The Corporate Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in Ludhiana has pulled up the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for “failing” to properly update over ₹44.77 lakh in security deposits of an industrial consumer in the focal point division, highlighting lapses in record keeping and delays in refunds.
The dispute revolves around M/s Transworld Enterprises which holds a large supply electricity connection with a sanctioned load of 1200 kilowatt. The company had made security deposits to the department over more than two decades, linked to multiple requests for load extensions and routine security adjustments.
Despite paying a total of ₹44.77 lakh over the years, the PSPCL billing system reflected only ₹22.28 lakh in April 2025, leaving ₹22.47 lakh unrecorded by the focal point office. The unresolved discrepancy prompted the company to escalate the matter to the CGRF.
Reportedly, security deposits are advance payments made to the utility as a guarantee for electricity usage or for extensions in sanctioned electricity load. These deposits are routinely adjusted against actual consumption or refunded when no longer required.
Besides, after accounting for actual electricity consumption of ₹12.31 lakh, the company calculated that excess security of ₹22.66 lakh was still due. Since this money remained unreturned for years, the company also claimed interest of ₹19.66 lakh up to March 31, 2025, citing financial inconvenience caused by the delay. In simple terms, this interest represents the cost of PSPCL holding the company’s money without timely adjustment or refund.
{{/usCountry}}Besides, after accounting for actual electricity consumption of ₹12.31 lakh, the company calculated that excess security of ₹22.66 lakh was still due. Since this money remained unreturned for years, the company also claimed interest of ₹19.66 lakh up to March 31, 2025, citing financial inconvenience caused by the delay. In simple terms, this interest represents the cost of PSPCL holding the company’s money without timely adjustment or refund.
{{/usCountry}}During the CGRF hearings, the PSPCL explained that discrepancies arose from outdated record keeping, multiple adjustments over the years and administrative oversights. Officials also noted that certain deposits worth ₹5.85 lakh, linked to load extensions that were never implemented were not eligible for interest under regulation 18 of supply code, 2007.
In its final order dated January 28, the CGRF directed the PSPCL to update all remaining security deposits and pay interest where applicable within 21 days. The company may approach the Electricity Ombudsman within 30 days if dissatisfied.