Gurdev 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 demand of Rs.8668/- and to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience and to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic connection bearing account No. BS-47/0311 with a sanctioned load of 0.78 KWs. The complainant on 15/11/2006 received a letter memo No. 1216 dated 13/11/2006 alongwith a copy of alleged checking report vide which the opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.8668/- on account of alleged theft and unauthorized load which is quite illegal and against the rules of the PSEB. There is no unauthorized load connected to the premises of the complainant. The complainant never committed any theft as alleged. The connection of the complainant was never checked at the premises of the complainant in his presence or anybody else nor the complainant refused to sign any checking report. On 26 to 28 there were religious dewans of Sant. Sadhu Singh in V. Bishnandi and the complainant and his family was to make full arrangements for the said dewan and remained absent from their house. One Surjit Singh JE on 27/10/2006 at about 1 P.M. come to the house of the complainant and stolen Rs.10,000/- alongwith some documents of the land and only a child of about 6 year was present at the house by that time. On 30/10/2006 the complainant met opposite party No. 2 and made complaint of Surjit Singh JE but the opposite party No. 2 refused to pay any heed to the complaint of the complainant. So on 30/10/2006 he moved an application to the SHO, P.S. Jaitu against the said JE Surjit Singh. So the opposite party No. 2 manipulated the false checking report and charged the amount in question from the complainant. After receipt of this letter the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested them to withdraw the illegal charges of Rs.8668/- but he flatly refused to listen even a single word in this regard and insisted him to deposit the amount failing which he threatened to charge the amount in question in current bill and further to disconnect the connection of the complainant which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension, harassment, inconvenience so he claims a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21-11-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees so as to settle the dispute arising between the parties but the complainant has not put his case before the said committee so the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant was committing theft of electricity of opposite party as such she does not come under the purview of the act. On merits it is admitted that the complainant is having the electricity connection. It is also admitted that the opposite parties have served upon the complainant one memo dated 13/11/2006. It is wrong that the demand of the opposite parties is illegal and against the rules of the PSEB. The connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 28/10/2006 and during checking it was found that the complainant was committing theft of electricity. Moreover he was using the excess load than the sanctioned load. The checking was done in the presence of the complainant and he refused to sign the checking report. The sanctioned load of the complainant is 0.78 KWs whereas he was using 3.64 KWs. The complainant had made a false and concocted story with the idea to run away from the liability to pay the present amount. The checking has been done according to the rules of the PSEB. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any damages or litigation expenses. So the complaint may 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 her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of notice dated 13/11/2006 Ex.C-2, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-3, affidavit of Jagroop Singh Ex.C-4, affidavit of Balraj Singh Ex.C-5, affidavit of Kulwant Singh Ex.C-6, poster for religious diwan Ex.C-7, newspaper dated 11/1/2007 Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Major Singh AAE Ex.R-1, copy of checking report Ex.R-2, affidavit of Surjit Singh AJE PSEB Jaitu 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 submitted that the demand of Rs.8668/- put forth by the opposite parties vide memo No. 1216 dated 13/11/2006 for payment of the amount on account of theft of electricity is illegal, null and void. Complainant has never committed theft of energy. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the electric connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties. They found complainant to have involved in commission of theft of energy. Notice Ex.C-2 was given by the opposite parties. On the basis of checking report Ex.R-2 dated 28/10/2006 the complainant had been committing theft of energy by way of applying loop in the meter due to which on applying load the meter could not show reading of the consumption. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on commercial circular No. 34/2006. As per this circular AJE is not authorized to check electric connection and commission of theft. The opposite parties have placed reliance on affidavit of Major Singh AAE Ex.R-1 and affidavit of Surjit Singh AJE Ex.R-3. The checking was made admittedly by Surjit Singh AJE and Ranjit Singh AJE. So the proceedings taken up by the opposite parties is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. Even the loop has not been taken into possession by the opposite parties. Same has not been produced in this Forum. So commission of theft appears to be doubtful. Thus the opposite parties have made themselves deficient for providing service to the complainant. <br /> 11. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances due to deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs.8668/- charged through memo No. 1216 dated 13/11/2006, within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. If any, amount already deposited by the complainant the same would be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in the subsequent bills. 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: 7/8/2007<br /> <br />