"Any person who hires or avails of any service for <br /> consideration which has been paid and promised<br /> or partly paid or under any system of deferred payment <br /> who hires or avails of services for consideration <br /> and includes any beneficiary of such service other than <br /> the person who hires or avails of services for consideration<br /> paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised."<br /> It is therefore, explicit from the above definition that complainant being legal heir of his deceased father is consumer/beneficiary and is competent to file the present complaint. Reliance is also placed upon case reported as Surinder Kumar Modi vs. Mukhiya Sachiv & Ors. 2000 (1) CPR 455 in which it was held that :<br /> "Electricity connection though in the name of complainant's<br /> grandmother who had died- Complainant being <br /> beneficiary would fall in definition of consumer though<br /> complainant's name was not registered in Board's record."<br /> 8. Regarding jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to adjudicate the dispute of theft of electric energy , reliance is placed upon a case reported as B.S.E. (s) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Neeraj Kumar wherein it was clearly held that Consumer Forums are competent to settle the dispute relating to theft/dishonest abstraction of electric energy. Supply of electric energy falls in definition of "service" as defined in Section 2(i) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Any dispute arising under provisions of the Electricity Act is consumer dispute. Further every registered consumer of electric energy is a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act ibid has right to challenge allegation of theft of electric energy and denial of such allegation by the opposite party is itself consumer dispute while placing reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as HSEB vs. Mam Chand 2006 CTJ 521 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission and remitted the matter to the State Commission directing that it be decided on the facts of the case in the light of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the light of law laid down above, we hold that Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed question of theft of electric energy.<br /> 9. Apropos legality and validity of impunged memo Ex.R8 dated 18/1/2008 for recovery of Rs.12,000/- as charge of theft of electric energy. This fact is firmly established by Er.Mohinder Ram A.E.E. vide affidavit Ex.R1 and also by Er.Santokh Singh J.E. Ex.R2 that consumer was found committing theft of electric energy by running another two BHP motor unauthorisedly with five BHP authorized motor. He noted his observations in his checking register at Sr. No. 19/108 dated 21/7/2006 and the same was duly signed by the representative of the consumer after admitting its correctness and received copy of checking report at the spot. Earlier amount of Rs.2000/- was deposited by the complainant as surcharge vide receipt dated 31/7/2006. The audit party pointed out to charge Rs.12000/- as compensation charges of theft of energy in the report Ex.R5 dated 18/1/2008 in the light of CC 34/2006 wherein status of corresponding charges in case of theft of electric energy under Section 152 of the Electricity Act was computed as Rs.2000/- per BHP or part thereof of sanctioned load whereas load surcharge for exceeding connected load is to be charged at additional rate of Rs.1000/- per BHP for each default as per Sales Regulation NO.85.7 and this load surcharge should be without prejudice to Board's right to take such appropriate action to restrain the consumer from exceeding his connected load. Counsel for the opposite parties justified the imposition of charges of Rs.12,000/- for theft of electric energy @ Rs.2000/- per BHP or part thereof of the sanctioned load under Section 152 of the Electricity Act,.2003. Section 152 of the Act ibid deals with the compounding of offences for the purpose of immunity from the criminal charge against person under Section 300 Cr.P.C. 1973 on acceptance of some of the money specified in the table under Section 152 of the Act ibid. In the instant case, since the complainant had already acquiesced by deposit of amount of Rs.3000/- as surcharge, so compounding of the charge as laid down in clause (iv) in CC 34/2006 for levying amount of Rs.12,000/- at the rate of Rs.2000/- per BHP or part thereof of the sanctioned load of five BHP was rightly assessed by the audit party vide Ex.R5 dated 18/1/2008 so as to justify the recovery of additional amount of rs.12,000/- vide memo No.60 dated 18/1/2009 Ex.R8 and final assessment order Ex.R8. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the legality of impunged memo Ex.R8 issued to the complainant.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion finding no merit in the complaint, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record oom.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 19/6/2008 Member President.<br />