State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rakesh Kumar vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 4 December, 2025
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.702 of 2023
Date of institution : 02.11.2023
Reserved on : 03.11.2025
Date of decision : 04.12.2025
Rakesh Kumar, aged about 49 years son of Om Parkash resident of
Green City Colony, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, Punjab. (Aadhaar
Card No.8595 1262 2361), Mob. 98724-25595
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman &
Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patto Hira
Singh, District Moga, Punjab.
....Respondent/Opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 19.09.2023 passed the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Moga.
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh.Simranjeet Singh, proxy for Sh.T.K.Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. Swatantar Kapoor, Advocate HARINDER PAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by complainant FA No.702 of 2023 2 against opposite parties (in short 'OPs'), under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, was partly allowed while granting the following relief:
"8. From the discussion above, we partly allow the complaint of the complaint and direct the Opposite parties to pay compository amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) towards compensation and litigation costs to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to get checked the meter in dispute from M.E. Lab and overhaul/settle the account of the complainant as per M.E. Lab report and as per PSPCL Rules within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they are further burdened with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be paid to the complainant for non-compliance of the order..."
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having an electricity connection in his name and paying the consumption charges. The opposite party No.3 had issued a bill bearing No.500200119566 dated 21.04.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,27,950/-; showing therein the arrears of Rs.1,14,625/- along with the actual consumption charges of Rs.13,325/-. In the month of June, 2022, opposite parties issued a bill No.500115477440 dated 20.06.2022 in respect of the above said A/c No.F13NA681165W with Meter No.4510641 for Rs.1,01,110/-, vide which the actual consumption was shown as 11179 units and the said bill was issued for 54 days. After that, the complainant approached the opposite parties and made a representation with the request that the FA No.702 of 2023 3 meter is defective, which the opposite party No.3 received, vide Diary No.429 dated 06.07.2022. Further, on the instructions of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.250/- as meter challenging fee, vide receipt No.51 dated 04.08.2022. Even after depositing the fee, the opposite parties die not bother to remove the said electric meter within a prescribed period as laid down in Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (updated till 30.06.2018). The opposite parties issued a bill dated 09.08.2022 showing Meter No. 4510641 with the meter status marked as 'F' and the bill status as 'average', for a total amount of Rs.1,44,090/-. Thereafter, on 01.11.2022, another bill was issued in respect of Meter No. 9687536, indicating the meter status as 'C' and the bill status as 'average', for an amount of Rs.1,34,420/-. It is submitted that after 04.08.2022, neither the meter was changed nor it was checked in M.E. Lab for its accuracy or inaccuracy, which is a clear cut violation. In the last bill dated 21.04.2023, the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.1,27,950/-, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.13,325/- towards the actual consumption charges and remaining amount still not deposited. The illegal demand raised by the opposite parties is required to be set aside. Feeling aggrieved with this act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission seeking following reliefs:
i) to quash the illegal demand of Rs.1,14,625/- as previous arrears including taxes and to instruct not to disconnect the electric connection; and FA No.702 of 2023 4
ii) to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension and deficiency service.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true and actual facts. It is submitted that the opposite parties issued a consumption bill No.500115477440 dated 20.06.2022 in respect of A/c No.F13NA681165W of meter No.4510641 for Rs.1,01,110/- in lieu of consumption of 11/179 units w.e.f. 20.04.2022 to 20.06.2022. The consumption bill was not paid by the complainant, thus amount of Rs.1,10,179/- along with interest and surcharges thereon added in the bill No.500200119566 dated 21.01.2023 as Rs.1,14,625/- as previous arrears in a total bill amount of Rs.1,27,950/-. The amount of Rs.13,325/- pertains to the current consumption bill. The complainant challenged the meter No.4510641 on 04.08.2022 and deposited the fee of Rs.250/- on the same day and this meter was changed to new meter on 23.08.2022. This meter was removed and packed in a card board box and was sealed in the presence of the complainant as the same is to be got checked in the M.E. Lab. On merits, all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied and reiterated the submissions as stated in the preliminary objections. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. The parties led their respective evidence before the District Commission in support of their contentions. After considering the material on record and hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the FA No.702 of 2023 5 complainant against the opposite parties, vide impugned order dated 19.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant has preferred the present appeal, praying for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the appeal by awarding Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with interest and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and stated that since there is no submission to be submitted by the arguing counsel, the matter be disposed of on the basis of the grounds of appeal. We have heard the contentions of the respondents and have carefully gone through the record as well as written arguments filed by the respondents. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
7. In this appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the order passed by the District Commission in the complaint filed by him, alleging that the District Commission ignored the actual facts of the case and failed to address his grievances. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties, holding Electricity Account No. F13NA681165W with Meter No. 4510641. He initially received an inflated bill, Ex. C-10, amounting to Rs.1,01,110/-, wherein the actual electricity consumption was shown as 11,179 units. Subsequently, he received another bill for Rs.1,27,950/- for the period from 16.02.2023 to 21.04.2023, wherein arrears of Rs.1,14,625/- along with current consumption charges of Rs.13,325/- were depicted. He further alleged that the meter installed at his premises was faulty, for FA No.702 of 2023 6 which he had lodged a complaint and also deposited an amount of Rs.250/- on 04.08.2022, as evident by Ex. OP-3. He alleged that the meter was not replaced in time and that there was undue delay, contrary to the provisions of the Standard of Performance of Supply Code, 2014, which mandates that meter testing should be conducted within seven days from the payment of the prescribed fee by the consumer, as specified in the Schedule of General Charges approved by the Commission.
