ORDER

PARAMJIT SINGH (PRESIDENT)

Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing No. X23BD371216M installed at her house having connected load of 3.3 KW and she has been regularly paying the electricity bills. It is further alleged that impunged memo No.1645 dated 24/8/2009 raising demand of Rs.81576/- wrongly claiming therein that some inspection has been made at the premises of the complainant on 20/8/2009 with theft of electricity was found directly being made and meter was allegedly not working at that time. Said notice was never served upon the complainant prior to 31/8/2008 as such disconnection of electric connection without show cause notice or giving opportunity of being heard to the complainant is illegal, wrong and without any right whatsoever and totally uncalled for. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties against which complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement.

3. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to C8.

4. On the other hand opposite arties produced in evidence affidavit 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. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that impunged memo No.1645 dated 24/8/2009 raising demand of Rs.81576/- wrongly claiming therein that some inspection has been made at the premises of the complainant on 20/8/2009 with theft of electricity was found directly being made and meter was allegedly not working at that time. Said notice was never served upon the complainant prior to 31/8/2008 as such disconnection of electric connection without show cause notice or giving opportunity of being heard to the complainant is illegal, wrong and without any right whatsoever and totally uncalled for. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that husband of the complainant who is an employee of Municipal Committee Kapurthala and he was not present at the time of checking, as such complainant immediately sent message to him to meet the office of opposite party NO.2 to know the reasons for disconnection.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has counter argued that on 20/8/2009 the electric connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the Board and complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity by way of directly joining the wire with the joint of PVC passing over the roof of the house of the complainant and the other end of the wire was inserted in the plug installed in the kitchen. They noted their observations in the prescribed register and accordingly complainant was rightly charged amount of Rs.81576/- on account of pilferage of electric energy after compliance with due procedure of the department. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties It is further argued that Jawinder Sigh husband of the complainant present at the spot misbehaved with the checking staff of the opposite parties.

6. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. No doubt complainant has denied committing theft of energy on the alleged date 20/8/2009. Opposite parties have tried to prove their case with preponderance of evidence to substantiate the charge of pilferage of electric energy. there is affidavit Ex.R5 of Rupinder Pal Singh Bhasin SDO supported by another affidavit of Rajiv Kumar JE that on 20/8/2009, they visited the premises of the complainant and checked her connection in her presence and in the presence of her husband Jaswinder Singh and found that complainant was committing theft of energy by way of directly joining the wire with the joint of PVC passing over the roof of the house of the complainant, the other end of the wire was inserted in the plug installed in the kitchen, thus the meter was made stand still whereas the supply was on.. the officials of the checking party alleged that Jaswinder Singh husband of the complainant misbehaved with the checking staff at the time of checking. They noted their observations in the checking register at Sr. No.106 dated 20/8/2009. They have also produced checking report Ex.R1 dated 20/8/2009 depicting vivid description of mode of theft of electricity and refusal of the complainant/her representative to sign the same. Ex.R4 is TDCO dated 21/8/2009 and Ex.R3 is assessment order of the opposite parties under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with sub clause 37 of ESC, 2007 raising demand of Rs.81576/- on account of alleged theft of electricity. Ex.R2 is detail of charges calculated by the opposite parties as 792 units by applying LDH formula and applying tariff for the period of 12 months. But the opposite party has not produced any convincing evidence on the record to prove that complainant has been committing theft of electricity for 12 months proceeding the date of inspection of electric connection of the complainant.. The officials of the checking party had clearly deposed through affidavits Ex.R5 and R6 that Jaswinder Singh husband of the complainant misbehaved with them at the time of checking. Under these circumstances and from the other evidence produced by the opposite parties, the possibility of committing theft of electricity by the complainant cannot be ruled out. As per CC No.53/2006 of the opposite party Board it shall be presumed that alleged theft of electricity has been continued for the period of three months immediately proceeding date of inspection of the checking party vide Ex.R5, we, therefore, direct the opposite parties to revise the impunged memo No.1645 dated 24/8/2009 while calculating compensation of charges of alleged theft of energy for three months instead of calculated for 12 months within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.. However, the parties ae left to bear their own costs.

Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties and file be consigned to record oom.

Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

26.10.2009 Member Member President.