Tejpal Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demands of Rs.6003/- and Rs.10,590/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that account No. SW-47/0065 is in the name of complainant and he is the consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant is paying all the electricity bills as and when received by him. On 14/8/2006 the employees of the opposite parties came at the spot and got the signatures of the complainant on some blank form under the pretext that the load of the connection is to be checked. Later on the complainant has received a letter memo No 2921 dated 24/8/2006 for Rs.6003/- on account of alleged theft which is quite illegal and against the rules of the PSEB. No theft was ever detected at the premises of the complainant nor any report was prepared in the presence of the complainant. No copy of alleged checking report has been ever supplied to the complainant at the spot with the letter of demand. The complainant is not having regular residence at the premises where the connection in question is installed so there is no question of committing any theft nor the complainant ever committed any theft as alleged. He again received a letter memo No. 3038 dated 21/9/2006 in which the opposite parties charged an amount of Rs.10,590/- on account of alleged theft on the basis of checking report dated 9/9/2006 which is illegal. The connection of the complainant was never checked by any authority on 9/9/2006 nor any copy of the checking report was ever supplied to the complainant at any point of time. After receipt of both the memos the complainant approached the office of the opposite party No. 2 so many times with the request to withdraw the illegal charges of Rs.6003/- and Rs.10590/- but at first the opposite party No. 2 kept the matter linger on with one pretext or the other and ultimately the opposite party No. 2 has flatly refused to withdraw the amounts and threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant if the amount as charged are not deposited which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5-4-2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S. Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant was found indulging in the theft of energy. The connection of the complainant was checked on 14/8/2006 and again on 9/9/2006. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the complaint in the theft case. The connection of the complainant was checked on 14/8/2006 by the J.E. (Installation) and a registered notice vide memo No. 2921 dated 24/8/2006 for assessing the amount of Rs.6003/- was issued due to theft of energy. Again the connection of the complainant was checked on 9/9/2006. A registered notice vide No. 3038 dated 21/9/2006 was issued by assessing the amount of theft of energy of Rs.10,590/-. The cause of action in both the checking is the different. The time and place of checking is also different. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The complainant should have filed the separate complaints regarding both the checking. So the complaint is not maintainable. On merits the opposite parties submitted that the complainant was found indulging in the theft of energy on 14/8/2006. He was again found in the theft of energy on 9/9/2006. The amount of theft was assessed as per commercial circular No. 34/2006. The connection of the complainant was checked on 14/8/2006 by J.E. (Installation) Gurmantar Singh, Piare Lal and Shivtar Singh. The consumer was found indulging in theft of energy. The consumer had placed the main service line on the roof of the tubewell Kotha by making a Joar in the main service line. He was using the electricity by connecting the wires directly. The switch was cut off. He was using the electricity by bye passing the meter. He was found red handed indulging in theft of energy. The direct wire connected with the main service like removed in the presence of the complainant and the same was connected with the main switch board and the meter was started recording the energy. The connection of the complainant was checked in the presence of Tejpal Singh. He signed the checking report. He also signed in token of receipt of copy of the checking report. The checking report was prepared at side and signed by all the persons present i.e. J.E. (Installation), Gurmantar Singh, Piare Lal Meter Inspector and Shivtar Singh. Tejpal Singh consumer also signed the checking report. It is wrong that the signatures of the complainant was obtained on the blank form. The amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. The connection of the complainant was again checked on 9/9/2006 by Shri Tara Singh A.E. Golewala, Sub Divn. Golewala, alongwith Rajinder Singh J.E and Ashok Kumar J.E. The reason for charging the amount was also explained in the notice. The