8. Though the respondents/opposite parties have averred that, no doubt, the bills were issued to the appellant/complainant on the basis of the meter reading, however, upon receiving his complaint and after he deposited the requisite fee of Rs.250/- on 04.08.2022, Meter No.4510641 was replaced on 23.08.2022 with a new meter. The old meter was removed, packed in a cardboard box, duly sealed in the presence of the appellant/complainant, and thereafter sent to the M.E. Lab for testing. It is their contention that, in these circumstances, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was premature.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the District Commission, while disposing of the complaint, ignored the mandatory provisions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. He argued that failure to remove the faulty meter within the prescribed time and non-testing of the same in the M.E. Lab after deposit of the requisite fee amounts to a clear violation of the statutory provisions. He further referred to Clauses 54.6.2 and 55.2 of the Electricity Supply FA No.702 of 2023 7 Instruction Manual, which pertain to defective meters and burnt meters, and which are reproduced as under:
"Defective/Inoperative meter and in 54.6.2 54.6.2 All the meters removed against MCO shall be first checked by concerned JE/AAE and only such meters shall be packed in cardboard box where theft of energy is suspected. Cardboard boxes shall be sealed and duly signed by concerned JE/AAE and the consumer / representative of the consumer. Testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. In case the consumer refuses to sign the meter test results / report, such meter shall be kept sealed in the DS Sub-Division till final disposal of the case. In case of meters where theft of energy is not suspected by JE and the meter is sent to ME Lab without packing and theft of energy is detected later on pertaining to such meter then, concerned JE shall be held responsible for the lapse in detecting the theft. 55.2 Defective/burnt meters reported by consumers:
Where defective meter is reported by the consumer, it will be checked for correctness within 7 working days of receipt of complaint or report of the defect (stuckup, slow/fast or creeping).Meter shall be replaced within 10 working days of the receipt of complaint/report as per provisions of Standards of Performance of Supply Code-2014. In case of burnt meters, MCO will be issued within 2 days and meter will be replaced within next 3 days. Advices of these cases will be generated and submitted to concerned CBC cells along with data and shall be cleared in next cycle data."
10. No doubt, as per these provisions, specific time limits have been prescribed under the regulations; however, the appellant/complainant alleged that the respondents/opposite parties failed to adhere to these FA No.702 of 2023 8 timelines and ignored the guidelines contained in the Electricity Manual. The appellant/complainant has alleged that he suffered both mentally and financially due to this lapse. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the District Commission be set aside and that interest, compensation, and litigation expenses be awarded to him, as prayed.
11. A careful perusal of the impugned order reveals that the District Commission has directed the opposite parties to pay a compensatory amount of Rs. 7,000/- and further directed them to get the disputed meter checked from the M.E. Lab and to settle the complainant's account as per the report and in accordance with PSPCL Rules. In our view, this is quite an appropriate order because the grievances of the appellant/complainant relate to the alleged faulty meter, excessive readings, and inflated electricity bills issues which can be effectively addressed only by testing the old meter and comparing its results with the consumption recorded by the new meter. The District Commission has, therefore, rightly exercised its jurisdiction and passed directions that are necessary to ascertain the correctness of the billing and to redress the grievance of the complainant.
12. We find merit in the findings recorded by the District Commission, as the grievances of the appellant/complainant can be effectively addressed only after the old meter is duly checked. We do not find any ground to interfere with, set aside, or review the order passed by the District Commission.
13. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order of the District Commission. Accordingly, the appeal FA No.702 of 2023 9 filed by the appellant/complainant is hereby dismissed and the order of the District Commission is upheld.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER December 4th ,2025 parmod