1 CGRF, Ldh CGL-328 of 2019 - Punjab State Electricity ...

1

CGRF, Ldh CGL-328 of 2019

CONSUMERS GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM PUNJAB STATE POWER COPROPRATION LIMITED

220 KV S/Stn. Opp. Verka Milk Plant, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Tel: 0161-2971912, email: [email protected]

CASE NO.: CGL-328/2019

Date of Registration : 27.11.2019

Date of Closing : 23.12.2019

Date of Final Order : 31.12.2019

In the Matter of:

M/s Indus Tower,

SCO 4-5, Fourth Floor, PPR, The Mall.

Urban Estate, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar

A/C No.: 3002977826

Through:

Sh. Parvesh Chadha/PR, …Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd

Through:

ASE/DS West Division,

PSPCL, Jalandhar. …Respondent

1. BRIEF HISTORY

Petition, against case No. CGL-328/2019, has been filed directly in this

Forum by the Petitioner Sh. Parvesh Chadha, bearing account no.

3002977826, in the name of M/s Indus Tower, having NRS connection with

sanctioned load of 15KW running under West Divn., Jalandhar. The Petitioner

filed a complaint in the Forum regarding compensation for Non-compliance of

Minimum Standard of Performance. The meter of the Petitioner got defective

on 08.05.2017 but the same was replaced on 05.09.2019 after 850 days.

2


During this period billing was being done on “D” code and Petitioner was

harassed un-necessarily. As per the instructions, the meter was to be replaced

within 5 days being “Burnt” and 10 days being “Defective” but in this case, it

took 850 days. The Supply Code-2014 provides compensation in violation of

Minimum Standard of Performance, as under: -

As per PSERC (Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters) Regulations,

2014 up-to 4th amendment, the burnt meter is to be replaced within 5

days and defective within 10 days otherwise compensation be paid @

Rs. 200/- per day.

So, the Petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 250800/-.

During the course of proceedings of the complaint, Respondent

submitted its reply and other relevant documents and complainant submitted

his rejoinders.

The Forum heard both the parties on pre-hearing in its proceedings on

16.10.2019, 23.10.2019, 06.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 20.11.2018 and finally on

27.11.2019 when it was decided to register the complaint as case.

The Forum heard the case in its proceedings on 29.11.2019, 09.12.2019,

16.12.2019 and finally on 23.12.2019 when the case was closed for passing

speaking orders.

2. PROCEEDINGS:

Proceedings Dated 16.10.2019

Respondent telephonically intimated that the he cannot appear for

today’s hearing due to some urgent works so requested for another date. The

request for the Respondent admitted.

The complaint is adjourned to 23.10.2019 for submission of reply.


Respondent submitted reply to the complaint.

Complainant stated that needs some time to submit comments on the

reply.

Complaint is adjourned to 06.11.2019 for submission of comments.

3



Respondent intimated vide Email dated 05.11.2019 that due to some

urgent piece of work he cannot attend the hearing and thus requested for

another date. The same has been admitted.

Complainant submitted comments on the reply of the Respondent and

had asked for submission of documents relating to metering.

Complaint is adjourned to 13.11.2019 for submission of

comments/documents.


Respondent intimated telephonically that he cannot attamed today earing

and thus requested for another date.

Complaint is adjourned to 2011.2019 for submission of comments.


Respondent stated that this complaint does not belong to his division it

relates to West, Maqsudan Division and copy of the petition is forwarded to

the related division.

Complaint is adjourned to 27.11.2019 for submission of comments.


Respondent stated that he is not aware whether complaint has been

received in the office or not.

Being a compensation related complaint, Forum decide to register the

complaint.


The petition has been placed before the Forum for admission. After considering the averments made in the petition, the petition is admitted. Notice be issued to ASE/Sr. Xen / Op. Model town, Jalandhar (Respondent) along with copy of petition.

Respondent shall submit four copies of the following record/documents before the Forum on the next Date of hearing: -

1. Respondent shall confirm that there is no case pending before any Court/Forum or any other authority between PSPCL and Petitioner.

