Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh. M.S.Brar counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Sewak Naudh Deep 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 sundry charges of Rs.11,538/- in the bill issued on 25/11/2006 and illegal demand of Rs.20,128/- demanded vide letter No. 4795 dated 21/11/2006 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in her complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing account No. MG-65/0440 with a sanctioned load of 1.89 KWs. This connection is being used for the residence of the complainant and for a small shop for exclusive self employment of the complainant. The complainant received the letter No. 4314 dated 20/9/2006 in which the demand of Rs.11,538/- was raised by the opposite party No. 2 on account of alleged theft of electricity and for unauthorised load. The complainant gave the reply of the above said letter on 31/10/2006. Again the opposite party No. 2 issued the letter No. 4795 dated 21/11/2006 in which the demand of Rs.20,128/- has been raised on the basis of theft of electricity and unauthorised load. The complainant gave the reply of this letter of demand on 27/11/2006. The opposite party never issued any speaking order after considering the replies given by the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 issued the bill to the complainant on dated 25/11/2006 in which the sundry charges of Rs.11,538/- has been raised as sundry charges illegally and unlawfully. After receiving the said electric bill the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and met the revenue accountant of opposite party No. 2 but he flatly refused to withdraw the sundry charges and threatened to disconnect the connection if the bill is not deposited by the due date. The complainant is being harassed by the opposite parties as the father of the complainant has complained to the higher authority of PSEB against the theft which was being committed by various consumers in the area around Mai Godri Colony, Faridkot. The connection of the complainant was also checked on 15/9/2006 and as per checking report there was no case of theft was declared but the opposite parties time and again issuing the letter referred above by treating theft case against the complainant which amounts of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant there claims a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties, besides above the complainant also claims a sum of Rs.4,000/- 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 6/12/2006 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 in which the opposite parties admitted the account number of the connection and sanctioned load and running of a shop in the house but the shop is not being run for self employment. It is also admitted that the complainant submitted the replyof the letter issued vide memo No. 4314 dated 20/9/2006. After considering the notice provisional order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 was issued to the complainant. The connection of the complainant was checked by Sh. G.S.Dhaliwal Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, PSEB, Moga on 15/9/2006. While checking the connection the connected load was found 2.340 KWs against the sanctioned load of 1.890 KWs. The consumer was also found using the electricity in the Ahata for running a shop as he has himself admitted that he was running a shop. In view of the rules and regulations of the PSEB and according to Section 126 Sub Section II and IV of the Electricity Act, 2003 the consumer was using the electricity for some other purpose whereas the complainant took the connection for domestic purpose. He was found using the electricity for Non Resident purposes. As such the complainant was committing theft of energy. The amount of Rs.11,538/- was charged due to theft of energy. As per rules and regulations of the PSEB as the consumer was found using the excess load of 0.450 KWs a revised notice vide memo No. 4795 dated 21/11/2006 was issued on the basis of the checking dated 15/9/2006. The assessment was made as per commercial circular No. 34/2006 as the consumer was found using excess load. The load was to be regularised. Rs.1538/- was charged for regularisation of the excess load and notice vide memo No. 4314 dated 20/9/2006 was issued. The consumer failed to deposit the amount. He filed complaint against the Board employees on frivolous grounds. The Punjab State Electricity Board gave a clarification while charging the amount due to theft of energy and other purpose vide commercial circular No. 53/2006. The amount was again assessed on the basis of commercial circular No. 53/2006. The assessed amount is fully explained in the revised notice issued on 21/11/2006. The method for charging the amount is fully explained in the notice referred above and Rs.1538/- was charged due to excess load. In this way the total amount of Rs.20,128/- was charged. The notice was issued on 21/11/2006. It was specifically mentioned in that notice that on receipt of notice the reply of the notice may be given so that after considering the reply final decision may be taken but without affording the opportunity of final decision the complainant filed the present complaint before this Hon'ble Forum. In this ways the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is premature. As per instructions of the Board if the consumer is found using excess load the same is required to be regularised. In view of the instructions 2.340 KWs load of the consumer was regularised as is evident from the bill issued to the complainant on 25/11/2006 amounting to Rs.12,090/- payable on 8/12/2006 as per commercial circular No. 53/2006. Provisional