Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer <br /> Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto has been filed Ajaib Singh complainant against the opposite parties i.e. P.S.E.B. through its <br /> -2-<br /> its Secretary, Mall Road, Patiala, Sr. XEN, City Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Circular Road, Moti Bagh, Kapurthala and Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division No.1, Near Old Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala its functionaries seeking direction against them to withdraw the impugned letter dated 12.5.2006 and Memo No.3048 dated 10.10.2006 for the recovery of Rs. 6000/- being illegal, null and void and for monetary compensation for deficiency in service and for monetary compensation.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint lie in narrow compass that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties of having electric connection bearing No. GM 38/0194 and that he had been paying the bills regularly as per the consumption of the electric energy recorded by the officials of the opposite parties. It is alleged that the opposite parties issued a letter No. 4129 dated 12.12.2006 with reference to the assessment order No.3048 dated 10.10.2006 of opposite party No. 3 requiring the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.6.000/- within 15 days. On inquiry, he transpired that penalty amounting to Rs. 6000/- was levied on the allegations of theft of electric energy, as a result of checking on 4.10.2006 in his presence. The complainant had refuted the allegations of theft of electric energy else false and unfounded as neither any checking was done by the officials of the opposite parties nor any theft was committed and as such the impugned assessment of penalty vide memo dated 12.12.2006 is violative of the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and also Sales Regulation. Even the means of instruments for alleged <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> theft were not seized by the officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board, opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service in issuing the impugned letter and the memo for which he is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint. <br /> 3. The opposite parties Punjab State Electricity Board, appeared, controverted the allegations and resisted the claim of the complainant. It is pleaded by the opposite parties that in fact the connection of the complainant was checked by Er. Darshan Singh, A.E.E. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division No.1, Sultanpur Lodhi on 4.10.2006 and detected that the complainant was committing theft of electricity by tilting the meter and electricity supply of the house was going on, but the meter of the complainant was stopped. The detail of checking has been mentioned in the checking report dated 4.10.2006 and was prepared at the spot. Its copy was also handed over to the complainant, but he refused to sign the same. The complainant was then served with provisional assessment order No. 3048 dated 10.10.2006 for deposit of Rs.6000/- as compensation and theft of electric energy within seven days, but he failed to file any reply nor deposited the amount. Finally notice vide Memo No. 4139 dated 12.12.2006 was served upon the complainant and he was asked to deposit the amount within 15 days, but again he defaulted. The opposite parties, are, therefore, well justified to recover the amount assessed as penalty for theft of electric energy from the complainant and as such, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties so as to entitle the complainant to the relief claimed by him.<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> 4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.<br /> 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R6 and closed the evidence.<br /> 6. Since both the counsel for the parties were not present,<br /> though both the parties produced their entire evidence and concluded the same, therefore, in order to avoid the delay, the Forum thought it expedient to decide the same after going through the evidence of the parties in support of their respective claims.<br /> 7. Undoubtedly, the complainant has assailed the legality<br /> and validity of the checking report Ex.R3 dated 4.10.2006 containing the allegations of theft of electric energy and consequent provisional assessment order for Rs.6000/- vide Ex.C4 dated 10.10.2006 and final letter Ex.C3 dated 12.12.2006. <br /> 8. Firstly we find that the allegations contained in the checking report Ex.R3 are vague and ambiguous that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was found slightly turned to stop its working. Whereas, the theft of electric energy being a criminal offence has to be established if not beyond reasonable doubt by convincing evidence with preponderance of probability. No instrument or device whatsoever was either found or taken into custody which caused hindrance in the smooth functioning of the meter in question. <br /> 9. Secondly we also found violation of instructions No. CC53/2006 dated 17.10.2006 for dealing with the theft of electric energy cases <br /> <br /> -5-<br /> in which it is clearly laid down in Clauses (c), (d) and (e) pertaining to the preparation of inspection report of connected load, condition of seals, working of the meter and mention the irregularity noticed and also details of evidence substantiating the unauthorized use of electric energy shall be clearly recorded by the assigning officer in the inspection report. The inspection report shall be signed by the assessing officer and each member of the inspection team and supply of the same to the concerned person or his representative at site under proper receipt. In case of refusal to accept the the report, a copy of the inspection report must be pasted at conspicuous place in/outside the premises. Simultaneous to the inspection report shall be sent to the person under Registered Post. In the instant case, the complainant was alleged to have refused to sign, but without pasting the said checking report on the premises of the complainant and also sending the same by registered post, provisional assessment order dated 10.10.2006 for imposing penalty of Rs.6000/- on the complainant was issued and thereby occasioned injustice to the complainant as he has clearly alleged that no checking whatsoever was conducted in his premises either in his presence or in the presence of his representative. Therefore, finding unilateral proceedings in an arbitrary manner by the opposite parties and levying the impugned penalty amount vide assessment order are clearly violative of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also instructions vide No. CC53/2006 dated 17.10.2006 issued by the opposite parties i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board.<br /> 10. In the ultimate analysis of our aforesaid discussion, we <br /> <br /> -6-<br /> quash the impugned Memo dated 12.12.2006 Ex.C3 with a direction to the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation payable within one one from the receipt of copy of this judgment. Copy of the judgment be sent to the parties free of costs through registered post without any delay. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dated: Shashi Narang A.K. Sharma<br /> 21.8.2008 Member President