The main legal point established is that the overhauling of consumer accounts and the levy of load surcharge must be in accordance with the relevant regulations governing energy meter testing and temporary use of electricity for construction purposes.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 20.7.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Lok Pal (Ombudsman) Electricity, Punjab.

2. A brief factual matrix would be necessary.

3. Respondent no. 1 herein was having a domestic supply (DS) category connection with a sanctioned load of 35.660 KW. The metering was done by providing a Static LT CT Energy Meter. Respondent submitted an application for shifting of the Energy Meter Equipment outside the premises. Pursuant thereto the connection was checked by the Additional S.E./Enforcement-3, Ludhiana on 1.6.2017. At the time of checking the Energy Meter was found to be running slow by 68.14%. The Energy Meter was replaced on 2.6.2017 and the same was checked in the M.E Lab. on 22.6.2017 and the accuracy was found within limits and the DDL was taken. The petitioner-Corporation overhauled the account of respondent no. 1 from the date of installment of the disputed Energy Meter i.e. from 12.9.2014 to May, 2017 i.e. for a period of 33 months and accordingly a notice dated 2.6.2017 was issued calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,91,583/-. Respondent no. 1 contested the notice and approached the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers under the petitioner-Corporation. The Forum vide order dated 20.11.2017 granted partial relief to respondent no. 1 and directed as under:-

"Account of the petitioner be overhauled for a period of six months preceding the date of checking i.e. 01.06.2017 taking into consideration slowness factor as 68.14%.

The notice for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 also need to be served for using the electricity for construction purposes."

4. As per directions issued by the Forum, the amount in question was reduced to Rs. 4,03,161/- and a fresh notice dated 26.12.2017 was served upon respondent no. 1. Still not satisfied, respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal against the decision of the Forum by filing Appeal No. 07/2018 before the Electricity Ombudsman, Punjab.

5. Vide order dated 20.7.2018 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, the appeal preferred by respondent no. 1 has been allowed and a view has been taken that the account of the consumer cannot be overhauled with slowness factor of 68.14% but the same should be done on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year. Furthermore, it has been decided on the basis of the connected load+temporary load on the date of checking i.e. 6.11.2017 against the sanctioned load, the consumer could use the supply temporarily for construction purpose and as such, is liable to be charged load surcharge only.

6. It is towards impugning the order dated 20.7.2018 passed by the Lok Pal (Ombudsman) Electricity Punjab (Annexure P-9) that the instant writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-Corporation has vehemently contended that adequate and sufficient relief had already been granted to respondent no. 1 by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum by holding that the overhauling of the account has to be restricted to a period of six months preceding the date of checking and as such, there was no justification for the Electricity Ombudsman to have interfered further in the matter and thereby granting undue benefit to the consumer. It has been argued that the entire case of the Corporation was based upon the fact that the Energy Meter in question had been found slow by 68.14% and as such, the overhauling of the account had to be done on such basis alone. Yet another submission raised is that the Electricity Ombudsman has overlooked the aspect that the domestic connection was being used for purposes of undertaking construction activity and which would amount to unauthorized use of electricity for which proceedings under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 were required to be undertaken.

8. Having heard counsel for the petitioner Corporation at length a