2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ...

vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

Share Link Mobile View

Premium Members Advanced Search Case Removal

Search

Cites 10 docs - [View All]

Section 15 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The Electricity Rules, 2005
Section 27 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 25 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Rakesh Kumar vs Pspcl on 18 May, 2015

Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer Download Court Copy

Warning on Translation
Select Language
Powered by Translate

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a
new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services --
Free for one month.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.829 of 2019

Date of institution : 20.12.2019

Reserved On : 31.01.2022
Date of decision : 28.02.2022

1.

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Managing Director,
PIN Code-147001.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer/Operation, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub
Division, Ferozepur-152002.

....Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Gurmit Singh, aged 66 years, son of Sh. Wajinder Singh,
resident of House No.47, Ward No.16, Adarsh Nagar, (Dhawan Colony), Ferozepur City, Tehsil and
District Ferozepur, Mobile No.97815- 39899.

....Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
against the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now,
"Commission") Ferozepur.

Quorum:-

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-

For the appellants : Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Piyush Sharma, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The appellants/opposite parties i.e. Punjab State Power
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 1/8
2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

Corporation Limited (PSPCL) through its Chairman/Managing Director and Assistant Executive
Engineer/Operation, PSPCL have approached this Commission by way of filing the present appeal
under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") to challenge the impugned
order dated 18.07.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.528 of 2018 by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum (now, "Commission"), Ferozepur (in short, "the District Commission"),
whereby the said complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed with the directions to the
opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant and withdraw the demand for consumption
charges regarding 9280 units as difference of reading of old meter and correct the bill. A further
direction was also issued to adjust the amount if any deposited by the complainant with the opposite
parties in the subsequent bills. The compliance of the order was directed to be made within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant was held
entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Act.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed
before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that the respondent/complainant was
using the electricity in his house under Account No.3002920200, which was installed in the name of
previous owner of said house namely Kartar Singh with sanctioned load of 18 KWs. Said house was
purchased by the complainant and thereafter a written request was made for transferring the connection
in his name. He was regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties. It has further been
mentioned that the complainant received electricity bill dated 05.12.2017 worth ₹4,920/- for a period
of 38 days w.e.f. 28.10.2017 to 05.12.2017 for consumption of 686 units. The said amount was
deposited with the appellants/opposite parties against proper receipt. Thereafter, in the month of
January, 2018, the meter reader of the opposite parties came to the premises of the complainant for
checking of meter reading and disclosed to the complainant that his meter was not running properly.
Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to opposite party No.2 and electric meter was
removed by the officials of the opposite parties and new meter was installed in his house. It has further
been mentioned that neither the old meter was sealed nor packed by the officials of the opposite parties
in the presence of the complainant nor the complainant was asked to be present at the time of checking
of electricity meter in M.E. Lab. of the opposite parties. The respondent/complainant received
electricity bill dated 03.04.2018 of ₹82,980/-, which was for a period of 119 days w.e.f. 05.12.2017 to
03.04.2018 by showing the consumption of 1231 units. For that reason, the complainant approached
opposite party No.2 and asked for details to rectify the electricity bill being on excessive side but no
response was there. However, the complainant was asked by opposite party No.2 to deposit the current
energy charges, with the assurance that the electricity bill would be rectified. The complainant
deposited the amount. Thereafter, the electricity bill dated 05.05.2018 of ₹81,900/- was also received
for the period of only 32 days w.e.f. 03.04.2018 to 05.05.2018, wherein an amount of ₹1,255/- had
been shown as arrears of previous year and an amount of ₹73,297/- towards arrears of current financial
year besides an amount of ₹7,349/- of current cycle charges. The complainant thereafter received
further electricity bill dated 31.05.2018 worth ₹85,600/- for a period of 26 days, wherein an amount of
₹2,510/- was reflected as arrears of previous year and ₹73,195/- towards arrears of current financial
year and also an amount of ₹9,896/- as current cycle charges. Thereafter again, the complainant
received current electricity bill dated 30.06.2018 for an amount of ₹91,640/- for a period of 30 days
w.e.f. 31.05.2018 to 30.06.2018. However, the said amount was deposited and request was also made
to withdraw the said electricity bills and to overhaul his account as per Rules and Regulations of the
appellants/opposite parties but still his request was not considered. When no action was taken, the
complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission with the prayer to overhaul his
account and to adjust the excess amount received by the opposite parties and also to pay compensation
of ₹50,000/- for causing mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses of ₹5,500/-.

