Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh. M.S.Brar counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Raj Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful sundry charges of Rs.6453/- raised vide letter bill dated 23/1/2007 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having an domestic electric connection bearing account No. TH-57/0118 with a sanctioned load of 0.46 KWs. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when received by the complainant and at present nothing is due towards the complainant on account of consumption charges. The complainant has received a bill issued on 23/1/2007 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.6453/- as sundry which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. No detail of the sundry charges has been given in the bill as to which item the alleged amount relates to. No notice or supplementary bill as required under the PSEB rules has been given in the notice. After receipt of the bill the complainant approached the Revenue Accountant of the office of the opposite party No.2 and enquired about the detail of the sundry charges but the Revenue Accountant miserably failed to give any detail of the amount. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 with the request to withdraw the amount of sundry charges and further allow the complainant to deposit the current consumption bill only but the opposite party No. 2 did not agree with the complainant, rather has threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case the amount of sundry as charged is not deposited with the current consumption bill which amounts to clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties, besides above the complainant also claims a sum of Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8/2/2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the connection of the complainat was checked on 5/11/2005 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura. The consumer was found indulging in the theft of the electric energy. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present theft case. On merits the opposite parties submitted that the loan of the consumer was checked and found 2.752 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.460 KW. The consumer was found using 2.292 KW excess load. It is admitted that the bill dated 23/1/2007 was issued by charging Rs.6453/-. The connection of the complainant was checked on 5/11/2005 by Sh. V.K.Bansal Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura alongwith J.Es while checking the connection, it was found that the terminal block of the meter was burnt. After removing the grip, the consumer was found using the electric supply by bypassing the meter by way of loop connecting the income supply by bypassing the meter. At the time of checking the load was also checked and detail of the load is fully mentioned in the checking report. The checking report was prepared at the time of the checking. The Assistant Xen alongwith JEs also signed the said checking report. The checking was conducted in the presence of the consumer, but he refused to sign the report. A note of this effect was also given on the checking report. The copy of the checking report was given to the complainant at the time of the checking. A notice vide memo No. 2666 dated 7/11/2005 was issued vide registered post giving full details of the amount charged and the reasons for charging the amount were also mentioned in the notice. The consumer visited the office of the PSEB and demanded the detail of the amount charged through the sundry charges and allowance register. The consumer visited the office of the PSEB after the receipt of the notice. The detail of the full amount was given in the notice sent to the consumer. The amount was charged in the bill through sundry charges and allowances register as per rules and regulations of the Board. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant is not entitled for any compensation of Rs.20,000/- and also not entitled to any litigation expenses of Rs.2500/- as he has filed the complaint on false and fictitious grounds. So the complaint be dismissed with costs.<br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 23/1/2007 Ex.C-2, supplementary afffidavit of the complainant Ex.C-3, additional copy of reply dated 12/1/2006 Ex.C-4, copy of courier receipt dated 12/1/2006 Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence afffidavit of Sh. V.K.Bansal AEE City Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura Ex.R-1, notice memo No. 2666 dated 7/11/2005 Ex.R-2, checking report dated 5/11/2005 Ex.R-3, affidavit of Sh. Sohan Lal J.E. City Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura Ex.R-4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite parties have issued bill dated 23/1/2007 for payment of Rs.6453/- as sundry charges. This amount is illegal and unlawful without any details. So the complaint is not entitled to make the payment of the same. <br /> 9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has been committing theft of energy. He also have shifted the meter himself without intimating the opposite parties. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the bill Ex.C-2 it is made out that the opposite parties have made demand of Rs.6453/- as sundry charges vide bill dated 23/1/2007. <br /> 11. From the perusal of the checking report Ex.R-3 it is made out that the opposite parties checked the connection of the complainant on 5/11/2005. They found the complainant to have uprooted the electric meter from his house and have installed the same himself in a house outside of the village. The connection is being used by the complainant by putting the load. Sanctioned load is 0.46 KWs but he had put the load of 2.752 KWs which includes 2 H.P. electric motor. This checking report has been signed by the complainant himself. After calculating of the amount payable by the complainant to the opposite parties on account of theft and excessive load the opposite parties sent notice Ex.R-2 to the complainant for making demand of Rs.7148/- including above noted sundry charges. It is also reported by the opposite parties in the checking report Ex.R-3 that incoming terminal of the meter block stood burnt. The complainant has put a loop to bypass the running of the meter. So he committing theft of energy. <br /> 12. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is made out that afffidavit Ex.C-1 of Raj Singh to substaintiate his complaint is not helpful to the complainant. In view of the afffidavit Ex.R-1 of Sh. V.K.Bansal AEE City Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura who checked the electric connection of the complainant on 5/11/2005. The testimony of the opposite parties proves documents of theft prepared at the spot. Sohan Lal JE who was present with the checking officer have submitted his afffidavit Ex.R-4. So theft of electricity have been proved by the opposite parties. There is no animosty of any kind of the witnesses of the opposite parties with the complainant. It is not on the file as to why the opposite parties are deposing against the complainant. <br /> 13. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is made out that the opposite parties have proved theft of energy committed by the complainant with cogent and reliable evidence. In these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant. So the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 13/11/2007<br />