Anand Low Price wants $1M refund from TTEC

A SUPERMARKET in south Trinidad is claiming that the over $1 million it paid to the TT Electricity Commission (TTEC) under the Capital Contribution Policy for a supply of electricity was done by “economic duress.”

Anand Low Price Supermarket and Company Ltd, has filed legal action against the commission and is seeking a refund of the money.

In a notice of application filed in the San Fernando High Court by attorneys Michael Rooplal, Vishan Girwar and Jamie Maharaj, the supermarket said the commission acted illegally.

It has asked for declarations that the contract for $1,086,065.04 for the installation of infrastructure to supply electricity to the supermarket as part of the Capital Contribution Policy is null, void and illegal and obtained by economic duress.

It also wants the court to declare that the commission has been unjustly enriched and for the contract to be set aside.

According to the claim filed, the supermarket says in 2012, TTEC was asked to provide electricity to its premises at Siparia Erin Road, Penal.

It said TTEC wrote to the company explaining its conditions and the requirement of the payment of a Capital Contribution to install infrastructure to provide the supply of electricity.

The claim alleged that TTEC uses the Capital Contribution Policy to defray expenses purportedly incurred for the supply of electricity to certain customers.

The supermarket was charged $1,086,065.04 and paid the sum in March 2017. It also said in October 2017, TTEC acknowledged receipt of the payment and advised the supermarket, a surplus had been paid and one of its accounts would be credited.

The supermarket insisted that the sum paid was done under economic duress since it had no alternative given that TTEC is the sole supplier of electricity in TT.

It was said that it was represented by the commission that payment was a necessary and normal requirement to secure a supply of electricity and that the parties were on unequal in its footing as TTEC had the sole bargaining power.

The supermarket has alleged that TTEC acted illegally in developing the policy and charging the sum since it goes against the TTC Act.

It was said that in the Act, the commission may only seek to defray the costs for electric lines for a greater distance of 60 feet from the distributing main. The company said there were distributing mains in close proximity to the premises. It also said that the Act spoke to the cost of electric lines and no other infrastructural cost incurred by the commission.

The supermarket said it provided the commission with a layout of the premises but it was not told how the $1,086,065.04 sum was arrived at nor was it told the actual cost the supermarket was being asked to defray.

It also said other customers in the Penal/Debe area had also benefitted from the infrastructure work and, therefore, it should be reimbursed as it also accused the commission of discriminating against it.

In response to a pre-action protocol letter the supermarket sent to TTEC in January, the commission said it had no duty to reimburse the $1,086,065.04.