment is in respect of the Gas Bottling Plant. Special Civil Application No.6220 of 2001 was filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. In the said Judgment, the question whether the activity of a Gas Bottling Plant is the manufacturing activity or not, was specifically raised. There the High Court had considered the provisions of The Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the Gas Cylinder Rules 1981 (Rules which were in force prior to the making of Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004). The High Court has clearly held that the activity of a Gas Bottling Plant is a manufacturing activity. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid Judgment of the Gujarat High Court. 22. Unfortunately, the learned Ombudsman has not considered all these Judgments and has dismissed the representation of the Petitioner. Hence, on the second point, as to whether the Petitioner carries on a manufacturing activity when it is running ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
