Baldev Singh through LRs have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to deduct the illegal amount of Rs.6570/- from the bill dated 15/10/2006 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in their complaint that account No. BW-23/0058 is in the name of Joginder Singh who has died about 20 years back and since then the complainant is residing in the house in which the above noted connection is installed being the only son of the deceased Joginder Singh and the complainant is paying the bills regularly. So he is the consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had replaced the old meter with an electronic meter about 1-1/2 month ago though the old meter was recording correct reading. He received a bill dated 15/10/2006 for Rs.7100/- in which an amount of Rs.6570/- has been added illegally under the head sundry charges. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for explanation of this amount but the opposite party No. 2 did not gave any explanation rather threatened him that in case the whole of the bill is not deposited then the electricity connection shall be disconnected. It is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had to face inconvenience and mental agony for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30-10-2006 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. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted various Disputes Settlement Committees to settle the disputes between the parties but the complainant has not put his case before the said committee, as such the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. The complainant was committing the theft as such the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits the opposite parties submitted that the present complainant is not competent to file the present complaint. He does not come under the definition of consumer. It is correct that a sum of Rs.6570/- has been added under sundry charges but it is wrong that this amount has been charged illegally. This amount has been charged as per rules and regulations. The connection of the complainant was checked by the officials on 10/2/2006 and during the checking it was found that the complainant has tampered with the electric meter. The film was easily insertable in the meter vide which he was controlling the consumption. In this way he was committing theft of electricity. The report was prepared at the spot but the complainant refused to sign the same. There is no deficiency of service or mal trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and as such he is not entitled for any compensation. 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, copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed their evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Bhupinder Kumar AEE PSEB Bargari Ex.R-1, copy of checking report Ex.R-2, copy of notice Ex.R-3, copy of dispatch register Ex.R-4 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 the opposite parties are not entitled to recover amount of Rs.6570/- vide bill dated 15/10/2006 as the same is illegal under the head of sundry charges without any details. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the opposite parties rightly added sundry charges of Rs.6570/- in the impugned bill on the basis of the checking made by the officials of the opposite parties on 10/2/2006 finding thereby that the complainant has tampered with the electric meter. The film was easily insertable in the meter vide which he was controlling the consumption. Complainant had committed theft of energy. So he has not entitled for any relief. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the opposite parties have placed reliance on the notice Ex.R-3 based on the checking report Ex.R-2 dated 10/2/2006 prepared by the officials of the opposite parties. As per this report the meter is assessable to the film for stopping of the running of the meter. There was sanction load of 0.520 KW and the complainant have connected load of 2.10 KW. <br /> 11. There is calculations of the load as to how the complainant had connected 2.10 KW of load. Details of the load must have been given in the checking report. This fact is missing from the checking report. <br /> 12. The opposite parties have not produced firm or the meter to show if the running of the meter could be controlled in such like manner of inserting the film in the meter. <br /> 13. Not only this opposite parties have not specifically mentioned as to which official of the opposite parties checked the electric connection of the complainant. There is only affidavit Ex.R-1 of Bhupinder Kumar, AEE, PSEB, Bargari Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot to substantiate pleadings of the opposite parties. He is not checking official of the electric connection. He has snot named any authorized person who might have checked the electric connection. He has simply deposed in his affidavit that connection of the complainant was checked by the officials on 10/2/2006. The checking report also is held to have not been proved by the opposite parties with cogent evidence. The signatory of the checking report has not been examined by the opposite parties as a witness. So this report Ex.R-2 cannot be taken to be a gospel truth for proving theft of energy. Theft of energy is required to be proved by the opposite parties as if it is a criminal charge. So for want of evidence the complaint is bound to be accepted. <br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs.6570/- charged in the bill dated 15/10/2006 as sundry charges and allowances within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. If any amount already deposited by the complainant with regard to the amount of Rs.6570/- the same shall be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in the subsequent bills of the complainant. 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: 13/9/2007<br />