ORDER : The 1st petitioner, a party-in-person, appears for the petitioners. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman insofar as it relates to the rejection of compensation of Rs.50/- for each day of delay. 3. This litigation between the petitioners and the respondents has a chequered history. 4. The petitioners who are the owners of a property, which is a part and parcel of a larger property consisting of 5 blocks i.e., Blocks A to E. The petitioners are the owners of Block D, which comprises of Ground, First, Second and Third floors. 5. In respect of this Block D, the petitioners had secured a sanctioned load which was enhanced periodically and in respect of the additional loads obtained, certain sums were collected. 6. It was the case of the petitioners that the sums of Rs. 28,750/, Rs. 1,17,500/and another sum of Rs. 1,17,500/had been collected illegally. 7. The petitioners had challenged the amounts collected by approaching the Ombudsman which was however negatived resulting in the filing of W.P.Nos.2706566/2012 before this Court. 8. This Court, by an order dated 21.04.2016, set aside the order of the Ombudsman and remitted the matter to the authorities for reconsideration. 9. Pursuant to the said remand order, once again an order was passed by the Ombudsman and this was yet again challenged in W.P.Nos.109357-358/2017 (GM-KEB) before this Court. 10. This Court after hearing came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Ombudsman indicated a complete lack of application of mind and this Court set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Ombudsman. This Court noticed that there was no application of mind by the Ombudsman on the applicability of clause 3.1.7(c) of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Licencees Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2004 (herein after referred to as “the SOP Regulations”) and also as to whether the petitioners were liable to pay additional charges. 11. On the matter being remanded for the second time, the Ombudsman by the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the HESCOM had collected development charges in excess on 3 occasions in 2002, 2008 and 2009 in a sum of Rs. 15,750, Rs. 1,17,000/and Rs. 1,17,000/and HESCOM was required to refund the same along with interest. 12. 11. On the matter being remanded for the second time, the Ombudsman by the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the HESCOM had collected development charges in excess on 3 occasions in 2002, 2008 and 2009 in a sum of Rs. 15,750, Rs. 1,17,000/and Rs. 1,17,000/and HESCOM was required to refund the same along with interest. 12. The Ombudsman after deducting the amount of Rs.3,58,907/which had already been refunded by the HESCOM directed HESCOM to pay the balance sum of Rs. 2,43,985/. 13. The claim of petitioners as regards compensation as envisaged under the SOP regulations was however rejected. 14. The order of the Ombudsman states that the HESCOM had collected excess development charges of Rs.15,750/, Rs.1,17,000/and a further sum of Rs.1,17,000/. Thus, in all even according to the order of the Ombudsmen a total sum of Rs.2,49,750/had been collected in excess by HESCOM. 15. The Ombudsman has recorded a finding that the amount that was liable to be refunded to the petitioner was as follows: “6. After hearing the arguments put forth by both the parties and the records submitted by them, the amount to be refunded by the respondent to the complainant along with interest works out as follows: a) 1st case excess development charges collected. Rs.15,750/+ (interest from 3.03.2002 to 22.1.2019) Rs.63,335/ b) 2nd case excess development Rs.1,17,000/charges collected. + (interest from 16.12.2008 to 22.01.2019) Rs.2,79,857/ c) 3rd case excess development Rs.1,17,000/charges collected. + (interest from 21.11.2009 to 22.01.2019) Rs.2,53,700/ d) Total Rs.5,96,892/ 16. The Ombudsman in his order has stated that out of this amount of Rs.3,53,907/had been refunded and HESCOM was liable to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,43,985/. 17. Thus it is clear that a total sum of nearly Rs.2,50,000/has been collected in excess from the petitioners way back in the year 2002 and this was ultimately refunded to the petitioners only after a protracted litigation in the year 2019. To put it differently, after 17 years of litigation, the petitioners were able to obtain refund of the amount which had admittedly been collected an excess from them. 18. The fact that almost Rs.2,50,000/- was collected in excess is accepted by HESCOM, in as much as, the order of the Ombudsman has not been challenged. It is therefore clear that the error on the part of HESCOM in collection the excess development charge has been established beyond doubt. 19. 18. The fact that almost Rs.2,50,000/- was collected in excess is accepted by HESCOM, in as much as, the order of the Ombudsman has not been challenged. It is therefore clear that the error on the part of HESCOM in collection the excess development charge has been established beyond doubt. 