1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto <br /> 2002 against the opposite parties/Board claiming that connection No.379366 bearing account No. GM-38/0233 is installed at his residential house situated at village Kamalpur, P.O. Mothanwala, Tehsil Sultanpur, District Kapurthala. It is alleged by the complainant that he had installed 3/4 power motor at water pump (gear box) for carrying out the water in the water tank installed at the roof of his house. It is alleged by the complainant that one Jarnail resident of his village, is employee of the P.S.E.B. and he is posted at village Bhoor and when the Panchayat election was held in the month of May, 2008, Hardial Singh brother of Jarnail Singh contested the election for the post of panch who was a congress candidate, but the complainant was supporting Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) party. It is alleged by the complainant Jarnail Singh threatened the complainant that he and his family members should cast their votes in favour of his brother, otherwise they would face the dire consequences in future. It is alleged by the complainant that in the month of June, 2008, he started constructing new rooms at his own house and did not use the unauthorized connection, but he obtained watr from his native maternal brother namely Jarnail Singh for construction. It is alleged by the complainant that on 5/7/2008, J.E. Kewal Krishan and Jarnail Singh were passing in front of the house of complainant. J.E. checked another house, but did not check the house of complainant. And Jarnail Singh who was accompanied with the said J.E., pointed out his house with finger to J.E. It is alleged that on the next day i.e. 6.7.2008 J.E. Kewal krishan came to his house and demanded Rs.15,000/- as illegal <br /> <br /> gratification. When the complainant refused to accede his illegal and unjust demand, he threatened him that he will involve the complainant in a case of theft of electricity and will impose a heavy bill upon him. It is alleged by the complainant that thereafter he received Memo No. 1230 dated 10.7.2008 from the office of S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division No.1, Sultanpur Lodhi, levelling false allegations of theft of energy and imposed a penalty of Rs.19,631/- upon him for which the respondents have no right. It is alleged by the complainant he approached the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and narrated th whole story to them, but to no effect. Thus, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the present complaint. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to withdraw the bill dated 10.7.2008 for Rs.19631/-, not to disconnect the electric connection No.379366 bearing account No. GM-38/0233 is installed at his residential house situated at village Kamalpur, also to award Rs.15000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objection that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is alleged by the opposite parties that Er. K.K. Wahi, J.E. visited the premises of the complainant on 5.7.2008 and found that the complainant was using electricity unauthorizedly for construction purpose. They noted their observation in checking register No. 50/535 dated 5.7.08. The complainant was present at the spot and he received a copy of the <br /> <br /> checking at that time. It is alleged by the opposite parties that complainant is liable to pay double tariff for 12 months as per Annexure-8 of Regulation 36 of the Electricity Supply Code of 2007 and Section 126 of Electricity Act on account of unauthorized use of electricity. On merit, all the allegations levelled in the complaint have been emphatically denied by the opposite parties and similar facts reiterated on merit as mentioned in the preliminary objections and it is prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence<br /> affidavits Ex.CA, Ex.CB and Ex.CC besides copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. <br /> 4. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite parties has <br /> tendered into evidence affidavit of SDO Malkiat Singh Ex.R1 alongwith various copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8 affidavit of Jarnail Singh Foreman Ex.R9 and affidavit of K.K. Vahi Ex.R10<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that during th month of June,2008 complainant started constructing new room at his house but he never used 3/4 motor installed at the roof of his house for water pump from his domestic connection No.376366 bearing A/c No.38/0233 and has been paying the bills. The required water used for construction work was managed from the house of his native maternal brother Jarnail Singh. In support of his contentions he has produced evidence of Jarnail Singh son of Teja Singh through affidavit Ex.CC and also produced photocopies of energy bills dated 20/9/2008, 20/1/2008, 20/3/2008 and 20/7/2008 vide Ex.C2 to C5 and has argued that had the complainant having using 3/4 motor from his electric connection for construction purpose then there must have been increase of consumption of electricity in his energy bills during and thereafter June 2007 vide Ex.C2 to C5. He has further argued that on 5/7/2007 Kewal Krishan JE and Jarnail Singh of the opposite parties while passing in front of the house of the complainant, JE Kewal Krishan did not check the house of the complainant but checked another house. Thereafter on th next day i.e. on 6/7/2008 JE Kewal Krishan visited the house of the complainant and demanded Rs.15000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant and when complainant refused to oblige JE, he threatened complainant to plant case of theft of electricity against him. He has further argued that at the time when election of Panchayat was held in the