4


2. Respondent to confirm the status of up to date payments of energy bills.

3. History of the case specifying reasons of the dispute, disputed period and

disputed amount

4. Point-wise/para-wise reply to the petition.

5. Respondent shall also submit the following record/documents:

a. Copies of store requisitions of issuance of meters from ME Lab from 2017

till now.

b. Details of meter issued against MCO’s from ME-2

c. Seniority list of MCO of 3 phase LT meters.

d. Reasons of delay in replacement of meter for approximately 28 months.

e. As per petitioner, compensation be awarded for noncompliance of

standards of performance- Respondent is directed to submit comments

on it.

f. Regulations of Supply Code, 2014 or any other relevant

Rules/Regulations vide which the amount charged.

g. It may also be certified that all the documents have been

checked/verified & signed by ASE/Sr. XEN and shall remain responsible

for the authenticity of the documents/information submitted before the

Forum.

h. Any other documents pertaining to the case.

To come up for hearing on 09.12.2019 at 11:30 AM for reply.

Proceedings dated: 09.12.2019

Respondent intimated vide memo no 16696 dated 09.12.2019 that the

record related to the case is not received in his office and thus requested for

another date. Forum observed that Respondent had already submitted some

documents regarding this case vide his letter dated 03.12.2019 so it cannot be

assumed that he has not received the case. However, the same has been

admitted.

The case is adjourned to 16.12.2019 for Reply.


Representative of PSPCL submitted authority letter vide Memo No. 16942

dated 13.12.2019 duly signed by ASE/Op. West Divn. PSPCL, Jalandhar and the

same has been taken on record.

5


Respondent submitted four copies of reply to the petition along-with the

record/documents as directed by the Forum in its proceeding dated

29.11.2019 and the same has been taken on record. One copy thereof was

handed over to the Petitioner/PR. Petitioner requested for some time for filing

rejoinder.

Petitioner is directed to submit rejoinder to the Forum as well as

Respondent by 18.12.2019.

The case is adjourned to 23.12.2019 for oral Discussion at Conference

Hall, Shakti Sadan, PSPCL, Jalandhar.


Respondent stated that in 05.2018, Dummy MCO was created/issued in

Sap system for removing wrong D code as the meter was healthy and not

defective as per meter reader report.

Petitioner stated that the meter remained defective from 03.18 as per

PSPCL’s own record and the Meter reading is different as per MCO and in ME

lab report, also the ME lab declared meter as defective, therefore the

submission of Respondent is wrong. Also, there is no provision of

creating/issuing Dummy MCO to close D code.

Petitioner/PR stated that the petition/rejoinder and other documents

already submitted may also be considered as part of oral discussion.

Respondent stated that the reply to the petition/reply to the rejoinder

and other documents already submitted may also be considered as oral

discussion.

Both the parties have nothing more to say and submit.

The case is closed for passing speaking orders.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE FORUM:

i. The Petitioner is having NRS connection, bearing account no. 3002977826

with sanctioned load of 15.00KW, running under Op. West Divn. Jalandhar.

ii. Petitioner in his Complaint/Petition Stated that, he is engaged with the

mobile network on towers namely “M/S Indus Towers Ltd.” And having an

NRS connection with SL-15.00 kw for the running of tower communication.

The connection a/c no. 3002977826 is installed at 652, Talab Bazar Jalandhar

6


under the control of SDO-Comml. Patel Chowk-4 Model Town Division

Jalandhar under Addl. SE/Op Model Town Spl. Division PSPCL Jalandhar.

The PSPCL has not maintain and violation of minimum Slandered of

Performance as provided in Supply Code-2014 (copy Attached). The meter

was defective since 08.05.2017 and PSPCL has not replaced the same till

05.09.2019 (yet not changed) i.e. 850 days. During this period billing was

made on “D” code and Petitioner was harassed un necessarily. An On-Line

complaint was also made vide no. 1908220012.

As per instruction the meter is to be replaced within 5 days being

“Burnt” and 14 days being ‘D” but in our case it took 850 days + time to be

taken for MCO. The Supply Code-2014 provides compensation in violation of

Minimum Slandered of Performance is as produced as under: -

As per PSERC (Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters) Regulations,

2014 up to 4th amendment, Sr. no. 3 the meter is to be replaced within 5

days and defective within 10 days otherwise compensation be paid @ Rs.

300/- per day.