19. The case put forth by the petitioners in this petition is that the Regulations had been framed by the Regulatory Commission prescribing the Standards of performance and for any failure to adhere to the Standards of Performance fixed under the Regulations, the HESCOM was bound to pay compensation at a sum of Rs.50/for each day. It is the case of the petitioners that the amount collected in excess amounted to a breach of the Standards of performance and therefore, HESCOM should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50/for each day of its retention of the excess money. 20. The respondents-HESCOM on the other hand contend that the petitioners would not be entitled for any further sums, since whatever damages the petitioners had suffered had been compensated by the payment of a high rate of interest. It was contended that, if further damages were to be awarded that would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice and the petitioners would be basically being paid compensation twice over. 21. The question that would arise for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to invoke the SOP Regulations and claim compensation as prescribed under the SOP Regulations. 22. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were seeking for an additional load and in that regard development charges had been collected. 23. The SOP Regulations define the term consumer and the same reads as follows: “2. Definitions. 2.1 In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires. (a) ……………. (b) ……………. (c) …………… (d) “Consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a Licencee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a Licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;’” 24. As could be seen from the said definition a consumer is a person to whom electricity is supplied. In the instant case in respect of the additional load that had been sought for, electricity was obviously yet to be supplied. It is but obvious that electricity could be supplied to the petitioners only after the additional load was granted. In other words, until electricity is actually supplied, the petitioners were basically prospective consumers, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners were being supplied electricity in respect of the existing load. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot therefore be called as consumers under the SOP regulations. 25. The Regulations have been framed to basically prescribe minimum standards of performance with reference to the quality, continuity and reliability of services that a licensee, such as HECOM is expected to achieve. The service that HESCOM delivers undoubtedly the supply of electricity. This presupposes that only if a consumer was actually being supplied with the electricity could he complain of a breach of the prescribed standard of performance and raise a complaint. 26. A perusal of the schedules to the SOP regulations also clearly indicate that standards of performance framed was with reference to the electricity that had been supplied and they are not relatable to the process in which a person is required to secure an electricity connection. To put it differently the SOP regulations do not relate the grant of a power connection but only to the deficiencies in the actual power supplied by the licensee. 27. In the light of the fact that the SOP regulations are not relatable to collection of charges for facilitation of an additional load and are relatable only to the defects in the electricity supplied, the claim of the petitioners for compensation prescribed under the SOP regulations would not arise at all. 28. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled to the compensation set forth in schedule to the Regulations. 29. That being said, it cannot however be disputed that right from the year 2012, i.e., for nearly a decade, the petitioners have been forced to litigate to vindicate their right to obtain refunds of excess sums collected by them. 29. That being said, it cannot however be disputed that right from the year 2012, i.e., for nearly a decade, the petitioners have been forced to litigate to vindicate their right to obtain refunds of excess sums collected by them. The 1st petitioner is a senior citizen who is aged about 80 years and who has been arguing the matter in person and has been waging a relentless battle to secure a refund of monies which were illegally collected and it is only after a seven year litigation, in the year 2019, the petitioners were refunded the amounts collected from them in excess. 30. In my view, since the petitioners have been made to litigate continuously for the past nearly ten years to obtain the refund of money that had been illegally collected from them, they would be entitled to be compensated by imposing litigation costs of Rs.50,000/. 31. Thus, while holding that the petitioners would not be entitled for any compensation under the SOP Regulations, the petitioners are however, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/towards litigation expenses. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.