Remanded

M/S Satpal Banarsi Das v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2024CWP/13895/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Ombudsman's order denying the petitioner's claim for electricity bill refund due to meter inaccuracy, accepting the respondents' concession that the dismissal was not well-founded, and remanded the matter for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Ombudsman (Electricity), Mohali for deciding afresh on merits after granting opportunity of hearing.

M/S Satpal Banarsi Das Vs Punjab State Power… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

216

¶3

CWP-13895-2021

¶4

Date of Decision: 15.10.2024

¶5

M/S SATPAL BANARSI DAS

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. ******

¶11

Present: Mr. Jivtesh Singh Nagi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing) and Mr. Harsh Thakur, Advocate (in person) for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Patiala, whereby the account of the petitioner has been ordered to be overhauled for the period from 01.02.2020 to 31.07.2020 on account of the meter running fast by 24% instead of the refund with interest sought for the entire period from 26.06.2016 to 31.07.2020 for which the meter was running fast. A further prayer has also been made for setting aside the order dated 28.04.2021 passed by Ombudsman (Electricity), Mohali whereby the order passed by the Consumer Grievances

¶16

RAJENDER KUMAR 2024.10.20 23:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP-13895-2021

¶19

Redressal Forum, Patiala was set aside and the claim of the petitioner was completely denied.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents has been confronted with the operative part of the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 passed by Ombudsman (Electricity), Mohali, under the head “Decision”, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been denied for the reason that the account of the appellant (petitioner herein) cannot be overhauled on the basis of checking report (ECR No.30/284 dated 31.07.2020) of Enforcement because billing was done on kVAh basis. The operative part of the abovesaid order reads thus:

¶21

“7. Decision.

¶22

As a sequel of above discussions, the order dated 19.02.2021 of the CGRF, Patiala in Case No. CGP-62 of 2021 relating to overhauling of accounts for the period 01.02.2020 to 31.07.2020 is set-aside. It is held that:

¶23

(i) The account of the Appellant cannot be overhauled on the basis of checking report (ECR No. 30/284 dated 31.07.2020) of Enforcement because billing was done on kVAh basis. The accuracy of the meter determined in Active Mode only cannot be made applicable for recorded and billed kVAh consumption. As a natural consequence, the prayer of the Appellant for refund of excess billed amount, if any, is rejected after due consideration.

¶24

(ii) The prayer of the Appellant for issuance of directions to the Respondent for checking the connection again for determining accuracy of kVAh consumption after restoring to the same position as it was when the checking was conducted by the Respondent on 31.07.2020 is an afterthought and was not part of original petition/appeal thus is not maintainable/sustainable in the eyes of law. However, the Respondent is at liberty to consider and decide

¶25

RAJENDER KUMAR 2024.10.20 23:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-13895-2021

¶27

-3-

¶28

this prayer of the Appellant regarding rechecking of the connection as per applicable regulations/instructions.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents-PSPCL fairly submits that the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal on the said ground is not well founded.

¶30

Taking into consideration the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents-PSPCL, the present writ petition is allowed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the Ombudsman (Electricity), Mohali is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ombudsman (Electricity), Mohali for deciding the matter afresh on merits and after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶31

The parties are directed to appear before the Ombudsman (Electricity), Mohali on 04.11.2024, wherefrom the proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with law. The parties shall, however, be at liberty to raise all such pleas, that are available to them as per law, before the Ombudsman (Electricity), Mohali.

¶32

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) OCTOBER 15, 2024. JUDGE rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶33

RAJENDER KUMAR 2024.10.20 23:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Satpal Banarsi Das v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Satpal Banarsi Das v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gourav Rana Vs State of Haryana and Others

Arshdeep Singh Dhaliwal Vs Punjab Kashmir Finance Limited and Others

Rohtash Dass Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rampal Vs State of Haryana and Others