order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was to be issued and after receipt of notice the consumer/complainant is required to raise the objection against the provisional assessment. After considering the reply and within the period prescribed by the PSEB a final order is to be issued to the consumer. The complainant gave reply of the notice on 27/11/2006 but without waiting the final order of the competent authority of the Board file the complaint on 1/12/2006. So the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not availed remedy available to him. The person served with order of provisional assessment order may accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within 7 days of the said provisional assessment order so served upon him. It he does not agree, the reply of the notice of the provisional assessment order shall be submitted by the person within 7 days of its receipt. The Assessing officer only after the affording of reasonable opportunity of being heard to such a person shall pass a final assessment order specifying the amount payable by such person on account of unauthorised use of electricity. If the person again submits the reply within the stipulated period the Assessing Officer shall analyze the case within seven working days from the date of the submission of person's reply after carefully considering all the submissions and documents submitted by the person concerned and available record and inspection report. If the Assessing Officer concludes that there is unauthorised use of electricity he will provide opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned within 15 days of the submission of reply and will pass a final order of assessment specifying the amount payable by the person. In this case after issuing of the final notice vide memo No. 4795 dated 21/11/2006 the consumer submitted the reply of the final notice on 27/11/2006 and without giving any chance of the PSEB employees to consider the reply, the complainant filed this complaint on 1/12/2006 i.e only after three days. So the complaint is premature and violation of the rules and regulations of the PSEB. It is admitted that the bill dated 25/11/2006 was issued in which the amount of Rs.11,538/- was charged. This amount includes the regularisation of unauthorised load as is evident that the load was extended from 1.890 KW to 2.340 KW. It is also admitted that after receipt of the bill the complainant visited the office and met Revenue Accountant. The reason for charging the amount was fully explained to the complainant. The detail of the amount charged vide memo No. 4795 was explained to the complainant. He demanded the copy of commercial circular No. 34/2006 and 53/2006 for assessing the amount charge. The photocopies of the same were given to the complainant and all other relevant record i.e original checking report dated 15/9/2006 was shwon to the complainant. He admitted that he was present at the time of checking on 15/9/2006. He signed the checking report at the time of checking. He also received the copy of the checking report. The detail of the load was also explained to the complainant. He noted the calculation made regarding the load on the checking report dated 15/9/2006. As the amount was charged according to the rules and regulations of the PSEB so the question of withdrawing the same does not arise. The connection of the complainant was checked on 15/9/2006 by the Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement PSEB Moga. He also appended his signatures for the receipt of the checking report. So the question of harassing the complainant does not arise. The complaints made by the father of the complainant is concerned these complaints have no relevancy if he has filed the complaint of any other consumer. Due to this fact that he has filed the complaint of other consumer no right has accrued to him that he is entitled to use unauthorised load. The complainant is using pressurizing tactics by filing complaints of the employees of the Board seeking entitlement to use unauthorised load and committ theft of energy. As per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 this use of electricity for the purpose other than it is relased comes under theft of energy. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade pratice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has filed this complaint on false and frivolous grounds so the complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- and also not entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.4000/-. So the complaint 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 his affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of application dated 27/11/2006 Ex.C-2, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7, photocopy of application dated 31/10/2006 Ex.C-8, photocopy of letter No. 4314 dated 20/9/2006 Ex.C-9, copy of bill dated 24/9/2006 Ex.C-10, photocopy of receipt dated 11/10/2006 Ex.C-11, photocopy of memo No. 4795 dated 21/11/2006 Ex.C-12, copy of final assessment Ex.C-13, photocopy of bill dated 25/11/2006 Ex.C-14, and closed her evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence afffidavits of Amarjit Singh AEE Sub Urban Sub Division, Faridkot Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2, attested copy of checking report dated 15/9/2006 Ex.R-3, attested copy of notice dated 20/9/2006 Ex.R-4, copy of letter dated 31/10/2006 Ex.R-5, copy of application dated 31/10/2006 Ex.R-6, copy of letter No. 4795 dated 21/11/2006 Ex.R-7, copy of notice Ex.R-8, affidavit of Dr. G.S.Dhaliwal Additional S.E. Enforcement PSEB Moga Ex.R-9 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 amounting to Rs.11,538/- vide bill dated 25/11/2206 and amounting to Rs.20,128/- vide memo No. 4795 dated 21/11/2006 are illegal. There are no details of sundry charges to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. Complainant has not committed theft of energy. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that complainant had been using the domestic electric connection as NRS electric connection to run Ahata. Though he had not committed theft of energy but he had unauthorised electric connection having excess load. So the opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount from the complainant. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant filed reply to the notice dated 20/9/2006 of the opposite parties. This reply is Ex.C-8 dated 31/10/2006. Virtually this reply is related to levelling allegations against the opposite parties by denying checking of the electric connection of the complainant but a false case of checking is alleged to have been made by the opposite parties due to enemity with the complainant. There is another reply Ex.C-2 to the letter dated 21/11/2006 of the opposite parties. This letter has been isused on 27/11/2006 by the complainant. This letter as submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties has not been received by the opposite parties, before waiting for the outcome of this reply the complainant has filed the present complaint on 1/12/2006. <br /> 11. The opposite parties have served notice Ex.C-9 dated 20/9/2006 with regard to checking dated 15/9/2006 conducted by Flying Squad, Moga by making demand of Rs.11,538/-. The opposite parties issued letter Ex.C-12 on 21/11/2006 to the complainant in the shape of Show Cause Notice to the complaint dated 31/10/2006 of the complainant having been filed by the opposite parties with the higher authorities. As per this letter the opposite parties have made mention with regard to checking dated 15/9/2006. The complainant was made none about the notice issued to him under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The complainant was having sanctioned load of 1.893 KW but he had connected load of 2.340 KW. The opposite parties have demanded Rs.1438/- for regularisation of the excess load. They had been demanded compounding charges of Rs.10,000/-. On the request of the complainant the opposite parties have corrected the notice, load and demand from letter No. 4314 dated 20/9/2006 after its revaluation and assessment as per provisions of commercial circular No. 34/2006 opposite parties have given details of excess load and use of electric connection by the complainant. Ultimately they have demanded amount of Rs.20,128/- from the complainant vide this letter Ex.C-12 dated 21/11/2006. Notice Ex.C-13 has been issued to the complainant vide Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of the checking dated 15/9/2006 and assessment of the amount payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. This letter is dated 21/11/2006. The complainant has not deposited amount in question within 7 days as per provisions of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act. Complainant also have not preferred any appeal against the assessment order as per provisions of Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. <br /> 12. The checking report Ex.R-3 dated 15/9/2006 was prepared in presence of the complainant by Additional Senior Xen G.S.Dhaliwal. Complainant also have received copy of checking report dated 15/9/2006. Complainant have not challenged this report in the department of the opposite parties and after such a long lapse of time he has filed this complaint on 4/12/2006. It appears that the complainant has no objection with regard to checking report. Leaving aside all the personal complaints of the complainant against the officials of the opposite parties the checking report stands proved on the file by the opposite parties. This checking report is prior in time to the complaints of the complainant made to the higher authorities of the opposite parties. Opposite parties have placed on the file afffidavit Ex.R-1 of Amarjit Singh Assistant Engineer, PSEB, Sub Urban Sub Division, Faridkot. Amarjit Singh submitted another afffidavit Ex.R-2, afffidavit Ex.R-9 of G.S.Dhaliwal is with regard to checking of the electric connection of the complainant by the opposite parties. He has put his signatures on the checking report. <br /> 13. It is not on the file as to why the opposite parties are deposing against the complainant. Complainant has failed to prove enemity with the opposite parties at least prior to the checking of the electric connection of the complainant by the opposite parties. The excess load is from the domestic electric connection. Even it is being used for running a Ahata which tentamounts to use of electric connection as NRS. Opposite parties had been representing themselves for impounding of the offences even they have asked the complainant to get regularised his electric connection as NRS after depositing Rs.1538/-. Complainant has not done so. In such like circumstances complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong. Even if it is not a case of theft but it is a case of misuse of electric energy. Unauthorised load also was put by the complainant. As per UHBVNL Versus Surinder Pal reported in 2007 (3) Consumer Protection Reporter (NC)-73 where there is a case of unauthorised use of connected load and vigilance staff found excess load then demand put forth by the opposite parties vide impugned bill for its quashing by the complainant in the Consumer Forum is not tenable in law. <br /> 14. In such 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: 16/10/2007<br />