ORDER

SHASHI NARANG (MEMBER)

Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is having 12 acres of land joint with his cousins and paternal uncle in which two electric connections bearing NO. T5-240 of 5 BHP and T3-1750 of 3 BHP are running in the name of Sh.Gian Singh grandfather of the complainant who has since expired and complainant alongwith other consumers is using the said electric connections being beneficiary of his grandfather Gian Singh. The memo NO.1600 dated 22/10/09 slapped upon the complainant by the opposite party for Rs.29155/- on the allegation of theft of electricity by running 3 BHP motor in the fields of popular trees by joining wire directly with LR Line is absolutely on false facts and baseless and is purely motivated by political grudge just to defame complainant and his family and sheer act of political vendetta as complainant is staunch supporter of the Congress party and is very near to Congress leader Sukhpal Singh Khera. It is alleged that complainant never indulged in alleged theft of electricity and no provisional assessment order was ever given to complainant rather directly final assessment order was served upon the complainant which clearly shows the malafide of the opposite party as per clause 11 in Section 126 of the Principle Act, 2003 amended upto 2009.Hence act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part against which complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

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

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

4. On the other hand opposite party 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. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is having 12 acres of land joint with his cousins and paternal uncle in which two electric connections bearing NO. T5-240 of 5 BHP and T3-1750 of 3 BHP are running in the name of Sh.Gian Singh grandfather of the complainant who has since expired and complainant alongwith other consumers is using the said electric connections being beneficiary of his grandfather Gian Singh. The main plank of arguments is that memo NO.1600 dated 22/10/09 slapped upon the complainant by the opposite party for Rs.29155/- on the allegation of theft of electricity by running 3 BHP motor in the fields of popular trees by joining wire directly with LR Line is absolutely on false facts and baseless and is purely motivated by political grudge just to defame complainant and his family and sheer act of political vendetta as complainant is staunch supporter of the Congress party and is very near to Congress leader Sukhpal Singh Khera. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that complainant never indulged in alleged theft of electricity and no provisional assessment order was ever given to complainant rather directly final assessment order was served upon the complainant which clearly shows the malafide of the opposite party as per clause 11 in Section 126 of the Principle Act, 2003 amended up to 2009.Hence act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part against which complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has counter argued that entire proceedings were conducted about checking of the electric connection of the complainant and detection of theft of energy were carried out in the presence of the complainant. The connection was checked by the team comprising AAE of Sub Division Begowal with Raj Kumar JE Kuldeep Singh AL.M. and Pritam Singh Work Charge visited the fields of the complainant on 20/10/09 at 7.05 PM and found that complainant was committing theft of energy by running a 3 BHP motor in his fields where he has planted popular trees by way of joining a red wire with LT line connected with 63 KVA transformer of Charan Singh Wala of 11 K.V. Jalal Dogra Feeder. They checked their observations in their checking register at page 71 dated 20/10/09 but complainant refused to sign the said checking. So a notice vide memo No.1600 dated 22/10/09 was sent in which demand of Rs.28155/- was made. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

6. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. In order to prove their case opposite party has produced on record checking report Ex.R1 with regard to checking of connection of the consumer . Ex.R4 is the affidavit of Er.Subhash Chander AAE Sub Division Begowal, ExR5 is the affidavit of Er.Raj Kumar JE sub Division Begowal and Ex.R6 is the affidavit of Kuldeep Singh ALM wherein it is alleged that team comprising of said officers checked the connection of the complainant on 20/10/09 at 7.05 PM. The checking report Ex.R1 does not bear signatures of complainant or his representative and it is alleged in the affidavit of Er.Subhash Chander AAE Ex.R4 that on checking complainant was found committing theft of energy by running 3 BHP motor in his fields where he has planted popular trees by way of joining red wire with the LT line connected with 63 KVA transformer of Charan Singh Wala of 11 K.V. Jalal Dogra Feeder and the checking officers checked their observations in their checking register at page 71 dated 20/10/09 but the complainant refused to sign the said checking report. Accordingly notice memo NO.1600 dated 22/10/09 was sent to the complainant by the opposite party raising demand of Rs.28155/- on account of theft of energy committed by the complainant. Opposite party has also sent reference vide memo No.1601 dated 22/10/09 ex.R2 to register case against the complainant on account of theft of energy committed by the complainant.

There is no dispute about this preposition of law that charge of theft of electric energy being criminal offence has to be established by cogent and convincing evidence. There is no corroborative evidence of incriminating articles if any has been produced to substantiate the allegation of theft of electric energy. It has been invariably held in a case reported as Charan Singh vs. PSEB 2006 CPJ447 wherein it was held that strict proof is required to establish offence in case of theft of electricity. Mere allegation of pilferage of electricity by the officials of the PSEB is not suffice to establish the charge of theft of electricity against the complainant.

As per clause 37 of Theft of Electricity contained in part III Punjab Govt. Gaz. July 27, 2007 (SRVN.5,1929 SaKA) it is mentioned as under:

"The authorized officer will sign the

inspection report and hand over

a copy to the occupant/person present

at the premises during the search in case of

refusal to receive the inspection report, a

copy of the same will be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and another to consumer/person under registered post." The copy of assessment order was not sent to the complainant either through registered post or through speed post Even no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the complainant. The articles such as wire used from PVC joint with Kit-Kat was not taken into possession to support the case of the opposite parties. There is also no corroborative evidence or incriminating articles produced to substantiate the allegations of theft of electric energy. Mere allegations of pilferage of electricity by the official of the opposite parties is suffixed to establish the same without producing any incriminating articles i.e. service wire having joint allegedly joined by the complainant in stealing energy which were not taken into possession at the time of alleged occurrence. The whole case of the opposite parties is dependent upon the alleged checking dated 20.10.2009 and on the affidavits of Er.Subhash Chander AAE Ex.R4 and Er. Raj Kumar JE Ex.R5. The perusal of the checking report Ex.R1 indicate that it does not include the signature of either the complainant or his representative. The report has also not been authenticated by any respectable person of locality to confirm its veracity. Further more there is no evidence of a copy of this report having been given to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the checking report in its shape is against the rules and regulation of the opposite parties Department and it, therefore, cannot be relied upon Reliance has been placed upon a case reported as Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Versus Sarwan Singh 2008 (1) CLT page 237 wherein it is mentioned as:-

(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986,

Section 2(1)(g)- Electricity bill- Electricity

theft- The checking report indicates that

it does not include the signatures of either

the complainant or his representative -

The report has also not been authenticated

by any respectable person of the locality to

confirm its veracity - There is no evidence

of a copy of this report having been given

to the Complainant -The checking report

in its present shape is against the rules

and regulations of the OP Department-

it, therefore, cannot be relied.

In the ultimately analysis of our aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and quash the impunged memo No.1600 dated 22.10..2009 to the extent of Rs.29155/- of the opposite party No.2 Ex.R3 . We direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 15000/- already deposited by the complainant in terms of stay order of this Forum dated 30/10/09 with the further directions to pay damages Rs.2000/- on account of the physical harassment, mental agony account of the deficiency in service besides Rs.1000/- as costs of this complaint. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above direction within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.

Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties without delay and file be consigned to record room.

Announced Gulshan Prashar Shashi Narang Paramjit Singh

18.2.2010 Member Member President