So as per this instruction compensation @ Rs. 300/- per day comes for

850-14=836 days to Rs. 250800/- plus the period to be taken for replacement

of meter @ Rs. 300/- per day, may kindly be awarded in the light of justice. It

is further added that CE/Comm. Patiala vide no. 1490-94 dated 21.08.19 has

also issued instructions for compliance (copy attached).

iii. Respondent, in his reply on pre-hearing, vide memo no. 11402 dated

16.10.2018, stated that, due to shortage of meters, as and when meters are

made available by ME Lab, Jalandhar, the meters are being replaced as per

the seniority. Due to the above reasons, there is delay in replacing the meter

of the Petitioner.

iv. The Petitioner on 6.11.2019 in the rejoinder to reply given by the Respondent

submitted as below: -

1. That the reply submitted by the Respondent vide letter no. 11402 dtd.

16.10.2019 is not admitted as reason of delay (shortage of meters from ME

Lab) is not in detailed and needs following detail: -

a) Detailed of SR’s of Issue of meters from ME Lab since 08.05.2017 to

05.09.2019, with nos. of meters received.

b) Detailed of meter issued on MCO’s from ME-II.

7


c) Seniority List of MCO of 3 ph. LT meters (without CT) and their effected

dates.

d) In case non availability of meters in ME Lab then a certificate in this

regard be submitted before the CGRF.

2. That the Respondent should clear the reason of delay in replacing the

meter.

3. That the rejoinder will be given on receipt of these above cited documents.

iii. In the reply to the rejoinder, Respondent submitted vide his letter no. 16552

dated 03.12.2019 that as per consumer complaint ID no. 1908220012 dated

22.10.2009 consumer complaint that working of meter is OK but meter

reader issued ‘D’ code bill. Meter of the consumer was replaced and got

checked from ME Lab. As per ME Lab report meter of the consumer is

defective and meter’s display does not show electrical parameter and DDL

could not be done. Copy of reply of GRMS complaint, ME Lab report along

with copy of challan is attached herewith. These documents are presented to

Honorable Forum for further action.

iv. On dated 09.12.2019, Respondent vide his memo no. 16696 dated 09.12.2019

stated that no letter of the subject cited related case was received in his

office, so the documents related to the case may be given so that he can send

his reply. However, Forum observed that Respondent had already submitted

some reply/documents regarding this case during the earlier proceeding and

vide his letter dated 03.12.2019, so it cannot be assumed that he has not

received this case and Forum expressed its displeasure for this ir-responsible

behavior of the Respondent.

v. Respondent vide his letter no. 2104 dated 13.12.2019 submitted its reply as

under: -

3. The connection in dispute is running under GT category with a/c no.

3002977826 of this consumer is 15 KW. The meter of the consumer has

received bills ‘ok’ code till 04.12.2018 up to KWH reading 190120. After

that bill dated 26.04.2019 bill of ‘N’ (reading not taken) was issued to

consumer till 223236 KWH reading. On 01.06.2019 bill of ‘D’ (meter

defective) code was issued to consumer. Consumer has not visited to PSPCL

8


Suvidha Center regarding replacement of meter with copy of bill. So, order

of replacement was not created after issuance of this bill. On dated

22.08.2019 consumer raised GRMS complaint with Complaint no.

1908220012 (copy of complaint attached). In GRMS complaint consumer

raised the pointed out that his meter is working ‘OK’ but meter reading

wrongly issue ‘D’ code bill. After receiving this GRMS complaint, MCO was

issued on 24.09.2019. Meter of the consumer was replaced on 14.11.2019

and got checked from ME lab. As per ME lab report meter was defective.

Now consumer has presented his case in front of Honorable Forum for

compensation for delay in replacement of meter. As per your reference, it

is cleared here that there is not such delay in replacement of meter at

PSPCL end. As JE has given certificate regarding no pending MCO from 2017

onwards till date was pending of this account. Consumer is not eligible for

compensation because of delay in replacement of meter. All the

documents along with copies of certificate from JE is attached herewith for

further reference.

4. As consumer has not submitted any petition as such. Instead consumer has

given complaint as per complaint no. 32 dated 22.11.2019. As per

consumer complaint ID no. 1908220012 dated 22.10.2019, consumer

complaint that the working of meter is ok but meter reader issue ‘D’ code

bill. Meter of the consumer was replaced and got checked from ME Lab. As

per ME Lab report meter of consumer is defective and meter’s display does

not show electrical parameter and DDL could not be done. Copy of reply of

GRMS complaint, ME Lab report along with copy of challan is attached

herewith. These documents are presented to honorable Forum for further

action.