month of May,2008 complainant supported Kulbir Kaur wife of Baljit Singh a candidate of shiromani Akali Dal Badal party whereas one Jarnail Singh resident of same village an employee of PSEB who was posted at sub office Bhoor, his brother Hardial Singh who also contested election of Panch as a Congress candidate against Kulbir Kaur vide Ex.C1 and on this account Jarnail Singh have been pressing the complainant to caste his vote and votes of his family members in favour of his brother Hardial Singh failing which they should be ready to face dire consequences due to non casting of votes in favour of his brother who lost election. Hence Jarnail Singh planned to teach a lesson to the complainant.It was further alleged that connection of the complainant was never checked by the opposite parties. No copy of checking report was ever handed over at the spot to the complainant. Memo No.1290 dated 10/7/2008 Ex.R3 leveling false allegation of theft of energy by imposing penalty of Rs.19631/- upon the complainant is due to grudge at the instance of Jarnail Singh employee of PSEB as well as because of not paying the illegal gratification to JE Kewal Krishan. No such alleged theft of electricity was committed by the complainant. The memo No.1290 for Rs.19631/- dated 10/7/2008 is wrong and illegal. This act of opposite parties is unlawful, arbitrary and against rules and Regulations of the Board. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Malkiat Singh SDO Sultanpur Sub Division NO.1 alongwith K.K. Vahi JE checked the connection of the complainant on 5/7/2008 and found that complainant was using electricity unauthorizedly for construction purpose whereas the connection was released for domestic purpose. Copy of checking report Ex.R2 was received by the complainant who was present at the spot. Provisional assessment order vide memo No. 1290 dated 10/7/2008 and final assessment order vide memo No.1479 dated 11/8/2008 was sent to the complainant to deposit amount as per rules and regulations of the department. It has been further argued that connection of the complainant was checked on 5/7/2008 as the question of alleged demand of Rs.15000/- as illegal gratification by the JE from the complainant does not arise. It was further argued that Panchayat election has nothing to do with the working of PSEB. From the electricity bills vide Ex.C2 to C5 it is clearly evident that complainant has been utilizing water for his construction purpose from his own connection instead of receiving water from his native maternal brother Jarnail Singh. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 6. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We do not find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant.. There is no force in the evidence produced by the complainant vide affidavit Ex.CB and Ex.C1 that ill will grudge or enmity of Jarnail Singh employee of PSEB could have win over the SDO and JE to fabricate false case of unauthorized use of electricity against the complainant as Panchayat election is having no concern with the functioning of the opposite parties. Moreso; since connection of the complainant already stands checked by checking party on 5/7/2008, the allegation leveled against the JE with regard to demand of illegal gratification of Rs.15000/- from the complainant on 6/7/2008 appears to be an article story. It is also not trustworthy to say that inspite of complainant having his own connection at his residence and while ignoring it he had been receiving water by using the connection of his native brother for raising construction of his house but we find evidence produced by the opposite parties to substantiate the charge of unauthorized use of electric energy by the complainant. There is an affidavit of Malkiat Singh Thind SDO vide affidavit Ex.R1 that he alongwith K.K. Vahi JE checked the connection of the complainant on 5/7/2008 and found that complainant was using electricity unauthorizedly for construction purpose whereas connection was released for domestic purpose only. They have produced checking report Ex.R2dated 5/7/22008 depicting the vivid description of made unauthorized use of electricity for one BHP motor from the meter. The complainant who was present at the spot and received copy of checking report at that time and this fact remained unrebutted by the complainant. From the consumption of energy bills vide Ex.C2 to C5 it cannot be accessed that complainant has not been making use of 1 BHP motor for construction of his house as the complainant is at liberty to use any kind and quantum of energy while restricting his load within the sanctioned load <br /> Reliance has been made as laid down by HOn'ble National Commission in case reported as PSEB vs. Surat Singh (IV) 2007 CPJ 18 that only preponderance of probability of evidence is required . Vide Ex.R3 and R4 provisional and final assessment orders on account of unauthorized use of electricity served upon the complainant are legal and valid in the eyes of law. And the demand of Rs.19631/- vide memo No.1290 dated 10/7/2008 acknowledged by the representative of the complainant Ex.R3 and vide memo NO.1479 dated 11.8.2008 received by the complainant from the opposite parties on the basis of double tariff for 12 months is in accordance with Regulation No.36 of the Electricity Supply code of 2007 and under Section 126 of the Electricity Act are legal and valid in the eyes of law.As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties Board.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion finding no merit in this complaint same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be cosigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Annnounced : ( Shashi Narang) (Gulshan Prashar ) ( Paramjit Singh )26.11.2008 Member Member President.