ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 02.11.2023 Reserved on : 03.11.2025 Date of decision : 04.12.2025 Rakesh Kumar, aged about 49 years son of Om Parkash resident of Green City Colony, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, Punjab. (Aadhaar Card No.8595 1262 2361), Mob. 98724-25595 …..Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman &

Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

2. S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patto Hira Singh, District Moga, Punjab.

….Respondent/Opposite parties First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 19.09.2023 passed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga.

Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-

For the appellant : Sh.Simranjeet Singh, proxy for Sh.T.K.Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. Swatantar Kapoor, Advocate HARINDER PAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’), under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, was partly allowed while granting the following relief:

“8. From the discussion above, we partly allow the complaint of the complaint and direct the Opposite parties to pay compository amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) towards compensation and litigation costs to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to get checked the meter in dispute from M.E. Lab and overhaul/settle the account of the complainant as per M.E. Lab report and as per PSPCL Rules within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they are further burdened with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be paid to the complainant for non-compliance of the order…”

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having an electricity connection in his name and paying the consumption charges. The opposite party No.3 had issued a bill bearing No.500200119566 dated 21.04.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,27,950/-; showing therein the arrears of Rs.1,14,625/- along with the actual consumption charges of Rs.13,325/-. In the month of June, 2022, opposite parties issued a bill No.500115477440 dated 20.06.2022 in respect of the above said A/c No.F13NA681165W with Meter No.4510641 for Rs.1,01,110/-, vide which the actual consumption was shown as 11179 units and the said bill was issued for 54 days. After that, the complainant approached the opposite parties and made a representation with the request that the meter is defective, which the opposite party No.3 received, vide Diary No.429 dated 06.07.2022. Further, on the instructions of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.250/- as meter challenging fee, vide receipt No.51 dated 04.08.2022. Even after depositing the fee, the opposite parties die not bother to remove the said electric meter within a prescribed period as laid down in Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (updated till 30.06.2018). The opposite parties issued a bill dated 09.08.2022 showing Meter No. 4510641 with the meter status marked as ‘F’ and the bill status as ‘average’, for a total amount of Rs.1,44,090/-. Thereafter, on 01.11.2022, another bill was issued in respect of Meter No. 9687536, indicating the meter status as ‘C’ and the bill status as ‘average’, for an amount of Rs.1,34,420/-. It is submitted that after 04.08.2022, neither the meter was changed nor it was checked in M.E. Lab for its accuracy or inaccuracy, which is a clear cut violation. In the last bill dated 2