STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 14.07.2022 Reserved on : 28.10.2025 Date of Decision : 11.12.2025 Bhupinder Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Late Sh. Ajit Singh, Resident of House No. 23, Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.

….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/M.D.

2. The Executive Engineer (OP), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Model Town Division (Special), Ludhiana .…Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SBS Nagar, Camp Court at Ludhiana in C.C.

No. RBT/CC/17/472 of 2017.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, 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 Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate For the respondents: Sh. Shivam Sachdeva, Adv. (thru VC) for Sh. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Complainant-Bhupinder Singh has filed the present Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby his Complaint had been Partly Allowed. Dissatisfied with the observation of the District Commission regarding granting the liberty to the OPs to charge the bill of defected period of meter, the present Appeal has been filed.

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

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that one electricity connection No.3002861655 with sanctioned load of 29 KW was issued in the name of his father Ajit Singh. After the death of his father, the Complainant being beneficiary had used the said connection and paid all the bills regularly. However, the Complainant had received bill dated 15.05.2027 of Rs.2,70,297/- wherein an amount of Rs.2,66,182/- had been shown as arrears. Said bill related to the period w.e.f. 10.02.2017 to 24.04.2017 and consumption was shown as 5440 Units including the arrears. The Complainant had approached the OPs and had informed that the bill was wrongly issued and had requested to correct the same. The OPs instead of correcting the same had threatened him that if he failed to pay the same within time then his electric connection would be disconnected. The OPs had failed to disclose any reasoning for raising such a huge amount. Due to such unjustified act of the OPs, it caused great mental tension, agony and harassment to the Complainant.

4. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the demand of Rs.2,66,182/- raised on account of arrears in the bill dated 15.05.2017 be quashed. Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded as compensation and Rs.15,000/- being the litigation expenses.

5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Opposite Parties had appeared and filed the written statements by raising certain preliminary objections that the Complainant had levelled false and frivolous allegations upon the OPs. True facts are that earlier the electric connection bearing A/c No. GC-32-250 (Old) was installed, which was given new A/c No. 3002861655, having in the name of Ajit Singh on noticing that meter was not giving correct reading. Said meter was changed with the new meter. During checking in the ME Lab., it was found that the meter was burnt and display of the same was defective. After change of the meter, the bills were prepared by overhauling the reading, which was