Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Baldev Singh son of Charan Singh against opposite parties i,.e. PSEB through its Secretary, Mall Road, Patiala and other functionaries seeking withdrawl of impunged memo No.2137 dated 12/9/2006 and bill dated 25/6/2007 for demand of Rs.9000/- being illegal, null and void and contrary to the Sales Regulations of PSEB and provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 wuth further claim of monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. In nutshell the facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing A/c No.GC/46/0494 installed in his house and has been paying the electricity bills refularly. It is alleged that in the month of September 2006 he was shocked to receive memo No.2137 dated 12/9/2006 from the opposite party Board requiring him to pay Rs.9000/- on the false allegation of committing pilferage of electricity. He refuted their allegation by denying that any theft of electricity was ever committed by him and further requested the opposite parties to withdraw the impunged memo dated 12/9/2006 and the bill dated 25/6/2007 for illegal demand of Rs.9000/- because no show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing was ever given to him to explain his version to oppose the illegal demand. Therefore, this is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Opposite party Board has defended the legality and validity of impunged memo No.2137 dated 12/9/2006 and the bill dated 25/6/2007 for recovery of amount of Rs.9000/- on the plea that complainant was checked by the Er.K.K. Wahi JE on 6/9/06 and detected him committing theft of electricity by placing a magnate on the electric meter and he stopped the working of the electric meter and detail of checking was also mentioned in the checking report dated 6/9/2006 on the basis of which he was served impunged memo dated 12/9/06 vide which he was asked to deposit Rs.9000/- as penalty of theft of electricity. Therefore, the opposite party Board is well justified to recover the amount of R.9000/- vide impunged memo and the bill in question and there is no deficiency in service on its part..<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits Ex.C1 and C2, copy of notice Ex.C3, , copies of bills Ex.C4 and C5 and receipt Ex.C6.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced into evidence affidavit of Er.Malkiat Singh SDO Ex.R1, affidavit of Er. K.K. Wahi JE Ex.R2,, copy of checking report Ex.R3 and copy of CC No.34/2006 Ex.R4.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record.. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that false charge of theft of electricity was levelled against the complainant unsupported with any convincing evidence , oral and documentary. Moreso; there is gross violation of instructions contained in CC No.34/06 dated 17/10/2006 Ex.R4 issued by the PSEB regarding assessment of penalty for theft of electricity. On the other hand opposite party Board has defended legality and validity of impunged memo dated 12/9/2006 Ex.C3 and the bill dated 25/6/2007 Ex.C4 containing the demand of Rs.9000/- on account of established case of pilferage of electricity.<br /> 7. We have considered the rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find a good deal of merits in the contentions of counsel for the complainant. Undoubtedly, plea of theft of electricity has been advanced by the opposite party Board supported by affidavit of Er.Malkiat Singh SDO Ex.R1 and affidavit of Er.K.K. Wahi JE Ex.R2 to the effect that complainant was found committing theft of electricity by placing magnate on the electric meter and stopped functioning of the electric meter on 6/9/06. There is checking report dated 6/9/06 Ex.R3 followed by the impunged memo of assessment of penalty for theft of electricity vide memo No.2137 dated 12/9/06. Firstly mode of theft of electricity as alleged in the impunged memo Ex.C3 and also in the affidavits of SDO Malkiat Singh and JE K.K. Wahi Ex.R1 and R2 and in the checking report Ex.R3 run in contradictory terms because memo Ex.C3 does not indicate specific mode of theft of energy and the penalty for recovery of amount of Rs.9000/- was levied to be recovered within two days. There is no signature of the complainant or his representative on the checking report and the genuineness of the occurance i.e. checking of the connection has been questioned seriously by the complainant. Secondly we find gross violation of the procedure for booking a case for unauthorised use of electricity under clause 1 and 3 in the C.C.34/06 dated 17/10/2006 issued by the PSEB which interalia mandates that in case refusal to accept the checking report , copy of inspection report must be pasted at a conspicuous place in or outside the premises. Simultaneously, inspection report shall be sent to the person under registered post, then a provisional assessment about amount to be paid shall be made by the Assessing Officer and by the person benefited by unauthorised use of electricity and in this provisional assessment order under Section 126 of the <br /> Electricity Act, 2003 shall be served upon the person under proper receipt which is payable within seven days by such person from the date of service of the notice so as to enable him to file reply to the notice within a week. Reply shall be considered by the asessing officer within seven days from the date of submission of the reply and case of unauthorised use of electricity shall be dropped when no case of unauthorised use of electricity was made out. The levy of charge of unauthorised use of electricity shall be made only after affording personal hearing to the person within fifteen days of submission of reply and final order of assessment specifying the amount payable by the person shall be made by the assessing officer only thereafter.<br /> In the instant case only one impunged memo dated 12/9/06 Ex.C3 was served upon the complainant for levy of Rs.9000/- as penalty for alleged theft of electric energy in a arbitrary and illegal manner in utter violation of instructions contained in CC No.53/06. It may also be mentioned that CC No.34/06 Ex.R4 dated 6/7/06 has since been modified by latest CC No.53/06 dated 17/10/06 wherein there is requirement of affording personal hearing to the person within fifteen days of submission of reply if any and final order of assessment of penalty. Moreover, it has been invariably held by our Hon'ble State Commission and also by Hon'ble National Commision that charge of theft of electricity being criminal offence has to be established by cogent and convincing evidence. Uncorroborated allegation about tampering of meter or placing of magnate thereon unsupported by any corroborative evidence was not suffice to establish the charge of pilferage of electric energy.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we are of the considered opinin that impunged memo Ex.C3 and the bill in question Ex.C4 dated 25/6/2007 is illegal, null and void and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.We further award monetary compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service and also cost of litigation of Rs.500/- which would be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order otherwise it be recovered in accordance with law.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced (Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 7.2.2008 Member President.