4. In response to notice issued to the opposite parties, joint reply was filed wherein the allegations
levelled in the complaint were disputed, stating that it was not a case of deficiency in service and
complicated questions of law and facts were involved in the complaint.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 2/8
2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

5. On appraisal of arguments raised by both the sides and by considering evidence produced by them
on record, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed, vide impugned order dated 18.07.2019
and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and
withdraw the demand for consumption charges regarding 9280 units as difference of reading of old
meter and correct the bill after adjusting the amount if any so deposited by the complainant within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant was
held entitled to proceed further in view of provisions of Section 25 and 27 of the Act.

6. Said order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the
appellants/opposite parties by way of filing the present appeal by raising various grounds.

7. There was a delay of 104 days in filing of the appeal. A separate M.A. No.2697 of 2019 was filed
along with the appeal for condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the appeal. Said application was
allowed vide order dated 07.01.2020 and the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal was condoned,
subject to costs of ₹10,400/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

8. M.A. No.2699 of 2019 was also filed by the appellants for placing on record some documents as
additional evidence, which was ordered to be heard along with main case, vide order dated 07.01.2020.

9. Mr. Vaibhav Narang, learned counsel for the

appellants/opposite parties submits that the learned District

Commission has not decided the issue regarding maintainability of the complaint and the complaint
has been allowed by keeping that issue aside. Learned counsel also submits that the
respondent/complainant purchased the house along with electricity connection from one Kartar Singh
but the electricity connection was not transferred in his name and the same is still existing in the name
of Kartar Singh, from whom the house was purchased. Learned counsel further submits that as per
Instruction No.30.4 of the Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 2017, the connection was required to
be transferred in case the property in dispute was transferred. An application was to be submitted by
the complainant to the opposite parties for transfer of electric connection and in the absence thereof,
the connection was considered as unauthorized and the same was liable to be disconnected. In the
present case also, the electric connection was not transferred from the name of earlier owner of the
house, whereas it was required to the transferred within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase
of the house and till date, it has not been transferred so far. Learned counsel also submits that the
complaint was not maintainable, in view of order passed by this Commission in F.A. No No.697 of
2018 tiled as Rakesh Kumar v. PSPCL & Anr. decided on 22.04.2019, wherein it was held that the
complainant, in such circumstances, cannot be considered to be 'consumer'. However, this issue was
not decided by the District Commission in-spite of objection raised by the appellants/opposite parties.
It has further been argued that the District Commission has wrongly applied Regulation No.93 of the
Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, according to which separate bill was to be issued by giving
complete details. Learned counsel also submits that the meter was changed on 11.01.2018 and new
meter number was entered in the computer and first bill was generated thereafter in the month of April,
which was exhibited as Ex.C/3 with the complaint. On perusal of said bill Ex.C/3, the new status of old
meter reading was 111509 and old status was 102229. According to that change of the meter, the
complainant was required to pay the consumption charges of total 9280 units. The bill was raised by
considering the consumption of 9280 units and on the basis of that reading, the bill was prepared and
the same was sent to the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that instead of making payment
of the bill amount, the complaint was filed by the complainant. It is also the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellants that Regulation 93.1 is applicable only where the arrears are on account of
under assessment or demand/load surcharge or due to some defect in the meter or due to application of
wrong tariff or due to mistake in connection or also due to some other irregularity/malpractice etc. In
the present case, none of the situations is there. Accordingly, Regulation 93.1 is not applicable in the
present case. No such evidence was produced by the respondent/complainant to show that the electric
meter was removed, packed and sealed in the absence of the complainant or his representative. Proper
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 3/8
2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

procedure was followed and intimation was sent to the complainant regarding change of his meter. The
complainant himself had tendered one affidavit, which was duly attested by Notary Public on
05.01.2018, wherein it was stated by the complainant that his meter be checked in M.E. Lab. His
request was accepted as he undertook not to challenge the same before any Court. Thereafter, the
complainant gave his consent, vide letter dated 21.05.2018, stating that he had no objection in case the
meter was checked in his absence. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission has
not taken into consideration all these factors, while passing the impugned order. The complaint made
by the complainant was for checking of the meter from M.E. Lab., as it was running slow. At the end,
learned counsel submits that by considering all these facts and arguments, the order passed by the
District Commission is liable to be set aside.