5. Record/Documents required by Honorable Forum:

a. As no MCO was pending till 29.09.2019 of this account, so, record

required under this para is irrelevant to the case and hence not

presented.

b. Not related to case under discussion. Hence not presented.

c. Not related to case under discussion. Hence not presented.

d. Consumer has not visited to PSPCL Suvidha Center for MCO of defective

meter.

9


e. As per case history as no such order of replacement of meter was

outstanding till GRMS complaint by consumer, so consumer is not

eligible for such compensation.

f. No amount is being charged by PSPCL.

g. Necessary documents are attached herewith.

vi. Petitioner in the rejoinder to reply given by the Respondent on dt 16.12.2019

vide memo no 2104 dt. 13.12.2019 submitted is as below: -

1. That the Respondent has not submitted Para wise reply to the letter dt.

06.11.2019 as below-

a) Detailed of SR’s of issue of meters from ME Lab since 08.05.2017 to

05.09.2019, with nos. of meters received.

b) Detailed of meter issued on MCO’s from ME-II.

c) Seniority List of MCO of 3 ph. LT meters (without CT) and their effected

dates.

d) In case non availability of meters in ME Lab then a certificate in this

regard be submitted before the CGRF.

e) That the Respondent should clear the reason of delay in replacing the

meter.

2. That the history of the case given in the reply is not correct, the meter was

defective since May/2017 and billing was issued on average of N code and

in Nov/2017 start billing of O code by creating a factitious MCO which not

according to ESIM and supply Code, this meter was again marked “N” in

Feb/18 and then “D”. The reply that meter was running OK till 04.12.2018

is wrong and not admitted.

3. That Respondent has submitted that consumer has not visited the office

PSPCL Suvidha Center regarding the replacement of meter with copy of bill,

is also not admitted, as per ESIM it is the duty of PSPCL to install correct

device and replace when found defective. There is not necessary to visit

office regarding this. It is added that we were visited to office again and

again to correct the wrong bills and complaint against the Meter defect,

but when No action was taken the GRMS was filled on 22.08.2019 even the

no such action was taken, then Complaint for non-maintain of Standard

Performance was filled on 18.09.2019. It is admitted in the reply that MCO

was issued on 24.09.2019 on the basis of GRMS if it is not filed the then

10


defective meter was still at site. Even after issue of MCO it was physically

changed on 14.11.2019 after 52 days reason of delay still not explained.

4. That in reply it is mentioned that JE has given certificate that since 2017

there is no MCO pending till date of this account and consumer is not

entitle for compensation, it totally wrong and not admitted because office

has not issued MCO and clear by creating a bogus MCO to clear any

pendency. The MCO seniority list as well as Detail of SR’s were not given.

5. That the reply in Para 4 is not correct, the Complaint is itself petition and

need no more petition even Respondent has not supplied the document

demanded in the request dt 6.11.2019.

6. That as regards to GRMS, meter reader is issuing Bills on “D” code why the

JE/AEE has not checked the site and try to correct the device. Now it comes

in ME Lab that the meter was defective, so the consumer has been

harassed since May-2017 due to the negligence of PSPCL officers/officials.

7. That the reply in Para 5 is not correct no detailed documents are given to

the Petitioner as well CGRF, second if the Hon’ble Forum check the record

like MCO and reading data submitted now, the reply in (f) is also incorrect.

We were billed up to R-265206 kwh and 252123 kvah and as per MCO and

ME lab the FR-40455 kwh, 42658 kvah both readings are not matched and

DDL not recoded. The reading of meter no. 100004543603 on 06.06.2015

was “0” zero with “R” code and on 26.08.2018 was 23314 on “R” code till

14.05.2016 and from 15.05.2016 if become “OK” at R-0 that means MCO

effected and this meter sr. 10008084407 records reading on 3.10.2016 as

38028. This meter was removed on 11.05.2018 at R-188259 and on

12.05.2018 meter no. 100010944755 was installed at IR-0 which has been

removed on 4.11.2019. Please provide MCO’S to this effect.

