Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Sarwan Singh son of Attar Singh against opposite parties i.e. PSEB, The Mall Patiala through its Chairman and other functionaries to assail impunged final order of assessment vide notice No. 1435 dated 28/11/2007 for recovery of penalty amount of Rs. 52265/- being illega, null and void and contrary to the provisions of Sales Regulations and instructions of PSEB and further monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that complainant has got an electric connection bearing A/c No. 37/971 under NTS category. He has assailed impunged provisional order of assessment dated 25/10/2007 for recovery of penalty amount for committing pilferage of electric energy being illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisionns of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also to CC No.53/2006 because no checking of the premises of the complainant, whatsoever, was conducted nor any incriminating articles for stealing energy were taken into possession nor any complaint about theft of electric energy was lodged with the Police. He has controverted the allegation of theft of electric energy. Even he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing final order of assessment. He has, therefore, not only claimed quashment of impunged final assessment order but also monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service and for causing mental agony and physical harassment.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. On merits legality and validity of impunged assessment order dated 28/11/2007 has been defended on account of established case of pilferage of electric energy by the complainant and for recovery of penalty amount of Rs.52265/- because Senior Executive Egnineer (Enforcement) Kapurthala conducted checking of the premises of the complainant on 17/10/2007 and found complainant committing theft of electric energy of 4.160 KW load excess to the sanctioned load of 1.43 KW. Complainant was committing theft of electricity by connecting a service line wire having two wires with the naked joint of main service connection and by connecting the same with 4 No.15 Amp power plugs and 1 No.lamp load as detailed in ECR No.11/92. The Account of the complainant was overhauled as per CC No. 53/2006 and amount of Rs.52265/- was claimed as compensation on account of theft of unauthorized use of electricity. Complainant failed to give any satisfactory reply to the provisional assessment order No.1353 dated 25/10/2007 and final order of assessment was rightly and justifiably passed. He has not filed any appeal against the final order of assessment and electric connection of the complainant was temporarily disconnected vide TDCO No. 34/61413 dated 19/12/2007 effected on 19/12/2007. He failed to deposit the amount of compensation as per rules and circulars of the Board on account of which electric connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No. 24/49844 dated 21/1/2008 effected on 25/1/2008. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties to recover penalty charges on account of pilferage of electricity by the complainant.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C6.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.R1 to R9.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. The main plank of arguments of learned counsel for the complainant is that impunged assessment order Ex.R5 dated 28/11/2007 for recovery of penalty charges of Rs.52265/- slapped by the opposite party Board upon the complainant is illegal, null and void being in contravention of CC No.53/2006 Ex.R8 and also Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 because entire proceedings were conducted in illegal and arbitrary manner unilaterally without providing any opportunity of filing explanation and personal hearing. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has counter-argued that entire proceedings were conducted about checking of premises of the complainant and detection of theft of electric energy by the complainant as per rules and circulars of the Board and penalty amount of Rs.52265/- was rightly slapped upon the complainant for theft of electric energy.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find considerable merit in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. No doubt, Assistant Executive Engineer Balwinder Singh reiterated allegations about theft of electric energy by the complainant and detection thereof by the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement ) on 17/10/2007 and also using of excess load. He further alleged that complainant was found committing theft of electric energy by connecting a service line wire having two wires with the naked joint of main service connection and by connecting the same with 4 No.15 Amp power plugs and 1 No. lamp load i.e. in the theft of 4.160 KW load .The perusal of checking report Ex.R2 dated 17/10/2007 does not bears signatures of complainant nor even of his representative nor even their refusal to sign the same. . Even affidavit of Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) namely <br /> Er. Sandeep Kumar Ex.R9 to support the allegation of pilferage of electricity and using excess load of electric energy than the sanctioned load is not corroborated by any independent evidence of collateral evidence. His entire proceedings were conducted in arbitrary and unilateral manner without knowledge of complainant or even his representative because checking report Ex.R2 does not bear their signatures or even their refusal.. It has been invariably held in a case reported as Harbhajan Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board RCR 133 that charge of theft of electricity being criminal offence has to be established by cogent and convincing evidence. Mere allegation of pilferage of electricity by the officials of the PSEB is not suffice to establish the same moreso; when no incriminating articles i.e. neutral and PVC wire allegedly used by the complainant in stealing energy was taken into custody as corroborative piece of evidence as per checking report Ex..R2 though later on there was improved version by the opposite parties in their written statement. There is clear cut violation of mandatory provisions under sub clauses (e) (f) (g) and (h) of clause (3) and clause (5) of CC No.53/2006 for not providing opportunity of personal hearing after filing of alleged reply to the notice by the complainant. But these theft allegations have been repeated by Balwinder Singh vide affidavit Ex.R1 who was not member of the raiding party/team and as such no sanctity can be attached to his affidavit. There is also no corroborate evidence regarding incriminating articles allegedly used by the complainant in committing theft of electric energy.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we quash the impunged provisional assessment order Ex.R5 being illegal, null and void and contrary to the Sales Regulations and provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service for causing mental agony and physical harassment and costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<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 /> 17.7.2008 Member President.