<br /> XX XX XX<br /> <br /> "Existence of perfected artificial means to rende abstraction <br /> <br /> possible must be established."<br /> <br /> XX XX XX<br /> <br /> The charge of theft of electricity being criminal offence has to be established by cogent and convincing evidence. In the instant case opposite party Board has simply placed on the record checking report uncorroborated with any independent evidence much less to speak of any official record. Firstly there is no signature of complainant or of even any representative on the checking report as he was alleged to have declined to put sign it. Be that as it may. There is no collateral evidence of PVC wire allegedly used for stealing energy produced. Besides that opposite party has also failed to produce the relevant entry of the checking register at page 1/28 wherein team of task force recorded its observation about theft of energy by the complainant <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> for the reasons best known to it and for which adverse inference can be drawn that if document produced would go unfavourable to it. Again the Provisional Assessment Orders Ex. R2 and R3 are also in violation of Sales Regulation No. 134.4 read with 43.5 as it does not contain details of the amount billed and same was also not notified to the consumer in the form of bill-cum-notice within 48 hours from the date of checking/inspection requiring him to show cause as to why assessed compensation be not recovered from him. The allegation of complainant is also supported by affidavit of Naranjan Singh Ex.C2 and that of Jaspal Kaur Ex.C3 that no such incident had ever taken place on 10/8/2006 about detection of any theft of energy by the complainant. Even if affidavits of these persons may be discarded as of partisan character being neighbourers, still we find glaring infirmities in the evidence of opposite parties to establish charge of pilferage of electricity against the complainant and further infringement of rules prescribed in instructions/circulars and provisions of Sales Regulation.<br /> <br /> 8. There is also no force in the plea of opposite parties that complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum as fraudulent abstraction of electricity is not consumer dispute. To support his version, reliance is placed upon case reported as 2003 (III) CLT 438 Delhi Vidyut board vs. B.C. Julka and also another case reported as Smt.Anita Khadal vs. Kanishth Abhiyanta Rajasthan State Electricity and also Hon'ble Apex Court decision reported as 2005 (vi) CLT 372 H.S.E.B. vs. Mam Chand. However, in our considered opinion authorities cited above are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 clearly provides that relief in the consumer dispute is in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, Civil Court does not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum in case of dispute of theft of energy under the Consumer Protection Act. Reference is also made to latest case of Delhi State Commission in 1 (2007) CPJ B.S.E.B. ( India) Power Ltd. vs. Neeraj Kumar that <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Consumer Courts have powers to settle the dispute relating to theft/dishonest abstraction of electric energy. The supply of electric energy falls under the definition of (Services) as defined in section 2(i)(o) of the Act, any dispute arises under the provisions of Electricity Act is consumer dispute, further any registered consumer of electric energy is consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the ACt. He has right to challenge allegation of theft of electric energy, denial or dispute such allegation by the Electricity Board is itself a consumer dispute. Therefore, Consumer Fora has the jurisdiction to try such dispute. Apropos case HSEB vs. Mam Chand (supra) no final decision was returned by the Hon'ble Apex Court as case was remanded to Haryana State Commission for deeper consideration of the dispute.<br /> <br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we quash the provisional assessment order Ex.R2 and R3 and also impunged bill dated 11/11/2006 to the extent of Rs.12000/- showin as sundry charges and direct opposite parties to recover only lawful charges from the amount of Rs.4000/- deposited by the complainant vide interim order dated 24/11/2006 passed by this Forum and refund balance with interest $ 12% from the date of deposit till realisation. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment alongwith Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. Opposite parties are directed to comply with above directions within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<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 room.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Announced : ( Sushma Handoo) ( Sudha Sharma ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> <br /> 3.7.2007 Member Member President.<br />