Gurbax Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal charges of Rs.47,635/- vide memo No. 15944 dated 5/12/2006 and to pay Rs.30,000/- for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing account No SP-47/007 in his name. The connection is being used for Atta Chakki for exclusively self employment of the complainant. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption charges against the bills as and when received by the complainant and at present nothing on account of consumption charges is due against the complainant. The complainant received letter No. 15944 dated 5/12/2006 in which the opposite party No. 2 raised the demand of Rs.47,635/- on account of alleged theft declared by the PSEB as per ME Lab. report dated 13/11/2006. The demand of the PSEB is illegal and against the instructions of the PSEB. The meter of the complainant was changed by the opposite party in the month of January 2005. The same was replaced to install the electronic meter. The old meter was working properly and there was no defect in the meter. The status of the meter on the bills issued by the opposite party was 'O' which means the meter is OK. The disputed meter remained at the premises of the complainant about 2-1/2 years and the same when installed was an old repaired meter and not got checked from the complainant at the time of installing of the meter about the condition of the glass. The meter at the premises of the complainant remained in the same condition as was installed by the PSEB and the complainant never interfered in the working of the meter so as to restrict the consumption of the meter. The meter of the complainant was removed by the opposite party without raising any objection and the same was taken away by the officials of the opposite party unpacked and unsealed. As per instructions of the PSEB the removed meter is to be sent to the ME Lab within 15 days. The meter of the complainant was removed in the month of January 2005. So the meter was to be sent to the ME lab in the month of February 2005. The complainant had not given any consent to the PSEB to check his meter in his absence. There is no rule of PSEB to check the meter in the absence of a consumer in the ME lab. The checking report in ME lab has been prepared in contravention to the standing instructions of the PSEB. The consumption of the complainant before change of the disputed meter and after installing the new meter is almost the same. The opposite party No. 2 issued the letter of demand in contravention to the Regulation and Electricity Act, 2003 without checking the premises of the complainant. After receipt of letter of demand the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and 3, who refused to listen the complainant, rather threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case whole of the amount of bill is not deposited, which amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which he claims Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14-12-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint in the present form is not maintainable. The complainant was committing the theft of energy of the opposite party, as such the present complaint is not maintainable. The present dispute does not come under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the complainant has not put his case before the proper authority as given under the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended up to date. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the present connection is installed in the premises of the complainant but the present connection is being used for the commercial purpose and the complainant is earning huge profit from the said electricity connection. It is correct that memo no. 15944 dated 15/12/2006 has been served upon the complainant. The said memo is not illegal or against the instructions of the PSEB. Meter of the complainant was changed and the meter which was removed was sent to ME lab Bathinda for checking after duly sealed and packed. During checking it transpired that the complainant has tampered the meter and in this way he was committing the theft of energy. The complainant was duly informed about the checking of meter. The complainant gave his consent that his meter be checked by ME lab in his absence. So present amount has been charged from the complainant on account of theft of electricity. The meter was installed after thoroughly checked from the competent authority. The ME lab had declared it fit in all respect to install the meter. The meter was checked as per rules and regulations and instructions of the PSEB. On the basis of the consent of the complainant the meter was checked in the ME Lab. The notice has been issued as per the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. No mental tension or harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant nor the complainant is entitled to any relief. So the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation expenses. So the complaint be dismissed with 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 affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of notice Ex.C-2, copies of bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-35, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-36, copies of bills Ex.C-37 to Ex.C-41 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Bhpinder Kumar SDO PSEB Ex.R-1, copy of checking report Ex.R-2, affidavit of Sukhjinder Singh JE Ex.R-3 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 complainant is not bound to deposit illegal demand of Rs.47,635/- made by the opposite parties vide memo No. 15944 dated 5/12/2006. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the impugned memo is legal and lawful as per the provisions of the Electricity Act. The meter was removed and it was sent to ME Lab for checking. It was reported by ME Lab that meter has been tampered with for the purpose of committing theft of energy. So complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant has received notice Ex.C-2 under the provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act. The opposite parties have reported that meter glass stood tampered. Alongwith the notice the demand of Rs. 47,635/- was made. The complainant as per this notice could submit objections if any within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. Complainant has not submitted objections. He has also not deposited any amount. He has not challenged this notice in any manner before the competent authority i.e. PSEB under the provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. As per provisions of Commercial Circular No. 34/2006 the opposite parties have power to check the electric connections under Section 135 (2) of Electricity Act-2003. Unauthorized use of electricity can be assessed. Under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 the appellate authority can compound the charges in case of theft of electricity under Section 152 of Electricity Act-2003. So complainant was required to approach the opposite parties. He has not done, so the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to challenge this notice in the Consumer Forum. <br /> 11. In such like circumstances commercial circular No. 64 of 2005 with regard to checking of the meter in the ME lab is not helpful to the complainant. So also BSES (Y) Power Ltd. Versus Neeraj Kumar reported in 1 (2207) Consumer Protection Judgments-1 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 /> 12. From the above noted facts and circumstances, it is made out that the opposite parties have not been deficient in providing services to the complainant as the checking report Ex.R-2 has been proved by the witnesses of the opposite parties vide affidavit Ex.R-3 of Sukhjinder Singh and above noted documents relied upon by the parties to the case. So the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. However there is 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: 10/10/2007<br />