Baljit Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful sundry charges of Rs.9005/- together with surcharges in the bill issued on 26/8/2006 and to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic electric connection bearing account No. MW-35/0013 with a sanctioned load of 5.35 KWs. He is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when the bill is received by the complainant and nothing on account of consumption charges is due towards the complainant except the bill in question. He has received a bill issued on 26/8/2006 in which the opposite particular have charged an amount of Rs.9005/- as sundry in the bill which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. No notice or supplementary bill as required under PSEB rules has been served upon the complainant before charging the amount as sundry. No detail of the sundry charges has been given in the bill as for what reasons the amount has been charged as sundry. After receipt of the bill the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 so many times with the request to provide detail of sundry charges and also to withdraw the illegal sundry charges and allow the complainant to deposit the current consumption bill only but the opposite party No. 2 did not agree, rather threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in the event the bill in question as issued is not deposited which amount to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which he claims a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6-10-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the consumer was indulging in theft of energy so this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the theft case. On merit it is admitted that the bill was issued in which amount of Rs.9005/- was charged as sundry charges. The connection of the complainant was checked on 31/1/2006 by Sh. Tara Singh Assistant Engineer Golewala Sub Division PSEB Golewala alongwith Rachhpal Singh Assistant Line Man and found the complainant using the electricity from the other side of the main line by way of Kundi. The main switch of the meter was switched off. The electricity was being used by bypassing the meter. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant. The complainant refused to sign the checking report. Copy of checking report was handed over to the complainant at the time of checking. A registered notice vide memo No. 144 dated 10/2/2006 was given to the complainant. In the notice full detail of the checking was given. A copy of checking report was again sent to the complainant alongwith the notice. Inspite of issue of notice the complainant failed to pay the sum of Rs.9005/- as such Rs.9005/- was charged in the bill issued on 26/8/2006. No supplementary bill is required after issuing of the notice. Photocopy of sundry charges and allowance register was also given to the complainant when the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2. The amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. The complainant intentionally did not pay the current bill. He is not entitled to claim any compensation of Rs.20000/- and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. Hence the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, photocopy of bill Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 25/10/2005 Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Tara Singh AE Golewala Sub Divn. PSEB Ex.R-1, attested copy of notice dated 10/2/2006 Ex.R-2, copy of checking report dated 31/1/2006 Ex.R-3, attested copy of sundry charges and allowance register Ex.R-4, affidavit of Rachhpal Singh Assistant Lineman Ex.R-5, attested copy of stamp register Ex.R-6, copy of receipt Ex.R-7 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have put forth illegal and unlawful demand of Rs.9005/- vide bill dated 26/8/2006. They have no right to recover the same. <br /> 9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant had been committing theft of energy at the time of checking of the electric connection by the officials of the opposite parties on 31/1/2006. So demand put forth by the opposite parties is genuine and correct. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that checking report Ex.R-3 shows commission of theft by the complainant. Checking was made by Sh. Tara Singh SDO in presence of Rachhpal Singh A.L.M. on 31/1/2006. The complainant was directly putting he load on the main line from the other side by bypassing the meter. Main switch stood put off by him. The load was working at the time of checking but the meter was not showing consumption. <br /> 11. Report Ex.R-3 has been signed by Tara Singh checking officer and Rachhpal Singh A.L.M. The complainant stated to have refused to put his signatures. Notice Ex.R-2 vide letter No. 144 dated 10/2/2006 was sent by the opposite parties to the complainant by putting forth demand of Rs.9005/- with regard to SOP Rs.5350/-, ED Rs.535/-, ACD Rs.3000/- and RCO fee Rs.120/-. The notice was sent to the complainant vide postal receipt Ex.R-7 shown in the stamp register Ex.R-6 of the opposite parties. The notice in accordance with law is presumed to have served upon the complainant after expiry of period of one month when neither the AD nor undelivered registered cover is received by the sendor. <br /> 12. In such like circumstances it cannot be said that no notice was served upon the complainant by the opposite parties. A person who is committing theft of energy most of the times does not append signatures upon the such like checking reports. The affidavit Ex.R-1 of Tara Singh AE Golewala Sub Divn. PSEB Golewala and affidavit Ex.R-5 of Rachhpal Singh A.L.M. in the long way for going to prove that the complainant was found committing theft at the time of checking carried out by them on 31/1/2006. There is no animosity of any kind of the witnesses of the opposite parties with the complainant. It is not on the file as to why a false case of theft has been made by the opposite parties against the complainant. Moreover denial from the checking report is not helpful to the complainant so PSEB and another Versus The Hoshiarpur Automobiles 1998(1) Consumer Law Today-402 relied upon by the complainant having different facts and circumstances then that of the case in hand is not helpful to the complainant in any manner. <br /> 13. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties provided by them to the complainant. So the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 26/7/2007<br />