detail of the amount was also given in the notice. The connection was checked in the presence of woman present in the house. The woman refused to sign the checking report. A copy of the checking report dated 9/9/2006 was also given to the woman present in the house. A registered notice vide memo No. 3038 dated 21/9/2006 was issued. The copy of checking report was again sent alongwith the notice. The complainant was found on the roof of his tubewell Kotha by making a joint in the main service load. He was found connecting the main service line load with the load of his appliances. The meter was found bye passed as the complainant was indulging in the theft of energy. The checking report was signed by Tara Singh AE, Rajinder Singh JE and Ashok Kumar JE. From these facts it is clear that the complainant is habitual of indulging in theft of energy. The amounts are charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. So there is no deficiency on service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, notice dated 24/8/2006 Ex.C-2, notice dated 21/9/2006 Ex.C-3, bill dated 4/9/2006 Ex.C-4, bill dated 3/11/2006 Ex.C-5, bill due date for payment dated 3/1/2007 Ex.C-6, bill dated 17/2/2007 Ex.C-7 and evidence of the complainant closed by order vide order dated 12/7/2007.<br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Vajinder Kumar Vinayak AEE PSEB Golewala Ex.R-1, attested copy of checking report dated 14/8/2006 Ex.R-2, attested copy of notice dated 24/8/2006 Ex.R-3, attested copy of notice dated 21/9/2006 Ex.R-4, attested copy of checking report dated 9/9/2006 Ex.R-5, affidavit of Tara Singh AE Mudki Ex.R-6, affidavit of Piare Lal meter inspector Ex.R-7, affidavit of Gurmantar Singh AAE Sub Urban Sub Divn. Faridkot Ex.R-8, affidavit of Shivtar Singh JE Ex.R-9, affidavit of Rajinder Kumar JE Ex.R-10, affidavit of Ashok Kumar JE Ex.R-11 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the demand put forth by the opposite parties vide memo dated 24/8/2006 to the extent of Rs.6003/- and memo dated 21/9/2006 to the extent of Rs.10,590/- is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant had been committing theft of energy at both the times when electric connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties so the complainant is not entitled to any sort of relief. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the connection of the complainant was checked on 14/8/2006 by the AAE in presence of Tejpal Singh complainant. Checking report Ex.R-2 was prepared at the spot. It was reported that the complainant had directly connected the load from the over head service line crossing from the top of the house of the complainant. The complainant had cut the switch from the meter so he was directly feeding electric energy in the load. This report has been signed by Tejpal Singh complainant. In such like circumstances simple denial by the complainant from committing theft of energy is not sufficient. <br /> 11. The opposite parties on the basis of checking report Ex.R-2 had given notice Ex.R-3 to the complainant for payment of Rs.6003/-. Again the electric connection of the complainant was checked by AEGL on 9/9/2006. The complainant had been committing theft of energy in a similar manner from the main service like crossing from the roof top of the house of the complainant. Meter was bye passed. The ladies in the house were present. The ladies refused to append their signatures. In such like cases generally people do not put signatures to evidence of theft of energy. The opposite parties are not helpless to report theft of energy in accordance of law. It is not on the file as to why false theft case has been imposed upon the complainant. So checking report is valid. On the basis of this the notice Ex.R-4 was issued to the complainant for time and again of Rs.10,590/- on account of theft of energy as per provisions of commercial circular No. 34/2006.<br /> 12. The above noted checking reports have been proved by the opposite parties in affidavit Ex.R-6 of Tara Singh, affidavit of Piare Lal Ex.R-7, affidavit Ex.R-8 of Gurmantar Singh AAE, affidavit Ex.R-9 of Shivtar Singh JE Installation, affidavit Ex.R-10 of Rajinder Kumar JE, affidavit Ex.R-11 of Ashok Kumar JE and affidavit Ex.R-1 of Vajinder Kumar Vinayak. It is not on the file as to why the opposite parties are deposing against the complainant. There is animosity of any kind of the witnesses of the opposite parties with the complainant. So it is held that the opposite parties have proved theft of energy with cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Simple denial by the complainant from the facts of theft of energy in his affidavit Ex.C-1 is not helpful to the complainant in any manner. <br /> 13. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 19/9/2007<br /> <br />