10. Mr. Piyush Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant has opposed the submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellants, stating that the order passed by the District Commission is
based on reasoning by giving categorical findings and no interference is required. Learned counsel
further submits that the respondent/complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly without
any lapse on his part. A written request was also made for changing the name of the previous owner of
the house as well as by changing the name in the meter connection also. Learned counsel also submits
that intimation of purchase of the house along with electric connection was given to the opposite
parties but no action was taken. The meter reader of PSPCL checked the meter and it was disclosed by
him that the reading of electricity meter was not working properly. An application was also moved and
on the basis of said application, the electric meter of the complainant was removed by the officials of
the PSPCL and new electric meter was installed at the spot. Still no action was taken. Learned counsel
further submits that the issue of over-billing was brought to the notice of the appellants/opposite parties
but it was not considered. When no action was taken, the respondent/complainant was compelled to
knock the doors of the District Commission. Learned counsel also submits that old meter was removed,
packed and sealed in the absence of the complainant and his family members. The arrears of old meter
were included, whereas there was fault with the old meter. Regulation 93.1 is relevant in such
circumstances. Learned counsel further submits that the submission made by the appellants regarding
removal, packing and sealing of the meter in the presence of the complainant was not correct, as the
documents appended as Annexures A-3 and A-4 were not part of the record, as these documents are
ante dated and the same cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submits that there are
only 4 members in the family of the complainant, including himself and the consumption of units used
to be between 650-1300, which is evident from bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6. As per M.E. Lab.
Report i.e. Ex.C-9, it was found that the meter was running slow. The respondent/complainant had
already paid the bills up to the reading of 102229 till 05.12.2017 and on removal of meter on
10.01.2018, the reading was 111509, which was due to slow running of the meter. Said reading was
only within a short period of 36 days. The bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 are much more than the
actual consumption and, as such, the order passed by the District Commission requires no interference
and the same has been passed with detailed findings. At the end, learned counsel submits that keeping
in view the detailed reasoning as mentioned in the impugned order passed by the District Commission
and also the submissions made by him, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the
impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission, written arguments filed by both
the parties and other documents available on the file.

12. The order passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the appellants on the ground
of maintainability of the complaint by stating that the complaint was not maintainable, as the
complainant purchased the house from one Kartar Singh and electricity connection was not transferred
in the name of complainant and the same was still continuing in the name of Kartar Singh. The
complainant never gave any intimation regarding purchase of electric connection and the same is
violation of Instruction No.30.4 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2017, which is reproduced
as follow:

"30.4: In the event of transfer of a property, the transferee shall submit an application in
form PCL-CON along with A&A Form and the following documents:-

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 4/8
2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

a) Letter of consent of the previous owner for transfer of connection;

b) In the absence of a letter of consent, the transferee shall provide proof of ownership of
premises. In case of partition, details thereof or a family partition deed if any, may be
submitted;

c) In case the consent of the previous owner for transfer of the Security (Consumption)
cannot be produced, the applicant shall deposit Security (Consumption) and Security
(Meter) at prevalent rates. He will also be liable to pay the outstanding dues, if any of the
previous consumer.

d) In the case of land having an AP/AP-High-tech connection being jointly owned by more
than one person and a part of the land along with the AP/AP-High-tech connection thereon
being sold, the connection may be transferred in the name of the purchased if all the co-
sharers consent to such transfer and submit an affidavit duly attested by a Magistrate to that
effect.

e) In the event where benefit of agreement for a connection is assigned to another person
without the approval of the PSPCL, a notice shall be served upon the consumer requiring
that transfer of the connection be sought as per the procedure prescribed above within 30
days of the service of notice. The connection shall be liable to be disconnected in case no
application is submitted to the Distribution Licensee within the period indicated in the
notice."

13. On perusal of said Instruction, for transfer of a property, the transferee is to submit an application
to the PSPCL on Form PCL- CON along with A&A Form and some other documents including letter
of consent of previous owner. In absence of such transfer, the electric connection is to be considered
unauthorized and the electric connection is to be disconnected.

14. However, in the present case, the application was submitted by the respondent/complainant for
transfer of the electric connection in his name from the name of the person from whom he purchased
the said house but it was not considered and no transfer was made by the appellants/opposite parties,
whereas the transfer was required to be done within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase of
the house. The appellants/opposite parties failed to transfer the electric connection in the name of the
respondent/complainant despite submission of the application. The fault was of the appellants/opposite
parties.

