Present : Sh.Tej Pal Singh counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.D.S. Bhandal counsel for opposite parties.<br /> JUDGMENT (SH.PARAMJIT SINGH PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Dyal Singh son of Kulwant Singh against opposite party PSEB and its other functionaries.<br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is using electric connection bearing A/c No.X11FD540027X installed in his house which is in the name of his father Kulwant Singh who has since died about seven years back and complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly. It is further alleged that in the month of August, 2008, the complainant received a bill dated 24/8/2008 amounting to Rs.8200/- plus surcharge of Rs.752/- and Rs.7748/- were shown under sundry charges column which is illegal and arbitrary as the complainant never received any prior notice from opposite parties regarding details of the amount charged in the bill under sundry charges column.. He approached office of opposite party No.3 but opposite party No.3 flatly refused to listen his grievance rather threatened him to disconnect his electric connection in the event of failure to pay the amount in question which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. . It is admitted that electric connection is in the name of Kulwant Singh. . It is also admitted that bill dated 24/8/2008 was sent to consumer in which Rs.7748/- were charged as sundry charges. The facts are that AAE Kulwant Singh checked the connection of the consumer on 17/6/2008 and detected that consumer was committing theft of electricity. At the time of checking it was found that complainant removed the terminal plate of the meter by breaking the seals. The consumer joined the wire with the outgoing phase and the disc of the meter was stopped and electricity supply to the house of consumer was going on. Thus the consumer was taking the electricity supply by bypassing the meter. On the basis of said checking report, Rs.7748/- were charged in the bill of the consumer. As such there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in vidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C3.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R5.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. The main plank of arguments of counsel for complainant is that impunged bill dated 24/8/2008 amounting to Rs.8200/- slapped by the opposite parties upon the complainant is illegal, null and void being in contravention of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 because entire proceedings were conducted illegal and arbitrary manner unilaterally without providing any opportunity of filing explanation and personal hearing to the complainant. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has counter argued that entire proceedings were conducted about checking of the premises of the complainant and detection of theft of electric energy and unauthorized use of electric energy were conducted in the premises of complainant and only after that penalty of Rs.7748/- under the column of sundry charges were rightly slapped upon the complainant. Opposite party submitted that Sh.Kulwant Singh AAE checked the premises of the consumer on 17/6/2008 and detected that consumer was committing theft of electricity. At the time of checking it was found that consumer removed the terminal plate of the meter by breaking the seals. The consumer joined the wire with the outgoing phase and the disc of the meter was stopped and electricity supply to the house of consumer was going on. So the consumer was taking electricity supply by byepassing the meter. On the basis of said checking report Rs.7748/- were charged in the bill of consumer. The said bill is legal and as per rules and requirement.<br /> 7, We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. . The checking report prepared by Kulwant ingh AAE on 17/6/2008 is Ex.R1. It does not bears signatures of complainant or his representative and it is also not mentioned in the checking report that complainant has refused to sign this checking report . Three cross marks (xxx) are there in this case meant for signatures of consumer. Evidently we find infringement of clause 3 sub clauses (e), (f), (g), (h) of clause 53/2006 because no copy of inspection report, whatsoever, was pasted on the out wall of the consumer. Copy of provisional assessment order was not sent to the complainant either through registered post or through speed post or by any other means . Even no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the consumer. The articles such as wire was not taken into possession to support the case of opposite party in the court/Forum. There is also no corroborative evidence of incriminating articles has been produced to substantiate the allegation of theft of electric energy. It has been invariably held in a case reported as Harbhajan Singh vs. PSEB RCR 133 that charge of theft of electricity being criminal offence has to be established by preponderance evidence beyond doubt. The complainant may or may not prove his innnocence but the case of opposite party must stand on its own legs. In this case opposite party PSEB has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mere allegation of pilferage of electricity by the officials of the opposite parties is not suffice to establish the same without producing any incriminating articles i.e. service wire having naked joint allegedly joined by the complainant in stealing energy which were not taken into possession at the time of alleged occurrence. There is no corroborative piece of evidence though at the time of filing written statement, opposite party came with improved version.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we quash the demand of Rs.7748/- as sundry charges of impunged bill dated 24/8/2008 being illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and instructions of PSEB. We also direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant monetary compensation of 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 /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/dspatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : (Shashi Narang ) (Gulshan Prashar ) (Paramjit Singh)<br /> 10.2.2009 Member Member President.