Sham Lal has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal charges of Rs.16,779/- in the letter No. 1627 dated 29/9/2006 and to pay Rs.20,000/- 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 domestic supply electric connection bearing account No AF-27/0340 with a sanctioned load of 9.19 KWs. The complainant has received a letter memo No. 1627 dated 29/9/2006 vide which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.16,779/- from the complainant on the basis of alleged theft declared as ME Lab which is illegal and against the rules of PSEB. The meter was removed from his premises due to defective one and at the time of removal the meter was taken away by the employees of the opposite parties unpacked and unsealed without raising any objection. The meter was never checked at ME Lab in the presence of the complainant nor any alleged 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. After receipt of the notice the complainant approached the office of the opposite party No. 2 many times with the request to withdraw the demand of Rs.16,779/- but the opposite party No. 2 refused to agree with the complainant and threatened to disconnect the connection in case the amount is not deposited which is 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 he claims Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- 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 29-11-2006 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. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint in the present form is not maintainable. The complainant was committing the theft of energy of the opposite party, as such this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try this complaint. On merits the opposite parties admitted that notice memo No. 1627 dated 29/9/2006 was sent tos the complainant for charging amount of Rs.16,779/- on the basis of theft of energy. The electric meter of the complainant was removed vide MCO dated 23/5/2006 effectted on 3/8/2006 by Bhupinder Singh JE. The complainant gave consent that his meter may be checked in his absence. So the meter was sent to ME Lab Bathinda. The meter was checked there by the SEE in the presence of C.D.Mittal SEE (Enforcement 2nd), Bathinda with the assistance of JE of ME Lab Bathinda and Sohan Lal JE of City Sub Division PSEB Kotkapura who took the meter to ME Lab Bathinda and he was also present at the time of the checking. While checking the meter its glass was found tampered with as fully explained in the checking report dated 4/9/2006. The checking report was prepared at the time of checking and it was signed by the SEE 2nd PSEB, Bathinda, SEE of ME Lab Bathinda, JE of said Lab and Sohan Lal JE. While checking internal meter was found tampered with and scratches were also found inside the meter at the time of its checking. A notice dated 29/9/2006 was issued giving full details of the amount charged and the reasons for charging the same were also explained to the complainant. The amount has been charged as per rules of the PSEB. The complainant was using artificial means fro controlling the energy and in this way he was controlling the consumption of the energy. The R.A. gave full details sto the complainant when he visited the office of the opposite parties. Copy of checking report was also supplied to the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint has been filed on false and fictitious grounds so the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or 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, copy of notice No. 1627 dated 29/9/2006 Ex.C-3, photocopy of bill dated 24/6/2001 Ex.C-4, copy of receipt No. 551 Ex.C-5, supplementary affidavit of the complainant Ex.R-6 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Vijay Kumar AEE City Sub Division PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-1, copy of checking report Ex.R-2, copy of consent Ex.R-3, copy of MCO Ex.R-4, affidavit of B.K.Jindal Sr. Xen ME Lab. Bathinda Ex.R-5, copy of checking report dated 4/9/2006 Ex.R-6, affidavit of Sohan Lal JE City Sub Division Kotkapura Ex.R-7, affidavit of Bhupinder Singh JE City Sub Division Kotkapura Ex.R-8, affidavit of C.D.Mittal SEE Enforcement 2nd Bathinda Ex.R-9, affidavit of B.K.Jindal Senior Xen ME Lab Bathinda Ex.R-10, affidavit of Vijay Kumar Bansal AEE City Sub Division Kotkapura Ex.R-11, affidavit of Sukhwant Singh AEE City Sub Division Kotkapura Ex.R-12, affidavit of Bhupinder Singh JE City Sub Division kotkapura Ex.R-13, affidavit of Sohan Lal JE City Sub Division Kotkapura Ex.R-14, affidavit of C.D.Mittal SEE Enforcement 2nd Bathinda Ex.R-15 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 complainant is not bound to pay illegal demand of Rs.16,779/- made by the opposite parties from the complainant vide letter No. 1627 dated 29/9/2006. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant was found committing theft of energy by the opposite parties. Electric meter of the complainant was removed on 23/5/2006 which was effected on 3/8/2006 by Bhupinder Singh JE. Complainant gave consent that his meter may be checked in his absence. Report of ME Lab declared commission of theft by tampering with the meter glass by the complainant. <br /> 10. Complainant has substainitiated his pleadings in his affidavit Ex.C-1 and another affidavit Ex.C-2 and supplementary affidavit Ex.C-6. <br /> 11. From the perusal of the checking report Ex.R-2, consent Ex.R-3 and meter change order Ex.R-4 it is made out that meter of the complainant was removed and seal packed in presence of the complainant. At the very same time it was reported that meter glass stood tampered with by the complainant so it was required to be checked by the ME Lab. Even as per written consent of the complainant Ex.R-3 in his absence. The opposite parties have established there case from the affidavit Ex.R-5 of B.K.Jindal S.E.E. who checked the meter in the ME Lab Bathinda, affidavit of Sohan Lal JE Ex.R-7 in whose presence checking report was prepared, affidavit of Bhupinder Singh JE Ex.R-8 who removed the meter on 3/8/2006. It is found deposed in affidavit Ex.R-9 by C.D.Mittal S.E.E. Enforcement 2nd Bathinda that meter was checked in presence of above noted officials in ME Lab after taking out from seal packed packet. Meter glass stood tampered with. It has been reported by him in his report dated 4/9/2006. In such like circumstances the simple denial by the complainant Sham Lal in his affidavit Ex.C-6 from the fact that he has never given authority to Hem Raj for giving consent on his behalf for checking of the meter in ME Lab in his absence is not helpful to the complainant in any manner. It is not on the file if Hem Raj is a man of opposite parties. Opposite parties have no enemity with the complainant. It is not on the file as to why the case of theft has been made out by the opposite parties upon the complainant. <br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and documents on the file it is made out that there is no deficiency of service to be provided by the opposite parties 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: 10/10/2007<br /> <br />