<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 /> Gurdeep 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.4,300/- charged by the opposite parties vide letter No. 1386 dated 17.7.2007 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.1600/- 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. PW-34/0011. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption bills regularly as and when received by the complainant. The complainant has received a letter memo No. 1386 dated 17.7.2007 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.4300/- from the complainant on account of alleged theft which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. The complainant never committed any theft as alleged in the letter of demand. The connection of the complainant was never checked by any authority of the PSEB nor any theft has been ever detected at the premises of the complainant. No copy of the checking report has been supplied to the complainant at any point of time. Even with the letter it is written that copy of checking report enclosed but still no copy of checking report has been supplied to the complainant. After receipt of said letter the complainant approached the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested for delivery of the checking report of alleged checking dated 6.7.2007 but the opposite party No. 2 miserably failed to provide any copy of checking report. The complainant also requested the opposite party No. 2 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.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.1600/- 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 9.08.2007 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 opposite parties have constituted a separate Disputes Settlement Committee to redress the grievances of consumer, but the complainant did not approach in writing to get his grievances redressed. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant was committing theft of electricity so the complaint in the present form is not maintainable. 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. The connection of the complainant was checked by the official of the opposite parties on 6.7.2007 and during the checking it was found that the complainant was committing the theft of electricity of the opposite parties. The checking was done by the official of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant and checking report was prepared at the spot but the complainant refused to sign the same. 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of letter No. 1386 dated 17.7.2007 Ex.C-2, affidavit of Gurdeep Singh complainant Ex.C-3 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. Vijinder Kumar Venika SDO, PSEB, V. Golewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot Ex.R-1, checking report Ex.R-2, notice Ex.R-3 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 demand put forth by the opposite parties in letter No. 1386 dated 17.7.2007 for payment of Rs.4300/- is illegal, unlawful and the same is liable to be withdrawn. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the above noted amount is related to commission of theft of energy as per checking report of the opposite parties so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 10. From perusal of the file it is made out that the opposite parties checked the electric connection of the complainant on 6.7.2007 and the complainant had connected the terminal block of the incoming block of the meter towards incoming side in the grip on the load side. The meter stood stopped after removing of the wire, when the grip was inserted the disc started revolving towards correct direction. The opposite parties have served notice Ex.R-3 upon the complainant. The opposite parties have proved commission of theft in the affidavit of Vijinder Kumar Venika, SDO, village Golewala. The complainant have refused to append his signatures on checking report Ex.R-2. The refusal itself is sufficient to prove the commission of theft of energy so it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not of the proper rank. The complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrongs by challenging the authority of the opposite parties. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 11. 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 /> <br />