Gurcharanjit Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal, unlawful and excessive demand of Rs.30,387/- raised vide letter No. 540 dated 19/3/2007 and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having an domestic electric connection bearing account No. CR-45/0135 with a sanctioned load of 17.88 KWs. The meter at the premises is defective one and the PSEB is charging the average bill of 995 units per bio-monthly from the complainant and the complainant is paying the same regularly. The complainant on 18/5/2007 received a letter No. 540 dated 19/3/2007 vide which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.30,387/- from the complainant on account of alleged theft declared at M.E. Lab which is quite illegal, unlawful, excessive one and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. The meter from the premises of the complainant was taken away by the employees of the PSEB unpacked and unsealed. No notice for the alleged checking of the meter at ME Lab. has been served upon the complainant. The meter was not checked at ME Lab in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative. No copy of any checking report of ME Lab has been ever supplied to the complainant. The complainant never committed any theft nor interfered into the proper working of the meter so as to prevent it from registering actual consumption. The alleged calculation of the amount charged is also illegal and excessive one. After receipt of the letter No. 540 the complainant approached the RA at the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested him to withdraw the illegal and unlawful amounts charged but the RA has flatly refused to withdraw the amount rather directed to deposit the amount allegdly charged. Then the complainant met with the opposite party No. 2 and requested for the withdrawal of the illegal, unlawful and excessive amount charged, but the opposite party No. 2 did not agree with the complainant rather has threatened to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant in case the amount charged is not deposited which amounts to clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties, besides above the complainant also claims a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28/5/2007 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 objection that the consumer/complainant was found indulging in the theft of energy. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint regarding a theft case. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the PSEB having account No. CR-45/0135 with sanctioned load of 17.88 KWs. It is also admitted that notice vide memo No. 540 dated 19/3/2007 was sent to the complainant by giving full detail of the amount charged and the reasons for charging the amount were also fully explained in the notice. The total amount of Rs.30,387/- was charged. The consumer was indulging in theft of energy, so the amount of Rs.30,387/- has been charged correctly as per rules and regulartions of the PSEB. The meter of the complainant was removed vide MCO No. 112/59413 dated 10/1/2006 effected on 7/9/2006 by Shri Pritam Singh JE of City Sub Division, Faridkot. The meter was removed in the presence of Navdeep, a representative of the complainant and the meter was sealed and packed in the presence of said Navdeep. The meter was sent to ME Lab Moga vide store challan No. 10 dated 9/3/2007 through Sh. Som Nath, JE of City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot. The meter was checked in the ME Lab Moga on 9/3/2007. The meter was duly sealed/packed was produced in the ME Lab, Moga by Sh. Som Nath JE and it was opened in the Lab due to the written consent of the complainant's representative. While checking the meter it was found that the right side of the body of the meter was having scratches and further cracks were also found on the body of the meter. It revealed that the consumer was indulging in the theft of energy by using a High Power Megnate. The meter was checked by Sh. Amarjit Singh AEE of the ME Lab in the presence of Sh. G.S.Dhaliwal, Sr. Xen (Enforcement), PSEB, Moga, JE of the ME Lab and Sh. Som Nath JE of City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot. The checking report dated 9/3/2007 was prepared at the time of the testing of the meter and all the officers/officials of the PSEB present at the time of checking of the meter in the ME Lab, Moga signed the checking report of ME Lab, Moga. The meter was sealed and packed in the presence of Navdeep who had disclosed that he is the son of the complainant. When the consent was given that the meter may be checked in his absence there was no necessisty to issue a fresh notice for the checking of the meter in the ME Lab. The copy of checking report of ME Lab Moga and copy of MCO No. 112/59413 dated 10/1/2006 was supplied to the complainant when he visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 as demanded by him. The