15. As far as letter and affidavit Annexures A/3 and A/4 produced by the appellants/opposite parties in
additional evidence are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that firstly the signatures on both
these documents do not tally with other. Secondly, the signatures on these documents also do not match
with the signatures of the complainant put on the complaint, affidavit filed in support of complaint as
well as application for grant of stay of disconnection of the electric connection, which were filed
before the District Commission. Therefore, the authenticity of documents Annexures A/3 and A/4
produced by the appellants is doubted. Even if it is presumed that the complainant gave his consent to
check the meter in the ME Lab. in his absence, even then the appellants cannot derive much benefit
from documents Annexures A/3 and A/4, as it is not a case of theft of electricity or use of unauthorized
load by the consumer/complainant. In the instant case, the matter pertains to wrong recording of meter
reading in the meter installed in the premises of the complainant, for which the complainant requested
the appellants/opposite parties a number of times to get it corrected and thereafter the meter was
replaced and got checked in the M.E. Lab. The opposite parties kept on sending bills on the basis of
wrong reading recorded in the meter without verifying the actual consumption of electricity, which
amounts to 'deficiency in service' on their part.

16. Instruction No.30.4 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2017 is also relevant in the present
case, which is reproduced above and the lapse was on the part of the appellants/opposite parties and
not of respondent/complainant.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 5/8
2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

17. It is also pertinent to mention that the bills were issued from time to time and payments thereof
were also made by the respondent/complainant, which were never objected. Meaning thereby the
appellants/opposite parties were well aware that the name of the respondent/complainant was not
changed/transferred and it was the fault of the appellants/opposite parties only. Mode of payment of
arrears not originally billed is provided under Instruction No.93.1 of the Electricity Supply Instructions
Manual, which is reproduced as under:

"93. PAYMENT OF ARREARS NOT ORIGINALLY BILLED: 93.1: There may be certain
cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months./years
or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or
demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized
officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the
metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor or due to
mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate
bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be
shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made.
Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in
regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connections of the meter and unauthorized
of use electricity etc. In such cases the copy of relevant instructions under which the
charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick
disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer."

18. On perusal of said provision, it is clear that in certain cases, where the consumer is billed for some
of the dues relating to previous period as arrears, the same may be on account of under assessment or
unauthorized use of electricity or due to fault/negligence of PSPCL employees or even due to some
defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff or even due to any mistake in
connection or other irregularities/malpractices, the separate bills are required to be issued by giving
complete details of the charges so levied. Such charges are considered as arrears in the subsequent
electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills are required to be issued
separately by giving complete details of the charges even in case where allegations of theft are there or
slowness in the meter or wrong connections of meter and unauthorized use of electricity. In such
situations, the copy of relevant instructions is required to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating
the quick disposal of the case but in the present case, it was not done. Neither the details were supplied
nor any intimation thereof was given to the complainant. Even no supplementary bills were issued by
giving complete details of the charges. The meter was changed/replaced, as it was running slow.
Without giving any details or even supplying any instruction, the separate bills were not sent whereas
supplementary bills should have been issued with all details.

19. Instruction No.93.2 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual is relating to the period of
limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Act. As per said provision, the amount sought to be
recovered cannot be recovered after a period of two years from the date when such amount became due
for the first time, unless the same has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for
electricity supplied. Meaning thereby, such amount which is sought to be recovered is to be reflected
continuously as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied and maximum period for recovery is two
years. In case, the consumer finds any difficulty to make payment of arrears in lump sum, he/she may
move application for allowing the payment of such arrears in easy instalments. In such a situation, a
representation is required to be made from the consumer side within the grace period of 10/15 days of
receipt of the bill. A notice to this effect is required to be incorporated on the bill itself.

20. Instruction No.93.3 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual is relevant in this context, which
is reproduced as under:

"93.3 Allowing Installments for Supplementary

Assessment:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 6/8
2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

The consumer may sometimes find it difficult to make payment of such arrears in lump sum and may
make representation for allowing the payment of such arrears to be made in installments. Such a
representation must come from the consumer within the grace period i.e. within 10/15 days of the
receipt of the bill. A notice to this effect shall be incorporated on the bill itself. However, it may be
clarified that the representation shall not entitle stay to the consumer from the payment of
installment(s). In fact the consumer seeking installments shall deposit not less than 25% of the billed
amount so as to show his earnestness to pay the assessed amount in installments.

21. It is also relevant to mention here that in case any arrears are due, the responsibility of the same is
required to be fixed as to who was the officer/official responsible for the delay. The loss so suffered by
the department be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion/observation made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as expressed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat
Industrial Development Corporation reported as 2010 (5) SCC 459 and Lucknow Development
Authority v. M.K. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Gupta's case (supra) held
as under:

"When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the
ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction
of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It
is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is
entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of
course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not
lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the
complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are
found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where
there are more than one functionaries."

