The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has set aside a supplementary electricity demand of Rs 2.90 lakh raised by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) against a Ludhiana-based couple after holding that the power utility had illegally clubbed two separate electricity connections without issuing mandatory notice or following due procedure prescribed under Electricity Supply Instruction Manual (ESIM).The commission, comprising president Sanjeev Batra and member Monika Bhagat, partly allowed the consumer complaint filed by Sanjeev Jain and his wife Madhu Jain of Civil Lines, Ludhiana.“The complainants have been condemned unheard and the provisions of Regulation 35 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, 2018, have been violated with impunity,” the commission observed while declaring the clubbing of the two SP connections and the resultant demand of Rs 2,90,890 as illegal and arbitrary.The commission directed PSPCL to restore both electricity connections independently as if no clubbing had taken place and to recalculate the accounts separately after adjusting payments already made by the complainants.It further ordered PSPCL to comply with the directions within 45 days, failing which the corporation would be liable to pay Rs 500 per day till compliance. The commission also awarded composite compensation and litigation costs of Rs 20,000 to the complainants.The complainants had challenged the legality of a demand of Rs 1,16,127 raised in September 2019, and a subsequent supplementary demand of Rs 2,90,890 issued in June 2022 by PSPCL on the ground that the two Small Power (SP) category connections installed in the same building were liable to be clubbed and treated as a Medium Supply (MS) connection.According to the complaint, the couple had purchased separate portions of the property through registered sale deeds in 1989, and had been running independent businesses from the ground and first floors respectively. They had obtained separate electricity connections in 1989-90 and had been using them independently for more than three decades without any objection from PSPCL officials.The dispute arose after the electricity meter installed in the name of Sanjeev Jain allegedly became defective in 2017 due to an external flash in the line. PSPCL subsequently issued bills based on average consumption, which were challenged before Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF). CGRF, in its order dated August 5, 2019, directed PSPCL to overhaul the account on the basis of average consumption of the previous six months.However, the complainants alleged that thereafter PSPCL arbitrarily initiated proceedings for clubbing the two electricity connections and imposed heavy demands without serving any notice or granting them an opportunity of hearing as required under Regulation 35 of ESIM.The commission observed that under ESIM, clubbing of separate connections could only be undertaken after issuance of a minimum 15-day notice and consideration by a duly constituted committee comprising senior PSPCL officials and a representative of the consumer.Holding the action of PSPCL to be violative of mandatory regulations, the commission noted that both units had separate entry and exit points and that the connections had existed independently for over 30 years. It further remarked that PSPCL officials had inspected the premises on numerous occasions during this period without detecting any irregularity.