<br /> Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Boota Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs.4,256/- charged by the opposite parties bill dated 9.7.2007 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in its complaint that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having domestic electric connection bearing Account No. MT-74/1041. The complainant has received a bill dated 9.7.2007 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.4256/- from the complainant as sundry, which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. No detail of the sundry charges has been given in the bill that how this amount of Rs.4256/- has been calculated and arrived and for which reason this amount has been charged. No notice or supplementary bill has been served upon the complainant before charging the amount as sundry. After receipt of said bill the complainant approached the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested to withdraw the above mentioned charges but the opposite party No. 2 did not agree rather threatening to disconnect the connection of the complainant which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties caused great mental tension, harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- 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 4.10.2007 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. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not come under the definition of the consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was committing theft of electricity so the complaint in the present form is not maintainable. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the present electricity connection is installed in the name of the complainant but it is wrong that complainant is a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. It is also admitted that the opposite parties have issued the present bill. The connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 15.5.2007 and during the checking it was found that the complainant was committing the theft of electricity of the opposite parties. The complainant was consuming the electricity illegally, unauthorizedly and an illegal manner. He was committing theft of energy by bypassing the meter. The checking was done by the official of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant was served with a notice under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 but the complainant did not submit any reply of that notice thereby admitting the claim of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have charged the amount as per rules and regulations and as per the instructions of the Board. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint be dismissed with special 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 affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 9.7.2007 Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 15.10.2007 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 10.9.2007 Ex.C-5 and closed its evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Gurpreet Mohinder Singh Sidhu SDO, PSEB, Jaitu Ex.R-1, copy of checking report dated 15.5.2007 Ex.R-2, copy of detail Ex.R-3, copy of notice 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 has submitted that the opposite parties demanded unlawful charges of Rs.4256/- in the bill dated 9.7.2007. There is no details of such like sundry charges. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant was committing theft of energy as per checking report of the opposite parties, so the complainant is not entitled to any relief and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant. <br /> 10. As per affidavit Ex.R-1 of Gurpreet Mohinder Singh Sidhu SDO, PSEB, Jaitu the opposite parties checked the electric connection of the complainant on 15.5.2007 and it was found by the opposite parties that the complainant was abstracting electricity unauthorizedly and in an illegal manner. He was committing theft of energy. <br /> 11. His affidavit is proving checking report Ex.R-2 dated 15.5.2007. This checking report has been signed by one Nek Singh, he can be said to be a representative of the complainant. Correction of the name of Consumer from Sarabjit Singh Nek Singh to the name of Boota Singh Karnail Singh is not helpful to the complainant as account number of the complainant has been mentioned in this complaint. Even number of the electrical meter have been mentioned correctly. So it is held that the opposite parties have proved commission of theft of energy by the complainant as complainant have directly connected the incoming electrical electricity wire into the load by removing the grip. When such like direct consumption of electricity was removed and grip was inserted in the slot then meter started running in its proper direction. In such like circumstances the opposite parties have proved commission of theft by the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also have served notice Ex.R-4 under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 to the complainant immediately so it cannot be said that some other electric connection having been checked with regard to theft of energy has been imposed upon the complainant. <br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant 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: 3.4.2008<br />