8. That the Respondent has not replied proper when was contacted

personally on 30.07.2019 in the office, regarding the behavior of meter to

replace, it was replied that “Jadon mera time lagega meter badalwa ditta

javega”

9. That the Respondent has not performed the duty to check the meter

defective /replace within the time limit and fails to perform and Standard

Performance is liable to pay compensation as demanded to the tune of Rs.

250800/-

11


vii. Forum have gone through the written submissions made by the Petitioner in

the petition, written reply of the Respondent as well as oral arguments made

by the Petitioner and the Respondent, along with the material brought on the

record. The issue that requires adjudication in the present dispute is, to

decide the legitimacy of compensation of Rs. 250800/- claimed by the

Petitioner on account of violation of ‘Minimum Standard of Performance’ by

not replacing his defective meter for a long time.

viii. The Forum, observed that, the bill on ‘N’ code on dated 11.02.2018 and on ‘D’

code on dated 06.03.2018 were issued to the Petitioner. As per the

documents submitted by the Respondent, meter was replaced on 12.05.2018

and bill was issued on ‘O’ code. Thereafter again on 26.04.2019, bill was

issued on ‘N’ code and on ‘D’ code on dated 01.06.2019. Then meter was

shown changed on dated 14.11.2019 and bill on ‘O’ code was issued.

Respondent during the oral discussion stated that as the meter was not

defective during 03/2018, so a dummy MCO was issued to clear ‘D’ code and

further bills after 05/2018 were issued on ‘O’ code. Petitioner made a GRMS

complaint on 22.08.2019 that bills are received on ‘D’ code from last one

year, whereas as per his technician, meter working is OK, but the Meter

Reader was not taking actual reading and he did not receive actual reading

basis ‘O’ code bill. On this Respondent replaced the meter on 14.11.2019,

which was reported to be defective as per ME Lab report as no parameter

was shown on the display of the meter.

From the above, Forum observed that the meter of the Petitioner

remained defective for quite a long time and Petitioner had been receiving

bills on average/fictitious reading for that period. Forum is not going into the

details/dispute of average billing as the same was not contested by the

Petitioner. Respondent when asked about the instructions regarding issue of

Dummy MCO, could not produce the same on records. Therefore, Forum is of

the opinion that the meter of the Petitioner actually remained defective from

06.03.2018 onwards, as issue of dummy MCO to clear ‘D’ code is neither as

per the instructions nor provided any solution, as the meter after replacing

when checked in ME Lab, was found defective. Therefore, it can be assumed

that meter remained defective from 03/2018 to 11/2019, for a period of

about 20 months. The statement of the Respondent that the consumer has

12


not visited the Suvidha Centre, for getting issue of the MCO is not

appreciable, he is not supposed to visit PSPCL office for getting his ‘D’ code

meter replaced as this is the duty of the Respondent to clear his Key-

Exceptions. Even the reply on the Respondent on the request of the

Petitioner regarding replacing the defective meter that “Jadon mera time

lagega meter badalwa ditta javega” is viewed seriously by the Forum. Such a

derogatory remarks to the customers of PSPCL, should be avoided in future.

So, this is beyond doubt that the Respondent has violated the

instructions of the PSPCL by issuing Dummy MCO to clear the ‘D’ code

(whereas actually the meter was defective as per ME Lab report) and has

taken quite a long time for the issue of MCO and replacement of the meter,

thus failed in maintaining the Minimum Standard of Performance as per

Supply Code-2014, reproduced as under: -

Annexure-1

MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE (See Reg. 22)

3. COMPLAINTS ABOUT METERS

3.1 The distribution licensee shall inspect and check correctness of a

meter within seven working days of receipt of a complaint or report

by its authorized official/officer/representative. If the meter is

defective (i.e. it is stuck up, running slow, fast or creeping), the

distribution licensee shall replace the meter within ten working days

of receiving the complaint.

3.2 The distribution licensee shall replace a burnt-out meter within five

working days of the receipt of a complaint. Supply to the consumer

shall, however, be immediately restored even by bypassing the meter

till such time a new meter is installed.