amount charged has been calculated as per the latest instructions of the PSEB. The complainant has filed this complaint on false and fictitious grounds so he is not entitled for any compensation and litigation expenses. So the complaint be dismissed with heavy 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, copies of electricity bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12, afffidavit of Navdeep Suri Ex.C-13, and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence afffidavit of Charanjit Singh Mann AEE City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot Ex.R-1, attested copy of MCO No. 112/59413 dated 10/1/2006 Ex.R-2, attested copy of checking report dated 9/3/2007 Ex.R-3, attested copy of notice No. 540 dated 19/3/2007 Ex.R-4, affidavit of Sh. G.S.Dhaliwal Addl. SC Enforcement PSEB Moga Ex.R-5, affidait of Amarjit Singh AE ME Lab PSEB, Moga Ex.R-6, affidavit of Sh. Somnath JE City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot Ex.R-7, affidavit of Yograj RA City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot Ex.R-8, attested copy of consent of representative of complainant Ex.R-9, attested copy of store challan dated 9/3/2007 Ex.R-10, affidait of Pritam Singh JE City Sub Division, Faridkot 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 has submitted that the complainant is not bound to pay amount of Rs.30,387/- to the opposite parties as per their letter No. 540 dated 19/3/2007 as demand put forth by the opposite parties is unexplained, excessive and illegal. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the opposite parties are entitled to recover amount of Rs.30,387/- calculated by the opposite parties on account of theft of energy by the complainant. <br /> 10. Complainant has placed reliance on afffidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 of the complainant with regard to illegal demand of Rs.30,387/- made by the opposite parties on account of demand notice Ex.C-3 dated 19/3/2007. As per this notice the complainant was made known about the checking of the meter by the ME Lab. They found scratches on the upper left side of the body of the meter alongwith cracks on the body of the meter. It was observed that the complainant had been applying megnate to controll running of the meter. <br /> 11. Complainant claims that after change of the meter there was no excess reading as per bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12. <br /> 12. The opposite parties are placed reliance on MCO Ex.R-2 and checking report Ex.R-3. As per checking report Ex.R-3 the connection was checked by Sh. G.S.Dhaliwal Additional S.E Enforcement PSEB, Moga alongwith his team on 9/3/2007. As per the checking report the checking was effected in presence of the representative of the complainant. In the presence of the representative of the complainant the meter was removed and seal packed. They found meter to have been tampered with for the purpose of committing theft of energy by applying megnate to controll the reading of the meter. They found scratches and cracks on the body of the meter which have been developed by applying the megnate. The meter was sent to the ME Lab. Meter was checked in the ME Lab on the basis of the consent given by Navdeep Singh representative of the complainant. The consent letter is Ex.R-9. He have no objection if meter packed in his presence is opened and checked in the ME Lab in his absence. In such like circumstances the afffidavit Ex.C-13 of Navdeep Singh with regard to his resiling from the consent is not helpful to the complainant. Navdeep Singh is son of the complainant, so he is bound to support the case of the complainant. <br /> 13. The opposite parties have no enemity with the complainant. In such like circumstances proving of theft by the opposite parties by way of afffidavit Ex.R-5 of Sh. G.S.Dhaliwal who conducted the checking in the presence of Sh. Somnath AJE, in the long way is going to prove theft of energy. Afffidavit Ex.R-6 of Engineer Amarjit Singh of ME Lab proves with regard to checking of the meter in ME Lab, he has proved his report Ex.R-3. Sh. Somnath JE in his afffidavit Ex.R-7 has deposed with regard to checking of the meter and connection thereof in presence of representative of the complainant. Sh. Pritam Singh JE in his afffidavit Ex.R-11 has proved MCO No. 112/59413 acted upon by him. <br /> 14. With regard to seal pack of the meter the MCO Ex.R-2 makes out that meter was removed and seal pakced in presence of the representative of the complainant. <br /> 15. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is made out that the opposite parties have proved theft of energy committed by the complainant with cogent and reliable evidence. In these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant. So the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. However there is 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: 1/11/2007<br />