Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant belongs to SC (Bazigar community) category and is consumer of the elctricity connection bearing A/c No. X 24 KJ 430 187 X and as per Punjab Govt. SCheme the facility of 400 units are exempted. Complainant has further argued that on 9/6/2008, opposite party NO.3 Rakesh Kumar JE alongwith other employee visited the house of the complainant and he demanded illegal amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant but the complainant showed his inability to pay the same Again on 11/6/2009 opposite party No.3 visited the house of the complainant and demanded aforesaid illegal amount but the complainant did not pay heed to it and on 12/6/2009, opposite party NO.3 alongwith another employee came to the house of the complainant and disconnected the electric supply forcibly in the absence of the complainant and took away the electric meter with him threatening the family members of the complainant that complainant will have to pay heavy penalty. Resultantly the opposite party Board sent hafty bill amounting to Rs.11906/- dated 5/7/2009 illegally but inspite of approaching XEN PSEB on 13/6/2009, no satisfactory reply has been received till today. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which opposite party has denied any illegal demand of Rs.5000/- ever demanded by Rakesh Kumar JE from the complainant but on the contrary, it is pleaded that on 11/6/2009 opposite party No.3 Rakesh Kumar JE checked the connection of the complainant and found that consumer was committing theft of electricity by joining 2 core flexible wire with the sub main line adjoining the house of the complainant by removing the tape from the joint of the supply line and meter was bye-passed The said JE took into possession the said wire and the checking was conducted in the presence of the consumer and the copy of checking report was given to the consumer who refused to sign the same. and the demand of Rs.11906/- was rightly raised by the opposite parties from the complainant. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 3. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to C7. 4. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.R1 to R6. 5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant belongs to SC (Bazigar community) category and is consumer of the elctricity connection bearing A/c No. X 24 KJ 430 187 X and as per Punjab Govt. SCheme the facility of 400 units are exempted. Complainant has further argued that on 9/6/2008, opposite party NO.3 Rakesh Kumar JE alongwith other employee visited the house of the complainant and he demanded illegal amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant but the complainant showed his inability to pay the same Again on 11/6/2009 opposite party No.3 visited the house of the complainant and demanded aforesaid illegal amount but the complainant did not pay heed to it and on 12/6/2009, opposite party NO.3 alongwith another employee came to the house of the complainant and disconnected the electric supply forcibly in the absence of the complainant and took away the electric meter with him threatening the family members of the complainant that complainant will have to pay heavy penalty. Resultantly the opposite party Board sent hafty bill amounting to Rs.11906/- dated 5/7/2009 illegally but inspite of approaching XEN PSEB on 13/6/2009, no satisfactory reply has been received till today. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. On the other hand opposite parties' counsel has denied any illegal demand of Rs.5000/- ever demanded by Rakesh Kumar JE from the complainant but on the contrary, it is pleaded that on 11/6/2009 opposite party No.3 Rakesh Kumar JE checked the connection of the complainant and found that consumer was committing theft of electricity by joining 2 core flexible wire with the sub main line adjoining the house of the complainant by removing the tape from the joint of the supply line and meter was bye-passed The said JE took into possession the said wire and the checking was conducted in the presence of the consumer and the copy of checking report was given to the consumer who refused to sign the same. and the demand of Rs.11906/- was rightly raised by the opposite parties from the complainant vide memo No.456 dated 11/6/2009 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 6. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We do not find merit in the contentions of counsel for the complainant. No doubt, complainant has denied committing theft of energy on the alleged date 11/6/2009 but we find preponderance of evidence produced by the opposite parties to substantiate the charge of pilferage of electric energy. There is affidavit Ex.R1 of Balwinder Singh SDO supported by another affidavit of Rakesh Kumar JE Ex.R2 deposing that on 11/6/2009 opposite party No.3 Rakesh Kumar JE checked the connection of the complainant and detected that consumer was committing theft of electricity by joining 2 core flexible wire with the sub main line adjoining the house of the complainant by removing the tape from the joint of the supply line and meter was bye-passed The JE took into the possession the said wire nd the checking was conducted in the presence of the consumer and the copy of checking report was given to the consumer who refused to sign the same. and the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 11/6/2009 vide TDCO No. 39/70547 dated 11/6/2009. They have also proved checking report Ex.R3 dated 11/6/2009 depicting vivid description of mode of theft of electricity and refusal of the complainant to sign the same. Further in order to support the charge of theft of electricity there is assessment order Ex.R5 dated 11/6/2009 for imposition of penalty charges of Rs.11906/-. It has been clearly alleged in para 4 of the written statement supported by affidavit Ex.R1 that copy of checking report was given to the complainant at the spot though he refused to sign the same and to that effect on the basis of checking report, notice vide memo No.456 dated 11/6/2009 was served upon the complainant. Regulation No.37 of Sales Regulations 2007 clearly lays down the procedure of theft of electricity cases which has been substantially complied with by the opposite parties. Subsequently assessment order dated 11/6/2009 for imposition of charges as per LDH formula for assessment of electricity consumption under clause 4 of the Regulation No.36 was also served upon the complainant . We do not find any evidence of opposite parties which may smack of any ill will grudge or enmity against the complainant to make out any fabricate case of theft of energy. The version of the complainant with the plea that facility of 400 units are exmpted to him under SC category and remaining consumption within 164-200 units with sanctioned load of 0.60 KW does not support the alleged theft of electricity detected by the opposite parties and imposing penalty there upon the complainant. In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, complaint is hereby dismissed being without merit with no order as to costs. Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties without delay and file be consigned to record room.
Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh 9.10.2009 Member Member President. | 
