1. The above mentioned complaint was launched, at the instance of complainant Abdul Hameed, alleging therein that he is regular consumer of respondent M/S S.N.G.P.L, Sialkot, since long and that the licensor's Gas meter No. MR03354203, installed at his residence is out of order since long regarding which he complained to the licensor (respondent), while claiming change of meter for the reason that despite non consumption of the Sui Gas heavy bill is charged which is excess to the complainant. It was further maintained that despite many visits of the licensor's local office, no ear was ever paid, resultantly a complaint sheet bearing No. 43895, dated 20-03-2008, was served but without any response, hence, this complaint.
2. Complainant appended legal notice, original A.D and original postal receipt alongwith original paid bill in the value of Rs. 2099/- for the month of February 2008, with his complaint.
3. Respondent in response to the complaint submitted his written reply alongwith photocopy of service receipt dated 22-03-2008, and alleged that disputed bill to consumer/complainant was faultless and that grouse of the consumer was redressed in the way that internal fitting leakage was detected and repaired by respondent's supervisor fitter while further adding that internal fitting leakage is absolute responsibility of the consumer. It was also alleged that Gas meter was found absolutely normal.
4. Both parties heard. Record also perused.
5. Having gone through the respective contentions and examined the record it is manifest that in response to the legal notice served at the instance of consumer, the duty fitter of the licensor visited the residential premises of consumer on 22-03-2008 and found that there was meter leaking of the Gas, which was reportedly repaired by the concerned duty fitter.
6. On minute scanning of the service report made by the duty fitter, it is revealed that he failed to mention as to whether Gas leaking was from internal side or external side of the meter. The report made by the duty fitter is ambiguous, vague and in any case the liability of such leaking can not be attributed to the consumer by stretch of no imagination and it is usual practice of the Government Departments that the duty officers of the licensors are used to sleep over their responsibilities and came out of their sleep, whenever a grouse is raised by consumers and in such case any fault or default in service, attributable to the duty fitter/ lineman or department is usually attributed to the consumers, as found in this case. It is also transpired that duty fitter has failed to mention the leaking of Gas from internal side of the meter but in written reply in contrary to the service report leakage of internal fitting is alleged, which does not convince the mind of this Court.
7. Besides this, the report made by the duty fitter clearly shows that licensor had specifically provided a column for the signature of complainant/ consumer in the format of complainant chit in order to show his presence at spot at the time of examination by the duty fitter to the satisfaction of the consumer but amazingly such column is blank and no signature of consumer/complainant or his authorized agent were ever secured, even, no signature/thumb impression of any witness of the residential area of consumer/complainant were ever secured to satisfy that duty fitter had really attended the consumer's premises, while examining the fittings at the spot, accordingly, the report made by duty fitter is, hereby, ruled out of consideration which was presumably prepared, while sitting in the office as per tendency prevailing in the duty fitters/linemen. No doubt learned counsel for the licensor had vigorously argued that due to numerous and various complaints it is not possible for licensor (respondent) to procure the attendance of consumers at spot nor licensor has so many duty fitters. In view of above mentioned circumstances the stance of learned counsel for the licensor is, hereby, disagreed being contrast to the document and has no force therein whereas, report made by duty fitter is, hereby, declared as fabricated, vague and untrustworthy.
8. At this stage the Court is intended to compare this phase of licensor with the identical phase of Electricity Act as given under Sec. 26, wherein it is provided that no deduction or average bill will be imposed to a consumer, until and unless a prior notice is given to the consumer of course the wisdom behind the provisions of columns of signature of consumer/complainant is not for other purpose except to compel the licensor to give a prior notice to the consumer/ complainant for ensuring his presence at spot at the time of examination/ inspection of lines for removal of the defect or to attend the grievance of the consumer/complainant, thus, while repelling the stance of the respondent/ licensor it is, held, that licensor is required/bound to give prior notice for reasonable period to the consumers to ensure his presence at the spot and in default thereof with abundant care and caution in any case leaking can not be attributed or charged to the consumer/complainant, accordingly while allowing the complaint of the complainant it is held that licensor (M/S SNGPL) is directed to redress the grievance of the complainant as prayed by him and revise the disputed bill as per complainant's consumption while keeping into consideration the history embodied in the bill, Within One Month Positively under intimation to this Court. Licensor (M/S SNGP) is also burdened with cost of Rs, 1,000/- payable to the complainant within twenty days positively either adjustable in the disputed or forthcoming bill or otherwise in cash payment if so desired while intimating the consumer with the further direction that (Licensor SNGPL) will ensure the redressal of the grievance of the consumers in the light of the above noted guide lines, in future.
9. Before parting with the order it is further observed that as discussed above it has been declared that possibility can not be ruled out that report dated 22-03 2008 was fabricated or prepared by Izhar-ul-haq supervisor fitter while sitting in the office in order to counter the complainant/consumer grouse. The explanation submitted by the delinquent official is declared unsatisfactory which is contrary to the report dated 22-03-2008, which does not show that he had attempted to procure the attendance of the consumer/complainant or his authorized agent or any other inhabitant of the residence or residential area nor had mentioned that he had attempted but reluctance was shown from the other side, accordingly, it is directed that General Manager M/S SNGPL Gujranwala will be bound to initiate disciplinary action against the delinquent official and complete the disciplinary proceedings, without delay, under intimation to this Court within stipulated period.
10. A copy of this order sent to the concerned officer for compliance. File be consigned to the record room after its compilation.