EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELECT), TALCHER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHAINPAL, Vs. M/S. RANA SPONGE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the Executive Engineer, (Electrical), Talcher Electrical Division, Chainpal in the district of Dhenkanal has filed this application to quash the judgment dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint Case No. 65/2010 in Annexure-3 directing him to refund/adjust the amount already invested by opposite party no.1 for augmentation of 9 kms. Of the 33 KV line from Chainpal Structure to Saranga Sub-Station amounting to Rs.43,34,651.00 as per O.E.R.C. Rules in 24 months equal instalments in the future energy bills.

(2.) The short facts of the case in hand is that opposite party no.1 as a complainant filed Consumer Complaint case before opposite party no.2 stating inter alia that it is a large Industrial consumer coming under the jurisdiction of the O.P. bearing consumer No. LRI-0037 with contract demand of 4.5MVA load. The opposite party no.1 is a regular payer of energy bills and availing 33 KV power supply from Saranga 33/11KV sub-station. The opposite party no.1 constructed the line as per the estimate vide estimate No. 420/04-05 which was communicated to the O.P. by D.G.M.(Elect.) (Technical), CESCO, vide his letter No. 33883 Dated 02.12.04. Such estimate was in two parts i.e. part "A" and part "B". As per part A of the estimate, augmentation of existing 33 KV line conductor size 34/55 mm 2, 9KMs i.e. from Chainpal to Saranga 33/11 KV substation. This part of the estimate amounts to Rs.43,34,651.00 and 6% supervision charge was Rs.2,45,358.00. This was purely a system improvement work of the licensee and for such work a single consumer should not be burdened. As per part "B" of the estimate, construction of 33 KV line of about 9kms from Saranga to Kulei plant site amounts to Rs.50,63,354.00 and supervision charges of 6% i.e. Rs.2,86,605.00. The total estimated amount was L 93,98,006.00 out of which the total supervision charge was Rs.5,31,963.00. The complainant had paid supervision charges and executed the work. In the letter of the D.G.M. (Elect.), CESCO, Bhubaneswar one direction was that the 33 KV line to be maintained by the licensee but the complainant shall arrange watch and ward of the 33 KV line to avoid theft, which meant that the line was also to be maintained by the complainant which is contrary to law and vague direction to a honest consumer. The sprit of such letter was, a prospective consumer like the complainant will, construct the line with 6% supervision charge, the same line though belongs to the licensee, was to be maintained by the complainant. Only part of the licensee's job was to collect revenue from such consumer without any responsibility. It was not as per rules and regulations in force. As per Code "13" 1, Appendix-1 of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004, "In case the scheme of supply is not remunerative, as above, the applicant shall be required to bear the portion of charge to make the scheme remunerative. In the instant case no such remunerative calculation was made by the petitioner but simply direction was given to the complainant-opposite party to pay 6% supervision charges. In every Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Retain Supply Tariff (RST) order, the licensee inform that remunerative calculation was being attached to the estimate where the deposit was taken from the consumer or consumer's undertaking the works for extending new service connection." But in reality no such remunerative calculation was made for this opposite party no.1 and in this regard it has requested for such remunerative calculation vide letter dated 18.07.05, dated 24.08.05, dated 04.07.06 and dated 02.05.09. Consequently, it sought for following reliefs:

(3.) Mr. S.R. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner raises preliminary question with regard to the jurisdiction of the GRF to pass such judgment since the dispute before the forum is of a civil nature involving monetary claim. The OERC (Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulation, 2004 does not authorise the GRF to adjudicate monetary disputes thereby consequential direction given for refund or adjustment of amount cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further urged that after expiry of 5 (five) years from the date of supply of power for remunerative calculation and adjustment of excess amount if any as claimed by opposite party no.1 is barred by limitation.