The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to give a Ludhiana resident a full explanation of how it calculated charges mentioned in two electricity bills sent to him in 1999.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by Hakumat Rai, who had approached the court 26 years ago, questioning the two demand notices issued in April and May 1999. He had also asked PSPCL to share the method it used to calculate a 20 per cent surcharge and other charges after he merged two electricity connections in his premises.
Rai had a Medium Supply (MS) electricity connection, and his son had another MS connection, both at the same address. In 1997, he applied to combine the two connections into one, under a scheme that allowed such mergers. A new account was issued under the Large Supply (LS) category, and Rai gave an affidavit agreeing to pay the conversion charges in six monthly instalments. However, he failed to make the payments. Later, in May 1999, he asked PSPCL to reduce the load again and was shifted back to the MS category.
The bills he challenged included one that covered expenses for merging the connections and another for the surcharge added between 1997 and 1999.
Rai’s lawyers told the court that despite several requests, the PSPCL never explained how the figures in the bills were calculated. They also said he had already paid around Rs 1.5 lakh, which should be taken into account.
The PSPCL’s lawyer argued that the bills were issued according to the rules and covered all applicable charges.
The court noted that the PSPCL had not yet shared any breakdown of the charges with Rai. It ordered the power corporation to provide full details within 30 days of the consumer paying the remaining amount, after deducting what he has already deposited.
Story continues below this ad
If Rai still has any concerns after receiving the details, he can take up the issue with the proper authority, the court said. It also clarified that any extra amount already paid by him must be adjusted in his future electricity bills.
With this ruling, the long-pending case was closed.