E-Paper
Ludhiana | PSPCL directed to revise resident’s electricity bill
Raj Kumar Thapar, 64, resident of Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana , had submitted a complaint against the PSPCL , Aggar Nagar Unit-2 sub-division , Ludhiana, through assistant executive and executive engineers (referred as opposite party or OP), alleging deficiency of services
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to revise the electricity bill of a city-based senior citizen.
Raj Kumar Thapar, 64, of Haibowal Kalan, had submitted a complaint against the corporation, Aggar Nagar Unit-2 sub-division , Ludhiana, through assistant executive and executive engineers (referred as opposite party or OP), alleging deficiency of services.
The complaint
Raj Kumar said he had a domestic power connection. On January 04, 2019, PSPCL claimed an amount of ₹26,148 on the basis of meter checking conducted on December 17, 2018, he said.
On the receipt of the demand notice, the complainant approached the officials of the OP to waive the charges which were not justified according to the former.
The amount was raised on the basis of an audit report which stated that the meter was found to be dead on March 08, 2018.
The complainant claimed that the account for the period April 20, 2017 to March 08, 2018 was revised/overhauled which was not justified, contending that the old meter was not dead for the entire period and was working and recording consumption.
He said that it was not established that the meter was found dead dated December 03, 2018 and thus, the demand raised on the basis of the audit report dated December 17, 2018 was illegal.
Submitting the complaint, he sought a refund of ₹26, 148 and compensation of ₹1 lakh along with litigation expenses of ₹7,500.
However, the complaint was resisted by the PSPCL.
The counsel for the OP argued that the impugned demand of ₹26,148 was rightly raised on the basis of the audit which was prepared after taking into consideration the consumption of the previous year, and the charges already deposited by the complainant were also adjusted.
The counsel further pointed out that the meter was checked on March 03, 2018 on the request of the complainant himself and during checking, it was found to be dead stop and the accuracy could not be determined. Accordingly, the report was prepared on the basis of the average consumption of the previous year and the demand of ₹ 26,148 was rightly raised.
Commission’s verdict
Meanwhile, the commission observed that in the case of the complainant, the meter was found to be dead stop and the account of the complainant was to be overhauled only for the period the meter remained dead stop.
The commission stated that it was evident that in the bills from January 2017 to January 2018, the status of the meter was recorded as okay.
After January 2018, the bill was issued in which the meter was shown to be defective and it was changed subsequently and in the bill for May 2018, the status of the meter was shown as ‘changed’, added the commission.
“The disputed period for which the account was required to be overhauled was from January 2018 to April 2018. It would be just and proper if the OP is directed to revise the demand by confining the period of overhauling from January 2018 to April 2018. Any amount already deposited against the demand of ₹ 26,148 would be adjusted in the revised overhauling bills,” pronounced the commission.
