Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is a partnership firm running its Petrol PUmp and has taken electricity connection bearing No.G.P. 24/0491 at the said filling station and and has been paying the electricity bills regularly. It is further alleged that officials of the opposite parties used to visit the filling station expecting free refill of petrol and diesel for their vehicles which was not accepted by the complainant upon which they have threatened to teach a lesson to the complainant.

That on 27.7.2009, when none of the representatives of the complainant was available at the filling station, some employees of the Board came to the filling station and removed the electric meter and took away the same in their bag by replacing the same with a fresh meter. Neither signatures of any representative of complainant were obtained nor any notice in writing was given to the complainant at that time.. That on 29/7/2009, some officials of the opposite parties came to the site and disconnected the electric supply without citing any reason. The representative of the complainant visited the office of opposite parties and asked for reason of disconnection but he did not get any concrete response. That on 3/8/2009 complainant was shocked to receive letter/memo No. 824 dated 29/7/2009 in which complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1,25,498/- on account of theft of electricity to allow the reconnection of supply/ The said demand raised by the opposite parties is totally wrong, illegal, and arbitrary and is against rules and regulations of the Board. Thus there is clear cut 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 taking preliminary objection that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that Er.Nirmal Singh AAE alongwith Gurdeep Singh JE and Charan Singh AJE on 27/7/2009 visited the premises of the complainant and checked the connection in the presence of representative of the complainant namely sanjay and Pawan Kumar and found that complainant after tampering with M & T seals has opened the meter and after tampering it by way of disturbing the internal mechanism so that meter may not show actual consumption and reaffixed the meter. Thus he was committing theft of energy. They noted their observations in the checking register at page 37/625. The representative of the consumer received the copy of checking at the spot but refused to sign the same. A detailed memo vide No.824 dated 29/7/2009 was sent to the complainant raising demand of Rs.1,25,498/-. A separate letter vide memo No. 823 dated 29/7/2009 was sent to SHO PS Lohian for registration of case against the complainant.. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

3. In support of his version complainant produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to C7.

4. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R8.

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 before us that complainant was surprised to receive memo No. 824 dated 29/7/2009 of the opposite parties on 3/8/2009 wherein complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1,25,498/- within a week and the demand raised by the opposite parties is totally wrong, illegal and uncalled as there was no case of theft of electricity nor breaking nor M & T seals were ever broken as alleged by the officers of the PSEB. It is further argued that there is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the opposite parties without any rhyme and reason disconnected the connection of the complainant and imposed wrong penalty detailed as above for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties counter argued that Er. Nirmal Singh AAE alongwith Gurdeep Singh JE and Charan Singh AJE visited the premises of the complainant on 27/7/2009 and checked the connection in the presence of representative of consumer namely Sanjay and Pawan Kumar and found that after tampering with the M & T seals and by way of disturbing the internal mechanism of the meter was committing theft of energy. It was further argued that representative of the complainant received copy of the checking report at the spot and thereafter assessment order vide memo NO.824 dated 29/7/2009 was issued to the complainant to deposit Rs.1,25,498/- as compensation amount of theft of energy as per standing instructions of the department, after completing all the usual formalities under the regulation. It was further argued that it is wrong to allege that officials of the opposite party used to visit the filling station of complainant expecting refilling of petrol and diesel and opposite parties never threatened the complainant to teach a lesson to the complainant. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. Admittedly complainant is a partnership firm running its petrol pump after taking license from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Madhu Bala is one of the partner and is fully conversant with the facts of the case. The complainant for running petrol pump has taken electric connection bearing No.G.P. 24/0491 in the said filling station and is regularly paying the electricity bills. The checking report Ex.R3 prepared

by the checking party headed by Er.Nirmal Singh AAE Sub Division Sultanpur No.2 of the opposite party supported by affidavit of Er.Gurdeep Singh JE Ex.R2 wherein it is alleged that they checked the connection of the complainant in the presence of representative of consumer namely Sanjay and Pawan Kumar on 22/7/2009 and complainant was fond indulging in theft of energy after tampering with M & T seals by way of disturbing internal mechanism so that meter may not record actual consumption and he reaffixed the meter. As per the opposite parties, representative of the complainant received the copy of checking report at the spot but did not sign the checking report. Ex.R6 is the MCO No.069/81788 dated 27/7/2009 vide which opposite party had replaced the old meter of the complainant while installing new meter

and the column meant for signatures of the complainant is left blank and it appears that old meter was not replaced in the presence of complainant or his representative. Ex.R7 is the TDCO NO.074/40269 dated 30/7/2009 regarding disconnection of connection of the complainant temporarily on account of alleged theft committed by the complainant. Ex.R5 is the reference memo No. 823 dated 29/7/2009 of the opposite party No.2 sent to SHO PS Lohian Khas for registration of case against the complainant. Ex.R4 is the assessment order of the opposite parties under section 126/135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 raising demand of Rs.1,25,498/- from the complainant.

Opposite parties have not produced any evidence to the effect that old replaced meter was ever packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant or his authorized representative and also there is no evidence on the record to show that replaced meter was ever sent to ME Lab to get the same tested from the Lab. The assessment order dated 29/7/2009 of the opposite parties raising demand of Rs.1,25,498/- on account of theft of electricity based on the checking report of the officials of the opposite parties vide Ex.R3.

Under these circumstances it is not understood that in the absence of test report of the ME Lab, how the opposite parties imposed the penalty upon the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon a case reported as H.S.W.E.B. ( now HVPN) and others Versus Bhushan Lal 2007(1) CLT page 114 wherein it is held that :'

" Electric Supply- Theft of energy- Allegation by

applicant that on raiding premises of respondent

both M & T seals were found tampered with and terminal

seal was missing. The meter was not got checked

from M & T Laboratory that it was running slow

or was not running properly- From the mere fact

that seals were tampered with, it cannot be said that

theft of energy had been committed- District Forum rightly

held that it is not proved that respondent had committed

theft of energy and as suh quashed penalty."

Since the meter was not got checked from the ME Lab before imposing penalty whether it was running slow or it was not running properly or complainant had tampered both M & T seals of the meter, mere allegation of pilferage of electric energy by the opposite parties on the alleged facts that seals were tampered with in the absence of corroborative evidence of testing report from the ME Lab, it cannot be held that complainant had committed theft of electricity.

In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we quash memo No.824 dated 29/7/2009 raising demand of Rs.1,25,498/- from the complainant being illegal null and void and contrary to the provisions of Electricity act, 2003. We direct opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- for mental agony and harassment caused due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties besides Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.

Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced : Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

18.9.2009 Member Member President