Sukhdev Singh 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.9203/- in the bill dated 23/1/2007 and to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.3000/- 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 GA-24/0250 installed at the residence of the complainant. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption charges as and when bill is received by him and nothing on account of consumption charges is due against the complainant. He has received a bill issued on 23/1/2007 in which the opposite parties have charged Rs.9203/- as sundry which are quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. No detail of the sundry charges has been given in the bill. No notice or the supplementary bill as required under PSEB rules has been served upon the complainant before charging the amount as sundry. After receipt of the bill the complainant approached the RA of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the details of the sundry but the RA miserably failed to give any detail. Then the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 in his office with the request to withdraw the sundry charges and allow the complainant to deposit the current consumption bill only but he did not agree and kept the matter linger on with one pretext or the other and finally flatly refused to withdraw the sundry charges, which amounts to 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.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- 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 5-3-2007 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 complainant was indulging in theft of energy so this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint regarding theft case. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the bill dated 23/1/2007 amounting to Rs.9203/- was issued to the complainant. The bill was issued correctly as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. The full detail of the amount charged was explained and given to the complainant. The connection of the complainant was checked on 3/8/2006 by Sh. Piare Lal Meter Inspector, Shivtar Singh Meter Inspector and Gurmantar Singh AAE and while checking the connection the consumer was found that he has placed PVC wire on his roof and by making a joint in the PVC wire the consumer was found using the electricity by way of Kundi. He was using the electricity by bye-passing the meter. The main switch of the meter was switched off. He was found indulging in the theft of energy. At the time of checking when the wire connected the PVC wire at joint point removed, the meter started working. The connection was checked in the presence of Manpreet son of the complainant. The checking report was prepared at site. Manpreet signed the checking report. The copy of checking report was also given to Manpreet. She signed in token of receipt of copy of the checking report. The registered notice vide memo No. 2760 dated 10/8/2006 was issued to the complainant by giving the detail of the checking. An amount of Rs.9203/- was charged through the notice. Inspite of receipt of the notice the consumer failed to deposit the amount as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. As the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time so the amount is charged through sundry charges and allowances register. As such no supplementary bill was required in this case. It is correct that the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties and met RA and copy of sundry charges and allowances register was supplied to the complainant. The board is duty bound to act according to rules and regulations of the PSEB by claiming the amount due to theft of energy does not fall in deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant was indulging in the theft of energy so he is not entitled for claim 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 affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 23/1/2007 Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Piare Lal AAE Installation PSEB Moga Ex.R-1, affidavit of Shivtar Singh JE Installation PSEB Faridkot Ex.R-2, attested copy of checking report dated 3/8/2006 Ex.R-3, copy of notice registered vide memo No. 2760 dated 10/8/2006 Ex.R-4, attested copy of sundry charges and allowances register Ex.R-5, affidavit of Vajinder Kumar Vinayak AE Golewala Sub Division PSEB Golewala Ex.R-6, affidavit of Shri Krishan A.R.A Golewala Sub Division PSEB Golewala Ex.R-7 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 opposite parties have made demand of Rs.9203/-as sundry charges in bill dated 23/1/2007. This demand is illegal as there is no details of sundry charges in the bill. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant was found committing theft of energy vide checking dated 3/8/2006 conducted by Sh. Piare Lal Meter Inspector and other officials of the opposite parties. Complainant had applied Kundi to committ theft of energy. <br /> 10. The complainant have placed reliance on his affidavit Ex.C-1, impugned bill Ex.C-2 with regard to denial of the commission of theft by the complainant and illegality of issuance of the bill Ex.C-2. The opposite parties have placed reliance on affidavit Ex.R-1 of Piare Lal AEE installation PSEB Moga, Ex.R-2 affidavit of Shivtar Singh JE installation, Ex.R-3 checking report, Ex.R-4 notice, Ex.R-5 entry in the record of the opposite parties with regard to checking, Ex.R-6 affidavit of Vajinder Kumar Vinayak AE, Ex.R-7 affidavit of Shri Krishan Assistant Revenue Accountant.<br /> 11. From the perusal of the checking report Ex.R-3 it is made out that the electric connection of the complainant was checked by the above noted officials of PSEB on 3/8/2006. As per this report the consumer have made a joint in PVC wire of PSEB on the roof of his house. From that joint the complainant had directly connected the wires to the load after putting the main switch off. Meter was bye-passed by the complainant after removal of the wires the load was directly connected to the PVC wire the meter started giving the pulse of consumption of electricity. This checking report has been signed by one Manpreet. Copy also was received by Manpreet. In such like circumstances it is immaterial if relations of Manpreet has not been mentioned by the opposite parties. It is also immaterial if Manpreet has not been shown as representative of the complainant. It was for the complainant to make out as to who had signed the checking report on behalf of the complainant. In such like circumstances affidavit of Kamaljit Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh to the effect that no checking was done by any authority in her presence is not helpful to the complainant in any manner. The opposite parties does not say if checking report was signed by Kamaljit Kaur. Since the opposite parties have proved with cogent evidence with regard to commission of theft of energy by the complainant so simple denial by the complainant is not enough. There is animosity of any kind of the opposite parties with the complainant so it cannot be said if a false case of theft has been made by the opposite parties upon the complainant. The opposite parties in notice Ex.R-4 have specifically mentioned with regard to the details of the recovery of Rs.9203/- put forth through the impugned bill. So also if connected load is 5.53 KW and sanctioned load is also 5.53 KW, it does not make case of the opposite parties to be doubtful. <br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is held that there is no deficiency of services 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: 9/10/2007<br />