E-Paper
Consumer forum scraps PSPCL’s demand of ₹24L from Khanna unit
The forum ruled that PSPCL had no authority to raise an additional demand before completing the work and finalising costs
In a striking case of reckless and opaque billing, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in Ludhiana, has quashed a demand notice of over ₹24 lakh raised by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) against an industrial unit in Khanna, for an electricity load extension despite the company already paying nearly ₹74 lakh for the same project.
The case dates back to May 2022, when M/s Shri Ganpati Body Builders, a steel billet manufacturer operating an induction furnace, applied to increase its sanctioned electricity load from 2,699 kW to 4,000 kW. PSPCL approved the request in August 2022, stating that the cost of strengthening the power supply would be recovered from the consumer.
According to the forum record, PSPCL initially raised an estimate of around ₹35 lakh for converting an existing 11 KV line into a multi-circuit line, which the consumer deposited in full. However, the utility later abandoned this proposal citing technical infeasibility and issued a revised estimate of ₹74.74 lakh for laying an independent new 11 KV feeder, again fully paid by the consumer by April 2024.
Despite the entire revised cost having been recovered, PSPCL went on to issue another demand notice of ₹24.36 lakh, which was directly added to the electricity bill even before completion and finalisation of the works.
Calling this approach untenable, the forum noted that both the Supply Code 2014 and Supply Code 2024 permit recovery of actual costs only after completion of works and finalisation of actual expenditure. Any supplementary demand, it observed, cannot be raised arbitrarily or ahead of statutory reconciliation.
The manufacturer challenged the demand, alleging overbilling, repeated cost revisions and lack of transparency. It pointed out that PSPCL repeatedly revised cost estimates, installed and overbilled unnecessary equipment and included idle infrastructure intended for future use in its bills.
After examining the records, the CGRF in its verdict dated January 14, unanimously ruled that PSPCL had no authority to raise an additional demand before completing the work and finalising costs. The forum quashed the ₹24.36 lakh demand and directed PSPCL to reassess actual expenses, as mandated under Regulation 9.3.6 of Supply Code 2014 and Regulation 34.6 of Supply Code 2024.
