NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1392/2016

HANS RAJ ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ALANKAR ARORA

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1392 OF 2016
 
(Against the Order dated 03/03/2016 in Appeal No. 747/2013 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. HANS RAJ ARORA
R/O 38, SST NAGAR, SUNDR NAGAR, SCHEME NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE
PATIALA
PUNJAB
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. PSPCL & ANR.
THROUGH ITS CMD LOWER MALL,
PATIALA
PUNJAB
2. SDO,
(SUB DIVISION WEST)
PATIALA
PUNJAB
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Alankar Arora, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, Advocate
Mr. Kamaldeep Gulati, Advocate

Dated : 28 Feb 2017
ORDER

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

 

A limited notice was issued to the respondent requiring it to show cause why it should not provide Real Time Display Unit at the premises of the petitioner/complainant. The Regulation 51.3 (X) of the Electricity Supply Instruction Manual reads as under:-

The consumer meter shall be installed by the PSPCL either at consumer premises or outside the premises that where the PSPCL installs the meter outside the premises of the consumer, then the PSPCL shall provide real time display unit at the consumer premises for his information to indicate the electricity consumer by the consumer provide further that for billing purpose reading of consumer meter and not the display unit shall be taken into account.”

It would thus be seen that wherever the meter is installed outside the premises of the consumer, it is obligatory for the respondent to provide Real Time Display Unit in order to enable the consumer to know how much electricity is being consumed by him.

2.      The learned counsel for the respondent states that the Real Time Display Units are currently not available with the respondent. Therefore, they have no objection to the petitioner/complainant installing its own unit at its own cost. He also submits that  in the event the respondent installing such a unit, the complainant also have to pay the prescribed charges in the form of rental for the said unit, whereas no such charges will be payable if he installs his own unit. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the petitioner/complainant being a layman, it is not possible for him to purchase and install his own unit. Considering the mandate of the Regulation, it is obligatory for the respondent to procure and install the display unit at the premises of the complainant though it will certainly be entitled to charge the requisite rental as per its own rules from the complainant. The revision petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent to procure and install the requisite display unit at the premises of the petitioner/complainant at respondent’s own cost within 12 weeks from today. It is made clear that on installing the said unit, the respondent will be entitled to recover the requisite rental as per its rules from the petitioner/complainant.

 
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.