The consolidated petitions, involving orders passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in individual complaints against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL), are resolved through this common judgment. The petitions center around the alleged non-compliance by MSEDCL with the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) orders.

Factual Matrix

The petitions relate to several orders issued by MERC between 2013 and 2017, which directed MSEDCL to recover specific amounts through the Fuel Adjustment Charge (FAC) and other components. The compliance with these orders was questioned by the respondents, leading to grievances filed with the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC) and subsequently the CGRF.

Key Orders by MERC:

1. 3rd September 2013: Allowed Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (MSPGCL) to recover significant amounts from MSEDCL, which could then recover from consumers.
2. 4th September 2013: Permitted recovery of costs for infirm power supplied.
3. 5th September 2013: Directed MSEDCL to recover additional energy charges and fixed expenses.
4. 7th September 2013: Issued a circular raising demand for AEC and Additional FAC.
5. Subsequent Orders: Various orders involving refunds, compliance directives, and post-facto approvals for charges.

Complaints and Proceedings:

• Respondents filed complaints regarding excess charges and non-compliance with MERC orders.
• IGRC: Passed a decision largely in line with MSEDCL's submissions.
• CGRF: Addressed the complaints, noted issues of excess charges, and directed refunds with interest.

Submissions by the Parties

MSEDCL:

• Claimed that the refund was barred by limitation.
• Argued lack of factual verification by CGRF.
• Asserted consolidation of charges making segregation for refunds impossible.

Respondent:

• Contended that CGRF considered the issue of limitation.
• Argued mandatory interest under Section 62(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• Claimed the complaint was within the limitation period based on specific MERC orders.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion

Key Legal Framework:

• Electricity Act, 2003: The Act provides for consumer grievance redressal and establishes regulatory frameworks and authorities like MERC and CGRF.
• MERC Regulations: Detailed regulations for grievance redressal, including timelines and procedures.

Findings:

1. Validity of CGRF Orders:
   • CGRF orders were found to be compliant with MERC directives.
   • MSEDCL’s arguments on consolidation and non-excessive charges were not substantiated with evidence.
2. Limitation:
   • CGRF decisions considered within the permissible limitation period.
   • The court upheld that the regulations on limitations were directory, not mandatory.
3. Interest on Refunds:
   • CGRF was justified in directing refunds with interest under Section 62(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. Compliance with MERC Orders:
   • MSEDCL was found to have deviated from MERC directives, necessitating refunds.
   • Previous decisions by CGRF in similar cases supported the directives for refunds in this case.

Dismissal of Petitions:

• The court found no merit in the petitions filed by MSEDCL and upheld the CGRF orders directing refunds and interest. The rule was discharged, and all petitions were dismissed.

Conclusion

The judgment underscores the accountability of distribution companies to adhere strictly to regulatory orders and provides clarity on the scope of consumer grievance redressal mechanisms, affirming the CGRF's role and decisions in ensuring compliance and addressing consumer grievances effectively.