Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. He would further submit that CGRF has not factually verified whether any excess amount was recovered by MSEDCL and without any such finding could not have directed refund. He would further submit that the AEC I to IV were consolidated in AEC from August, 2013 to January, 2014 and the CGRF itself noted that all AEC I to IV were combined into a single head and despite thereof has directed the refund of AEC III and IV which cannot be segregated.

17. He would further submit that MSEDCL had already given the credit following the decision in the case of Paul Strips and Tubes Pvt. Ltd and without factually verifying the said position, CGRF directed the refund of AEC III and IV as well as additional FAC. He would further submit that there is no basis for directing refund of excess FAC as CGRF has factually erred in holding that MERC has passed an order to refund excess FAC recovered from December, 2013 to December, 2014. He would further submit that there was post facto approval by MERC for the FAC for the months of October, 2013 to March, 2014 and as such, there is no excess FAC charged. He submits that the excess FAC issue was not part of the MERC's order passed in Paul Strips and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. He submits that as there is no excess amount charged by MSEDCL without verifying the said fact, the direction to refund the AEC III and IV, additional FAC and excess FAC would amount to an unjust enrichment qua the Respondent.

32 of 51 wp7152-2019 MERC's order directed AEC I and II to be charged from September, 2013 for six months upto February, 2014 and AEC III and IV from October, 2013 to March, 2014. Despite thereof MSEDCL combined AEC I to IV in one single head. Claim was for AEC I and II for August, 2013 and AEC III and IV of August, 2013 and September, 2013.

47. What assumes significance is the stand of MSEDCL before CGRF where it accepts that AEC I to IV is refunded of August, 2013 and the reason for non refund of AEC III and IV of September, 2013 is the absence of any circular, amendment or letter from H.O. regarding the same. It is not the case of MSEDCL that as AEC I to IV were combined and included in one head, AEC III and IV cannot be computed independently and refunded. That apart, the order of MERC is very clear and specific that AEC I and II to be charged from September, 2013, which was charged by MSEDCL from August, 2013 and refunded and AEC III and IV to be charged from October, 2013 to March, 2014. Despite the different time period permitted by MERC for recovery of AEC I and II on one hand and AEC III and IV on other hand, there is no justification for MSEDCL to combine them all under one head of AEC. Pertinently the IT calculation sheet annexed to the written say of MSEDCL before CGRF indicates that the amounts refunded has been bifurcated by MSEDCL into AEC I and II and AEC III and IV. Thus it cannot be said that AEC III and IV cannot be computed for the period of September, 2013 and refunded. If as per the calculation sheet, for purpose of refund for August, 2013,AEC III and IV can be calculated independently, for month of September, 2013, the same can be calculated and refunded. The order of CGRF directs refund of AEC III and IV for September, 2013 if recovered. MSEDCL has to conduct the necessary exercise and if it finds that AEC III and IV is recovered for 33 of 51 wp7152-2019 September, 2013, then the same is to be refunded. The emphasis of Mr.Toor is that specific finding should have been given by CGRF on the refund that excess amount has been recovered. However, no records were produced by MSEDCL to show that there is no excess amount recovered. I find no infirmity in order of CGRF directing refund if AEC III and IV is recovered for September, 2013. It is not disputed that AEC III and IV were to be charged from October, 2013. The Consumer is therefore entitled to refund of AEC III and IV if the same has been charged for September, 2013.

34 of 51 wp7152-2019 in three months is recovered in five months. Neither this submission was raised before CGRF nor in the present Petition there is a pleading that the amount which was to be recovered in three months has been recovered in five months. All that is pleaded is that there is no excess Additional FAC recovered. MSEDCL was bound by the orders of MERC to recover Additional FAC for period of three months from September, 2013 to November, 2013. The admitted position is that MSEDCL has billed the consumer for Additional FAC from August, 2013 to December, 2013. The burden was upon MSEDCL to place necessary material before CGRF and demonstrate that there is no excess recovery of Additional FAC. The written say filed by MSEDCL and the contentions as recorded in the order of CGRF does not disclose any material placed or even a contention raised that Additional FAC permitted to be recovered in three months has been spread over and recovered in five months. Before assailing the order of CGRF on the ground of unjust enrichment by directing refund of Additional FAC for August, 2013 and December, 2013, necessary material should have been brought on record by MSEDCL to substantiate the same. Unfortunately the same has not been done.

PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED BY CGRF:

56. The submission of Mr. Toor is that CGRF did not give reasoned findings and there is no factual finding of excess charging by drawing support from Regulation 6.15 and 6.17. Regulation 6.15 precludes legal representation before CGRF and Regulation 6.17 provides that the Forum shall be entitled to call for record to facilitate and expedite disposal of grievance. In the present case, what is alleged by the Respondent is non compliance of various orders of MERC. Perusal of the order of CGRF indicates that CGRF has referred to the relevant orders of MERC and has come to a finding that there is non compliance of the said orders after considering the submissions of both the parties.