Present : Sh. Sanjay Gupta counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.D.S. Bhandal counsel for opposite parties,<br /> JUDGMENT (SMT.SHASHI NARANG MEMBER )<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by Bhajan Singh son of Banta Singh complainant against opposite parties i.e. PSEB, Patiala through its Chairman and also SDO Sub Division Kala Sanghian, Punjab State Electricity Board, Kapurthala to assail impunged bill dated 6/7/2008 being illegal, null and void and contrary to the Sales Regulations and further monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. The facts of the complaint lie in a narrow compass. The complainant was getting electricity vide A/c No. X11FD451077N from the opposite party PSEB and has been availing electricity services from opposite parties on payment of electricity bills regularly. Complainant has however, assailed legality and validity of impunged bill dated 6/7/2008 which is contrary to the Sales Regulations and provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. No detail of amount of sundry charges of Rs.33090/- in the bill was given . Therefore, complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties on account of which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim . This fact is not disputed that complainant was getting electricity vide A/c No. X11FD451077N from the opposite party. Opposite party Board has defended legality and validity of impunged bill dated 6/7/2008 for recovery of Rs,.33090/- as sundry charges on account of unauthorized use of electricity. As per checking report of A.A.E Kulwant Singh when he checked the connection of the consumer on 12/6/2008 and detected that consumer was using electricity supply from the electric meter for construction of his house. The consumer did not apply nor got the temporary connection released for construction work as per rules and regulations of the Board and thus was using the electricity supply unauthorizedly for construction work. So as per rules and regulations of the Board, higher tariff was charged in the account of consumer from the month of June 2007 to April, 2008 and Rs.33090/- this amount was charged under sundry charges column in the bill dated 6/7/08 as per ru;es and regulations of the Board. Therefore, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for recovery of penalty in the impunged bill.\<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 <br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.R1 to R4.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record.. We find considerable merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. The main plank of arguments of learned counsel for the complainant is that impunged bill Ex.C7 dated 6/7/2008 for recovery of penalty charges of Rs.33090/-under the head sundry charges slapped by the opposite party Board upon the complainant is illegal, null and void being in contravention of CC No.53/2006 Ex.R4 and also Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 because entire proceedings were conducted in illegal and arbitrary manner unilaterally without providing any opportunity of filing explanation and personal hearing. <br /> On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has counter-argued that entire proceedings were conducted about checking of premises of the complainant and detection of unauthorized use of electric energy by the complainant for construction work and found 1/2 BHP motor running a machine known as cutter. And as per rules and circulars of the Board the penalty amounting to Rs.33090/- was rightly slapped upon the complainant for unauthorized use of electric energy. at his premises..<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. No doubt amount of Rs.33090/- is sought to be fastened upon the complainant under the head of sundry charges and allowances on the allegation of unauthorized use of electricity vide impunged bill dated 6/7/2008 and sought to be proved through affidavit Ex.R2 of Kulwant Singh A.A.E PSEB. Admittedly checking report Ex.R3 does not bears signatures of the complainant or his representative but there is only refusal to sign. Evidently we find infringement of clause 3 sub clauses (e) (f) (g) (h) of CC 53/2006 Ex.R8 because no copy of inspection report,whatsoever, was pasted nor even the order of provisional assessment was sent to the complainant either through registered post or through speed post.. Even no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded. There is also no corroborative evidence of incriminating articles has not been produced to substantiate the allegation of theft of electric energy. It has been invariably held in a case reported as Harbhajan Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board RCR 133 that charge of theft of electricity being criminal offence has to be established by preponderance evidence. Mere allegation of pilferage of electricity by the officials of the PSEB is not suffice to establish the same when no incriminating articles i.e. service wire having naked joint allegedly used by the complainant in stealing energy was taken into custody as corroborative piece of evidence as per checking report Ex..R3 though later on there was improved version by the opposite parties in their written statement<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we quash the impunged bill dated 6/7/2008 to the extent of Rs.33090/- as sundry charges being illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and instructions of PSEB. We therefore, direct the opposite parties to pay monetary compensation amounting to Rs.2000/- for deficiency in service and for causing mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Shashi Narang ) ( Paramjit Singh )<br /> 18.12.2008 Member President.