Limitation for consumer electricity grievances runs from non-redressal by the grievance cell; LPG bottling plant classification needs fresh review.

Consumer electricity grievances under the regulatory scheme must first be taken to the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, and the two-year limitation for the Forum runs from the Cell's failure to redress the grievance, not from the earlier tariff dispute date; on that basis, the complaint was within time. Tariff classification of an LPG gas bottling plant must be assessed by reference to the statutory definition of manufacture under the Explosives Act and the Gas Cylinder Rules, including the actual stages involved in the plant's process. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication confined to that manufacturing issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the consumer grievance was barred by limitation under the regulatory scheme governing the Forum and Ombudsman; (ii) whether the operation of an LPG gas bottling plant amounted to a manufacturing activity for tariff classification.

Issue (i): whether the consumer grievance was barred by limitation under the regulatory scheme governing the Forum and Ombudsman

Analysis: The regulatory framework required a consumer first to approach the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell, and a grievance could be carried to the Forum only after non-redressal by that Cell. The two-year bar under Regulation 6.6 was held to apply to the Forum, and the relevant cause of action arose when the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell failed to redress the grievance, not on the earlier tariff dispute date. On that approach, the complaint was within time.

Conclusion: The grievance was not barred by limitation and the dismissal on that ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the operation of an LPG gas bottling plant amounted to a manufacturing activity for tariff classification

Analysis: The matter was not properly examined by the authorities below in the light of the statutory definition of manufacture under the Explosives Act and the relevant Gas Cylinder Rules. The process described for the plant involved several stages beyond simple refilling, and the statutory scheme governing explosives and gas cylinders was materially relevant to the tariff characterisation. The impugned order was therefore found to have been passed without adequate consideration of the governing legal provisions and relevant judicial material, warranting reconsideration by the Ombudsman.

Conclusion: The issue required fresh adjudication by the Electricity Ombudsman on remand.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part: the limitation objection was rejected, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a de novo decision confined to whether the gas bottling plant was engaged in manufacturing activity.

Ratio Decidendi: For consumer electricity grievances, the relevant limitation for approaching the Forum runs from non-redressal by the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell under the regulatory scheme, and tariff classification of an LPG bottling plant must be examined with reference to the statutory definitions governing manufacture and gas-cylinder operations.

---