Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is running electric connection bearing A./C No.X12SP120614X of SP category installed in his flour mill situated at Village Mansoorwal Dona and is paying the electricity bills regularly and is consumer of the opposite parties. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that complainant on 13/2/2009 had received letter/memo pertaining to A/C No. 65 dated 14/1/2009 on the name of Surinder Kumar Shinda son of Tarlok Chand vide which an illegal demand of Rs.215371/- was made by the opposite parties on the false allegation of theft of energy. as the complainant never committed theft of electricity by joining electric wire direct from the LT Lines and moreso no checking, whatsoever, was conducted by any officer/official of the opposite parties nor complainant was ever informed about the checking. Hence act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part against which complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party who appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which it is pleaded that no electric connection has been released to the complainant in his Dera or quarters for labourers. Only one number connection of SP category bearing A/c No. .X12SP120614X stands released in the name of complainant which could not be checked at the time of checking by Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement Jalandhar II on 6/1/2009 as the premises was found locked. Complainant however was found using load of 8.452 KW connecting directly from the LT lines in the premises of dera and quarters of labourers with the help of Kundi attached with the LT line of 25 KV transformer Surinder Kumar Wala and besides completing remaining formalities, consumer was asked vide memo No. 65 dated 14/1/2009 to deposit Rs.215371/- as compensation of theft of energy as per rules of the department and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 3. n support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits Ex.CA to CC and documents Ex.C1 to C4.<br /> 4. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex. R1 to R6.<br /> 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 is running electric connection bearing A./C No.X12SP120614X of SP category installed in his flour mill situated at Village Mansoorwal Dona and is paying the electricity bills regularly and is consumer of the opposite parties. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that complainant on 13/2/2009 had received letter/memo pertaining to A/C No. 65 dated 14/1/2009 on the name of Surinder Kumar Shinda son of Tarlok Chand vide which an illegal demand of Rs.215371/- was made by the opposite parties on the false allegation of theft of energy. as the complainant never committed theft of electricity by joining electric wire direct from the LT Lines and moreso no checking, whatsoever, was conducted by any officer/official of the opposite parties nor complainant was ever informed about the checking. Counsel for the complainant also argued that opposite parties have levelled false allegation of theft of energy but no FIR has been lodged as per clause 133.1 of Sales Regulations and as per the clause 5.14 and connection of complainant was never disconnected at any time. Had any checking has been conducted by the opposite parties, electric connection must have disconnected and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. <br /> On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has counter-argued that no electric connection has been released to the complainant in his Dera or quarters for labourers. Only one number connection of SP category bearing A/c No. .X12SP120614X stands released in the name of complainant which could not be checked at the time of checking by Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement Jalandhar II on 6/1/2009 as the premises was found locked. Complainant however was found using load of 8.452 KW connecting directly from the LT lines in the premises of Dera and quarters of labourers with the help of Kundi attached with the LT line of 25 KV transformer Surinder Kumar Wala and besides completing remaining formalities, consumer was asked vide memo No. 65 dated 14/1/2009 to deposit Rs.215371/- as compensation of theft of energy as per rules of the department and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 6. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties However, we do not find any merit in the contentions of counsel for the complainant. Admittedly complainant is having electric connection of SP category installed to run his flour mill situated at Village Mansoorwal Dona bearing A/c No. X12SP120614X. In order to prove their case opposite parties have produced Ex.R1 checking report No.38/2102 dated 6/1/2009 of Sr.Executive engineer Enforcement Jalandhar II with regard to checking of the premises of the complainant. Ex.R4 is the TDCO No.023/54726 dated 12/1/2009 and disconnection of connection of complainant is shown on 13/1/2009. Ex.R5 is the affidavit of Er.Satish Pal AAE supported by affidavit of Er.D.K. Sharda Sr.Executive Engineer Enforcement Jalandhar II, Ex.R6 wherein it is alleged that complainant was found committing theft of energy by getting direct supply with the help of Kundi attached with the LT lines of 25 KV transformer of Surinder Singh Wala of his Dera and also quarters for Bhayas/labourers connecting directly load of 8.451 KW and noted his observations in the checking register No.38/2102 dated 6/1/2009. As per the opposite parties the representative of complainant Santokh Singh driver present at the spot at the time of checking who signed the checking report admitting same to be correct and received the same at the spot. Ex.R2 is the demand raised by the opposite parties of Rs.215371/- from the complainant on account of alleged theft of energy found committed by the complainant. Ex.R3 is the reference made by the opposite party No.2 to SHO PS Sadar, Kapurthala to register the case against the complainant on account of alleged theft of energy. We do not find any illwill smack or grudge on the part of opposite parties with the complainant to fabricate false case of theft of electricity against the complainant and vide Ex.C3, the reply submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties No.2 is not supporting evidence to the version of complainant to revoke the action of opposite parties to recover the penalty on account of alleged theft of energy committed by the complainant..<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion finding no force in the complaint, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties and file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh<br /> 2.6.2009 Member Member President.