Brief facts of the complaint are that Soma Devi was grandmother of complainants who was having electric connection of 5 HP for agriculture purpose having A/C No.A5/538. However Soma Devi died in the year 1975-76 and after her death, her sons Tarlok Chand and Ram Parkash became the owners of the said connection of Tarlok Chand but the connection is still running in the name of Smt.Soma Devi. Hence complainants are LRs of Soma Devi and thus they are consumers of the opposite party Board.. the respondents have issued a letter dated 9/1/2009 pertaining to A/C No.60 dated 9/1/2009 on the name of Soma Devi through Surinder Kumar vide which an illegal demand of Rs.154714/- was raised by the opposite parties on the false allegation of theft of energy as the complainant never committed theft of energy by direct reconnecting the electric motor with rural and urban supply. 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 in which it is pleaded that 5 BHP motor was sanctioned from rural feeder. On 6/1/2009, Sr.Executive Engineer Enforcement, Jalandhar- II visited the premises of consumer Soma Devi and found that consumer has united wires with the help of wooden sticks with LT line of 25 KVA urban feeder and using the supply from both rural and urban feeder with the help of change over switch, whereas the supply was sanctioned from rural feeder and was thus committing theft of energy from urban feeder and opposite parties rightly charged amount of Rs. 154714/- vide memo NO.60 dated 9/1/2009 as compensation of theft of energy as per rules of the department. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 3. In support of his version complainants have produced in evidence affidavits Ex.CA to CC and documents Ex.C1 to C3. 4. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R5. 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 complainants has argued that Soma Devi was grandmother of complainants who was having electric connection of 5 HP for agriculture purpose having A/C No.A5/538. However Soma Devi died in the year 1975-76 and after her death, her sons Tarlok Chand and Ram Parkash became the owners of the said connection and after death of Tarlok Chand and Ram Parkash, the complainants are the owners of the said connection but the connection is still running in the name of Smt.Soma Devi. Hence complainants are LRs of Soma Devi and thus they are consumers of the opposite party Board.. It is further argued that opposite parties have issued a letter dated 9/1/2009 pertaining to A/C No.60 dated 9/1/2009 on the name of Soma Devi through surinder Kumar vide which an illegal demand of Rs.154714/- was made by the opposite parties on the false allegation of theft of energy as the complainant never committed theft of energy by direct reconnecting the electric motor with rural and urban supply. It is further argued that complainant No.1 is Sarpanch of Village Mansoorwal Dona for the last 15 years and the reference under question sent on the name of Soma Devi grandmother of the complainant just to spoil the reputation of complainant and moreso connection of the complainant was never disconnected by the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that complainants are not consumers of the opposite parties Board as 5BHP motor is running in the name of Soma Devi and complainant never submitted fresh A & A form after death of their grandmother. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint. A 5 BHP motor was sanctioned from rural feeder. On 6/1/2009, sr.Executive Engineer Enforcement, Jalandhar- II visited the premises of consumer Soma Devi and found that consumer has also got united wires with the help of wooden sticks with LT line of 25 KVA urban feeder and found using the supply from both rural and urban feeder with the help of change over switch, whereas the supply was sanctioned from rural feeder and was thus committing theft of energy from urban feeder and opposite parties rightly charged amount of Rs. 154714/- vide memo NO.60 dated 9/1/2009 as compensation of theft of energy as per rules of the department. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 6. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. However, we do not find merit in the contentions of counsel for the complainants. Admittedly complainants are having electric connection of 5 BHP for agricultural purpose having A/C No.A5/538 in the name of deceased Soma Devi and are beneficiaries and consumers of the opposite parties under Section 2(i)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. In order to prove their case, opposite parties have produced Ex.R1 checking report dated 6/1/2009 of Sr.Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Jalandhar-II with regard to checking of the premises of the complainant. Ex.R2 is the demand raised by the opposite parties for Rs.154714/- vide memo No.60 dated 9/1/2009 to the complainant on account of alleged theft of electricity. Ex.R3 is reference of opposite parties vide memo dated 16/3/2009 addressed to SHO, PS Sadar Kapurthala to register the case against the complainant on account of theft of energy comm9itted by the complainant. Ex.R5 is affidavit of Er.Satish Pal AAE supported by affidavit of D.K. Sharda Sr.Executive Engineer Enforcement Jalandhar-II wherein it is alleged that complainant was found committing theft of energy while uniting wires with the help of wooden sticks with LT line of 25 KVA urban feeder and using supply from both urban and rural feeder with the help of change over switch whereas supply was sanctioned from rural feeder and alleged that complainant was committing theft of energy from urban feeder and checking party noted their observations in the checking register at page No.39/2102 dated 6/1/2009.as per the opposite parties, Santokh Singh driver representative of the complainants was present at the time of checking and signed the checking report admitting the same to be correct who got copy of the same at the spot 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.. In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion finding no force in the complaint, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties and file be consigned to record room. Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh 2.6.2009 Member Member President.