From the above, Forum observed that the Respondent was not serious

for maintaining the ‘Minimum Standard of Performance’ as per Supply Code-

2014 and is liable to pay compensation as per Supply Code-2014, reproduced

as under: -

Annexure 5 2[COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO CONSUMERS IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF

MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE (See Reg. 26)

13


Ref. No. Complaint classification

Standard Compensation payable for each block of delay for

violation of standard

Designated functionary to

deliver the service

3. Meter complaints

3.1 Inspection and replacement of slow, fast/creeping, stuck up meters

Inspection within 7 working days and replacement within 10 working days of receipt of complaint

Rs. 200/- for each day of default

JE/In-charge of area

3.2 Replacement of burnt meters

Within 5 working days

Rs. 300/- for each day of default

JE/In-charge of area

26. PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION

26.12 [In the event of failure to meet the Standards of Performance specified

in Annexure-1, the distribution licensee shall be liable to pay

compensation to the affected consumers as specified in Annexure-5.

Provided that the maximum limit of compensation payable in case

of violation of any Standard of Performance shall be Rs. 10,000/-

except in case of reference no. 1.2(e), (h), (i) and 4 of Annexure-5

where the maximum limit of compensation shall be Rs. 20,000/-. In

case affected consumers are more than one, the amount of

compensation within this limit shall be shared by all the claimant

consumers for each notified office and this amount shall be

distributed equally amongst all the claimant consumers who have

been awarded the compensation by the competent authority.]

From the above, Forum was not satisfied with the reply of the

Respondent as he created a Dummy MCO to clear ‘D’ code without any

instructions of the PSPCL and has taken quite a long time to issue and replace

the meter. Further the statement of the Respondent that the consumer has

not visited the Suvidha Centre, for getting issue of the MCO is not

appreciable, he is not supposed to visit PSPCL office for getting his ‘D’ code

meter replaced as this is the duty of the Respondent to clear his Key-

Exceptions. So, Forum observed that there is definitely a deficiency on the

part of the Respondents as the meter was to be replaced within 10 days, as

per Reg. 3.1 (Complaints about Meters) of Annexure-1 (Minimum Standards

of Performance) of Supply Code-2014. The Respondents have miserably failed

in his prime duty and have failed to provide service as per Standards of

14


Performance. The excuse given by the Respondent of shortage of meters and

staff cannot be relied, as it is the responsibility of the Respondent to plan and

arrange manpower and material required to comply to the Standard of

Performance as per Supply Code. Therefore, Forum is of the opinion that an

amount of Rs. 2000/- (as per Reg. 26 of Supply Code-2014) be awarded to the

Petitioner as token compensation.

ix. Keeping in view the above, Forum came to unanimous conclusion that, the

amount of Rs. 2000/- (as per Reg. 26 of Supply Code-2014) be awarded to the

Petitioner as token compensation as per Standards of Performance, keeping

in view the difficulties stated by the Respondent. However, Respondent shall

ensure that in future the instructions be followed meticulously to ensure the

standard of Performance.

4. Decision:

Keeping in view the petition, reply, oral discussion, after hearing both

the parties, perusal of the record produced by them & observation of Forum,

Forum decides that: -

i. The amount of Rs. 2000/- (as per Reg. 26 of Supply Code-2014) be

awarded to the Petitioner as token compensation as per Standards of

Performance, keeping in view the difficulties stated by the Respondent.

However, Respondent shall ensure that in future the instructions be

followed meticulously to ensure the standard of Performance and action

be taken against such delinquent officials on violations of the standard of

Performance.

ii. As required under Regulation 2.41 of the Punjab State Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Forum & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2016 the

compliance of this decision shall be made within 21 days from the date

of receipt of this order.

iii. If the Petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he is at liberty

to file a representation before the Ombudsman (Plot No. A-2, Industrial

Area, Phase-1, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali) appointed / designated by the

15


Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission within 30 days from the

date of receipt of the order of the Forum, as required under Regulation

2.49 read with Regulation 2.45 and 2.48 of the Punjab State Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Forum & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2016.

(CA Harpal Singh) (Er. Kuldeep Singh) (Er. S. K. Arora)

Member (Finance) Member (Technical) Independent Member

-cum- Chairperson.

Place: Ludhiana.

Date: 31.12.2019.

1 CGRF, Ldh CGL-328 of 2019 - Punjab State Electricity ...

Documents

Transcript of 1 CGRF, Ldh CGL-328 of 2019 - Punjab State Electricity ...