22. As per Regulation No.21.4 (d), in case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises
in the licensee laboratory, the consumer is required to be informed of the proposed date of testing at
least 7 days in advance. The signatures of the consumer or his authorized representative, if present,
would be obtained on the test result sheet and copy thereof is required to be supplied to the consumer
or his representative.

23. Before adding sundry charges in electricity bills of the complainant, not only show-cause notice is
required to be issued to the consumer before imposing penalty but the provisional assessment made on
the basis of audit report was also required to be served upon the consumer/complainant, as has been
observed in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Dinesh Sharma 2016 (2) CLT 429,
which is reproduced as under:

"7. This argument is of no use. The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the
complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon'ble High Court has also opined in
Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is
required before imposing the penalty and an order about recovery should be passed after
giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person who was likely to be affected
thereby. In the present case, the appellants- O.Ps. have miserably failed to show that
provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the
complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act
and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the
details on basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case."

24. In the present case, no such show-cause notice was issued to the complainant, which amounts to
not only 'deficiency in service' but the same is also contrary to the provisions of Electricity Supply
Instructions Manual and other Rules and Regulations of PSPCL. The appellants/opposite parties have
also failed to show that any such notice was ever issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty
upon him. The appellants/opposite parties have also failed to show that previous reading of defective
meter was correct or not. Meaning thereby the opposite parties have failed to do so as per provisions
contained in the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual/Electricity Act, which also amounts to
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 7/8
2/7/23, 10:46 AM Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022

'deficiency in service'. Moreover, the opposite parties could not charge any amount of previous dues or
any arrears without issuing/giving any supplementary bill and without issuing the show-cause notice
by mentioning the details of the charges. Nothing has been brought on record in the grounds of appeal
as well as in the arguments or in reply of complaint to show that the opposite parties produced any
evidence or document, which can prove that they issued any supplementary bill or any show- cause
notice to the complainant giving complete details of the amount charged by them as arrears of
consumption.

25. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the authority concerned to satisfy itself regarding the accuracy
of a meter before it is installed at the consumer premises. The Distribution Licensees are required to set
up some accredited testing laboratories or utilize the services of other testing laboratories, if necessary.
Thereafter, the necessary action was required to be taken if necessary. After testing in the laboratory,
the body of the meter is required to be duly sealed by the officer concerned or the person authorized to
do so. No doubt, the Distribution Licensee has a right to test any consumer meter and related
equipment, either at the site or in the laboratory, in case there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy
of the meter. In such situation, the consumer is also required to cooperate in conducting the test.
During such exercise, the consumer has a right to be present during such testing and thereafter a copy
of testing result undertaking the accuracy of the meter is required to be provided to the consumer.
However, a consumer may also make request for testing of the meter in case there is a doubt about the
accuracy. The Distribution Licensee either undertakes the test at the site or in the laboratory within the
prescribed period, as provided. In case, the consumer is not satisfied with the site testing of the meter
installed, the meter is to be removed and packed/sealed in the presence of the consumer or occupier of
the premises for testing in the laboratory. In such a situation, another meter which is duly tested is
required to be installed at the premises of such consumer. In the event of any such apprehension
regarding tampering of meter or its seals, then the packing containing the meter is required to be jointly
sealed by the Distribution Licensee and the consumer/occupier of the premises. The proposed date of
testing is necessary to be intimated to the consumer. In case, the seal is to be removed, the same is to
be done in the presence of the consumer or his or her authorized representative within the prescribed
period from the date of removal of meter from the premises of the consumer.

26. In case of incorrect meters, if the meter on testing is found to be beyond the limit of accuracy as
prescribed, the account of the consumer is to be overhauled and the electricity charges are required to
be computed in accordance with the test results for the period of not exceeding six months.

27. All these provisions have not been followed/complied with by the appellant/opposite parties and
huge amount by way of bills have been sent to the consumer/complainant without giving any details
thereof. Meaning thereby the instructions as provided under the Manual have not been followed. All
these factors are required to be taken into consideration. The District Commission has rightly allowed
the complaint.

28. In view of the detailed discussion as mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the contentions
raised by learned counsel for the appellants. The reasoning given by the District Commission in the
impugned order dated 18.07.2019 is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and
the provisions as provided in the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, as reproduced above. No
interference is required in the impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission.

29. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned order
dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission is upheld.

30. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases
and pandemic of COVID-19.

(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER February 28,

2022.

(Gurmeet S)

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35718183/ 8/8