PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SCO 220-221 SECTOR-34-A CHANDIGARH

Petition No. 10 of 2003.

Date of hearing : 27.8.03

Date of order: 24.9.2003.

IN THE MATTER OF: Application under Section 62 read with section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003, praying for correction of the tariff bill for the billing cycle of March, 2003 as the factory was forced to stop production due to the strike/ lock out due to labour trouble and praying for tariff calculation under the relevant regulation 82.9 of the Sales Regulations.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

DCM Engineering Products, Ropar

Versus

Punjab State Electricity Board

PRESENT:

Shri R.S. Mann, Chairman.

Shri S.K. Sharma, Member

Shri L.S. Deol, Member

For the Petitioner: Shri R.S. Bains, Advocate

For the P.S.E.B.: Shri B.D. Bansal, Director Sales and

Shri V.K. Shanan, Dy. Director Sales

ORDER

M/S DCM Engineering Products has filed this petition praying for correction of electricity bill for the billing cycle of March 2003 on the ground that the factory was forced to stop production due to strike / lock out on account of labour trouble and as such has prayed for relief in bill under the PSEB Sales Regulations {Regulation (82(9) }. The Board in its reply has stated that the petition is not maintainable before the Commission as the consumer has alternative remedies available in the form of department reviewing channels and as such the petitioner has by-passed appropriate channel for redressal of the grievance. Shri R.S. Bains appearing for the petitioner has stated that the petition is maintainable under Section 42(5) and Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

A reading of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes it clear that Section 42(5) of the Act provides for establishment of forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the Commission. The Section does not at all empower the Commission to settle disputes or hear the grievances. Section 62 relates to determination of tariff and does not deal with the matter of settlement of disputes between the consumers and the Board or the system relating to the redressal of grievances of the consumers. As such, none of the two Sections under which the petition is filed by the petitioner, contains the provision empowering the Commission to settle disputes between a consumer and licensee about the incorrect billing. Sh. Bains was also not able to show any provision of law under which this petition is not maintainable.

The Commission notes that the functions of the Commission enlisted at Section 86 of the Act do not include the function of settlement of disputes or redressal of grievances of individual consumers. Such functions were not entrusted to the Commission even under the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998. On the other hand, the new Act, the Electricity Act 2003, details a totally different system of redressal of grievances through a forum Ombudsman under Section 42 (5) and 42(6) of the Act. Ombudsman is to finally settle the grievances. It is true that the forum and Ombudsman are yet to be put in place in the State of Punjab. However, under first proviso of Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of the repealed laws automatically apply for the period of one year from the date of commencement of the Act and thus the disputes settlement agencies set up under the repealed laws/ rules are to remain in position for one year from the date of coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003. In view of this and also the fact that even in the repealed laws the Commission had no power to deal with redressal of grievances of the consumers, it is held that the petition in its present form is not maintainable. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the appropriate disputes settlement authority of the Board who, considering the full circumstances of the case, should try to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

Sd/- Sd/.- Sd/-

(L.S. Deol) (S.K.Sharma) (R.S.Mann)

Member Member Chairman