Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Paramjit Singh against PSEB, the Mall Patiala through its Chairman and other functionaries by assailing impunged bills dated 7/4/2007 and 4/12/2007 being illegal, null and void and contrary to the Sales Regulations and provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is having electric connection bearing A/c No.X23 BC29/0018-L A installed in his residential house at village Ibban, Tehsil and District Kapurthala. He has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the opposite party Board. It is alleged that in the month of April, 2007 he received a bill dated 7/4/2007 amounting to Rs.13,880/-as arrears without any notice. He inquired about the fairness of the bill dated 7/4/2007 amounting to Rs.7400/- upon which opposite party Board corrected the bill and received Rs.2970/- as actual consumption charges of electricity. He received another bill dated 8/10/2007 amounting to Rs.17140/- which was also corrected by the opposite party Board and further received bill dated 4/12/2007 showing arrears which is illegal, null and void and opposite party threatened to disconnect his electric connection in the event of failure to deposit the impunged charges.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. . The factum of having electric connection in question and paying electricity bills by the complainant is not disputed. However, opposite party has defended legal9ity and validity of impunged bills because complainant was detected on 17/10/2006 having committed theft of electricity by installing a six BHP submersible motor without getting any saction of submersible motor from the opposite party and a switch starter of which was affixed in the house of the complainant. A report in this respect was made at page No.16 book No.169 in the Enforcement checking register by the officials of the inspection party.. The representative of the complainant also signed and received the checking report.. The complainant was found committing theft of energy by installing a six BHP submersible motor. As such compensation of Rs.2000/- per BHP total Rs.12000/- was levied in the bill of Feb.2007 and actual consumption of this month was billed for Rs. 810/- and surcharge of Rs.1274 leviable in the event of non payment of the bill.. Vide letter No.2645 dated 20/4/2007 A.S.E. Suburban Division Kapurthala directed the SDO Sub division Kapurthala to recover the disputed amount from the complainant as per commercial circular No.53/2006. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impunged bill nor there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the complainant was himself blameworthy.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits Ex.CA and CB and bills Ex.C1 to C3.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit Ex.RA1 and documents Ex.R1 to R4.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that impunged bills dated 7/4/2007, 8/10/2007 and 4/12/2007 are illegal, null and void being contrary to the PSEB's instructions vide CC 53/06 dated 17/10/2006 Ex.R4 inasmuch as no case of theft of energy was established without any convincing evidence nor procedure as envisaged in the aforesaid instructions was complied with. On the other hand it has been counter-argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that pilferage of electricity has been firmly established vide checking report Ex.R1 dated 17/10/2006 vide which complainant was found committing theft of electric energy by installing six BHP submersible motor and penalty assessed thereon was duly shown as arrears in the bills Ex.C1, C2 and C3 and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties . We find considerable substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. Complainant clearly alleged in para-2 of affidavit Ex.CA that bill Ex.C2 dated 7/4/2007 amounting to Rs.13,880/- indicated in the column of arrears amount of Rs.13274/- without any notice arbitrarily . He has not received any letter from the opposite party regarding details of the amount charged in the bill under arrears column and later on bill was corrected and received bill of Rs.2970/- as actual consumption charges of electricity . Again in the bill dated 4/12/2007, amount of Rs.7400/- was shown payable while indicating arrears of Rs. 17748/-. On the other hand opposite party has tried to justify imposition of penalty amount of Rs.12000/- on account of installation of six BHP submersible motor by committing theft of electric energy as per affidavit Ex.RA1 of Anand Singh AEE. We find grave infirmities and lack of convincing evidence to establish case of theft of electric energy. Firstly, checking report Ex.R1 is not proved to be signed by the consumer or his representative and his identity also not established. Secondly, even the officials and other accompanied team members have not filed any affidavits to establish case of theft of electric energy by installing six BHP submersible motor without any sanction from the opposite party. Opposite party cannot derive any advantage from stray version in the complaint Ex.R2 that no electric motor was used after 17/10/2006 when in fact he has agitated about transfer of his connection despite payment of fee. The perusal of audit note Ex.R3 only deals with the error in the assessment of the charges and difference of amount of of Rs.5341/-. We find blatant infraction of the procedure envisaged in the instructions Ex.R4 vide CC 53/06 about signing of the inspection report by the Assessment Officer and each member of the inspection team duly signed by the consumer or his representative at the site and thereafter passing the provisional assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and after receipt of explanation/reply , final order for assessment and affording opportunity of personal hearing. No notice, whatsoever, has been issued to the opposite party by way of provisional assessment in case of charge of theft of electricity but on the other hand amount was shown as arrears in the impunged bills which is contrary to the letter and spirit of instructions Ex.R4<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we find impunged bills illegal, null and void and contrary to the PSEB's instructions and provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such same are hereby quashed. Complainant is also awarded amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant payable by oppoisite parties within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> <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 /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 3.7.2008 Member President.