ORDER

PARAMJIT SINGH (PRESIDENT.)

Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant was shocked to receive two memoes bearing Nos.188 and 189 dated 21/6/2010 in which opposite parties have imposed an amount of Rs.77,220/- and Rs.20,592/- on the complainant on the false allegation of theft of energy. The complainant has challenged the said notices being illegal, wrong and arbitrary as complainant never committed any theft of energy nor he used any unauthorized electric motors as alleged in the notices. Thus there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties against which the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement by taking as many as four preliminary objections. On merits it is pleaded that complainant was found running two electric motors illegally of 2 BHP and 7.5 BHP when the concerned SDO visited the spot on 19/6/2010 in the presence of complainant who received the copy of checking but refused to sign the checking report. The notices bearing NO.188 and 189 were correctly sent to the complainant demanding the amounts of compensation of theft of energy. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

3. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 and C2.

4. Opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R3

5. The case to connect the complainant is that Gram Panchayat of Village Fattu Dhinga has got electric connection bearing A/C No. AM 15-2

6. But in the instant case no copy of the inspection report was pasted nor the same was sent to the complainant through registered post. Even no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to supply the assessment order to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the checking report in its shape is against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties Department and it, therefore. cannot be relied upon.

7. 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, 1988,

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 upon."

In the ultimately analysis of our aforesaid discussion, allow the complaint and quash energy bill dated 19.9.09 Ex.CF raising demand of Rs.11,939/- under the column of sundry charges being illegal and against the standing instructions of the department. Opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6000/- already deposited by the complainant in terms of the order of this Forum dated 19.10.2009with the further direction to pay to the complainant Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation 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 Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

11.2.2010 Member Member President