Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by Gurinder Pal Singh son of Niranjan Singh complainant against opposite parties i.e. PSEB, Patiala through its Chairman and also Assistant Executive Engineer, PSEB Nadala, Tehsil Bholath District Kapurthala to assail impunged bill dated 17/2/2008 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. Niranjan Singh ( now deceased ) father of the complainant wa getting electricity vide A/c No. X24K 230192 W from the opposite party PSEB and complainant being son has been availing electricity services from opposite parties on payment of electricity bills regularly after death of his father on 2/9/1999. Complainant has however, assailed legality and validity of impunged bill dated 17/2/2008 which is contrary to the Sales Regulations and provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. He has refuted allegation of theft of electric energy as no checking, whatsoever, was conducted nor any theft of electric energy wa detected in the house of complainant nor any notice was issued to him. In fact complainant has installed a generator for getting energy and wire of the generator was connected with wire of the energy inside the house of the complainant which was objected to by the opposite party Board. 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 electric connection is in the name of Niranjan Singh. It is denied that Niranjan Singh has expired and that electricity bills are now being paid by the complainant. On merits opposite party Board has defended legality and validity of impunged bill dated 17/2/2008 for recovery of Rs,. 7718/- as sundry charges on account of theft of electric energy by the consumer as per checking report dated 13/12/2007 of Assistant Executive Engineer when he checked the connection of the consumer on 13/12/2007 alongwith Mohinder Singh JE and Nirmal Singh JE and detected that consumer was committing theft of electric energy by taking electricity supply through a red colour wire by bye-passing the meter and resultantly provisional assessment order vide notice No.1504 dated 14/12/2007 and also final notice No.94 dated 31/1/2008 for recovery of Rs.7718/- was served upon the consumer but no reply to the provisional assessment notice was given by the complainant. Therefore, electric connection of the consumer was rightly disconnected temporarily vide TDCO No. 98/70549 dated 3/3/2008 which consumer refused to sign . Therefore, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for recovery of penalty amount of Rs.7718/- under sundry charges in the impunged bill dated 17/2/2008.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and bill dated 17/2/2008 Ex.C2 and copy of death certificate Ex.C3.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.R1 to R8.<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.C2 dated 17/2/2008 for recovery of penalty charges of Rs.7718/-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.R8 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. 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 theft of electric energy by the complainant as per rules and circulars of the Board and penalty amount of 7718/- was rightly slapped upon the complainant for theft of electric energy.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. No doubt amount of Rs.7718/- is sought to be fastened upon the complainant under the head of sundry charges and allowances on the allegation of committing theft of electricity vide impunged bill dated 17/2/2008 and sought to be proved through affidavit Ex.R4 of Mohinder Singh JE one of the member of the team headed by Sukhwinder Singh Assistant Executive Engineer PSEB. Admittedly Balwinder Singh is not member of the raiding party. He has simply narrated the incident about theft of electric energy vide affidavit Ex.R1. Complainant has refuted the allegation of theft of electric energy as no checking whatsoever, was conducted in his presence or in the presence of his representative. Admittedly checking reportEx.R2 dated 13/12/2007 does not bea signatures of the complainant or his representative but there is only refusal to sign. However Mohinder Singh JE vide affidavit Ex.R4 has not stated <br /> anything that complainant/his representative refused to sign the checking report . He has simply stated that consumer was committing theft of electricity by taking electricity supply through a red colour wire by bye-passing the meter. 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 i.e. red colour wire for bye-passing the meter 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 moreso; when no incriminating articles i.e. red colour wire allegedly used by the complainant in stealing energy was taken into custody as corroborative piece of evidence as per checking report Ex..R2 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 17/2/2008 to the extent of Rs.7718/- 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 refund amount of Rs.2500/- already deposited by the complainant in terms of the stay order dated 11/3/2008 of this Forum with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation with further direction to the opposite parties to pay monetary compensation amounting to Rs.5000/- 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 : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 17/7/2008 Member President