STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 02.09.2022 Reserved on : 24.11.2025 Date of Decision : 17.12.2025

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Managing Director

2. AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Division Model Town Commercial, Boota Pind, Jalandhar ….Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Harinder Mohan Singh, aged 63 Years, Son of Sh Jodh Singh, R/o 48 – Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar, Punjab .…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar in C.C. No. 499 of 2019.

Quorum:-

Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Presiding 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 appellants : Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Varun Goyal, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. have filed the present Appeal through its Chairman to challenge the impugned order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Harinder Mohan Singh had been Partly Allowed.

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 Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant was using the electricity connection No. 3002972476, which was issued in the name of his father Jodh Singh. It was averred that in November, 2017 the Meter Reader during recording of reading had noticed that the meter had gone erratic and was moving fast. He had noticed that the same had not recorded the correct consumption and the meter was recording consumption even when all his electric appliances were switched off. Due to this the Meter Reader had not recorded the reading. Thereafter, the bill dated 11.11.2017 was received with ‘N’ Code, means reading not taken. JE had visited the premises of the Complainant after receiving information from the Meter Reader, to ascertain the defect in the meter and was satisfied with the fact that the meter had been running exorbitantly fast. He had assured the Complainant to replace the defective meter within 10 days with new meter. It was averred that the bills were issued after November, 2017 with ‘D’ code, means meter defective. Whereas the OPs had taken 12 months’ time to install the new meter in the month of December, 2018. During the said period, the OPs had issued the exorbitant bills 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 bills issued for the period November, 2017 to November, 2018, amounting to Rs.1,97,520/- be set-aside. It was further prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of causing mental torture, harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties had filed written statement by raising certain preliminary objections to the extent that the Complainant had no cause of action to file the Complaint. The same had been filed on false and frivolous allegations, only with a view to harass the OPs. The Complainant had concealed the material facts from the Commission. It was denied that neither any of the officials of the OPs had visited the premises of the Complainant nor the Meter Reader has reported regarding such incident to the Officer. The defect in working of meter only came in