1. The briefly stated facts as discovered from the pleadings of instant complaint (bearing No. 62/2008), launched at the instance of complainant (Shahid Pervaiz S/O Muhammad Shafi Arrain by Caste, R/O Sun Shine Marbles, Marala Road, Tehsil & Distt. Sialkot), an Attorney and Director of Sun Shine Marbles, under actual consumer Amjad Pervaiz against respondent-service provider, Executive Engineer (GEPCO), Sialkot for the allegations are that consumer-subscriber Amjad Pervaiz, vide his application bearing No. 1341/B-1, dated 01-06-2006 (Ex-A.W.1/BB), got installed industrial electric connection, vide demand notice No.1615, dated 02-06-2006, (ExR/C)for sum of Rs.1,28,420/- duly deposited in the bank on 03-06 2006 (actual dated 03-07-2006) and respondent about 6/7 months and respondent w.e.f. November, 2006, in view of the installations of the necessary material and receipt of costs of material duly supplied electric connection bearing No.27-2431-04562019U to the consumer-subscriber Amjad Pervaiz (since gone abroad) Whereafter the complainant is working as Director of his Marble factory for the arrangements and maintenance of factory.
2. The complainant is duly depositing the monthly bills in the name of actual consumer in favour of respondent-service provider and nothing is outstanding thereof but respondent on 18-03-2008 had claimed further amount in sum of Rs.63, 110/-, vide demand notice No.2442 (Ex-R.W.1/A) which is against the facts, rules and without any reasonable cause and further pleaded that consumer was given electric connection with delay of about six months without reasonable justification, as a result of which he suffered heavy costs and has duly served a legal postal registered A.D. Notice (Ex-AA)as required by law, hence, the claim for declaration of demand notice served at the instance of respondent as illegal ineffective and inconsequential, hence, the complaint.
3. On the other hand respondent while submitting contesting written and vehemently resisting the claim of the consumer- subscriber seriously controverted the allegations leveled by the complainant. Respondent while raising preliminary objection also claimed no jurisdiction of this court, no cause of action to the consumer, dismissal of the complaint being time barred and that services of the respondent were not challenged, even, it was maintained that the matter falls out side the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
4. On factual grounds it was also maintained that consumer side while submitting affidavit (Ex-A.C) and executing the terms and conditions of the electric connection (Ex-A.D) had also agreed the raise of costs of material, even, at any time in future and are debarred to take any exception thereto. Apart from this it was pleaded that the deposit of demand notice (Ex-AC), was delayed by the consumer side at his initiative/request of complainant-consumer, culminating into appreciation of the costs of the material, hence, claim the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
5. In view of the divergent pleadings of the parties respective evidence was invited.
6. The consumer Amjad Pervaiz examined himself as (A.W.1) and closed his evidence while submitting photocopy of the notice (ExA/A).
7. On the other hand respondent side examined.
8. (R.W.1)-Tariq Ali, SDO and while submitting documentary evidence, disputed additional demand notice (Ex-R.W.1/A), photocopy of rate list dated 01-06-2006 (Ex-R.F) photo copy of application for the supply of electric connection (Ex-R.W.1/B), initial demand notice (Ex-R/C), report of electric inspector (Ex-R/D), letter state report (ExR/E), rate list of material (Ex-R/F), list of detailed additional expenses (Ex-R/G) and list of expenses at the time of electric connection (ExR/H), closed the respondent evidence.
9. Respective arguments have been heard. Record also perused.
10. After having heard both sides and gone through the record it is not disputed that initially instant complaint was launched at the instance of Shahid Pervaiz, an authorized agent (duly ratified by the actual consumer during the courts proceedings on 28-10-2008 while putting up his appearance) and a director of Firm owned by Amjad Pervaiz but respondent side while submitting contesting written statement and raising preliminary objection, objected the proceedings launched by an unauthorized person without pre-seeking instructions from actual consumer- subscriber, however, this objection stood repelled by the original consumer-subscriber, at the time when he recorded his evidence before the court. Of course, recording of his evidence before the court, in pursuance of the complaint launched by his director (his brother), stood legitimized in view of implied and prospective ratification as held in 1995 CLC 1102 (Tariq Mahmood VS Mst. Zarda Begum & another), PLJ 1994 Lah 1487 & 1987 CLC 1366 (Muhammad Khaliq VS Abdullah Khan & four others), accordingly, the legal objection of respondent side stood legally cured and answered.
11. The close survey of entire pleadings of the complaint manifest that consumer side has not expressly challenged the services provided by the respondent-service provider but meticulous scanning of the pleadings and claim of the consumer-complainant embeds in the mind of this court that there is no other relationship between the consumer and respondent except the provision of services by the respondent and payment/deposit of charges, thereof, as consideration.
12. No matter no specific word of defect in service is used by the complainant-consumer side but it is not disputed situation that respondent is receiving and charging its bills on account of his services provided to the consumers, thus, merely non mention of specific words of defect in service is not sufficient to non suit the complainant and hence, objection raised by respondent side in this regard is also declined.
13. So for as the objection raised by respondent side regarding the ousting of jurisdiction of this court is concerned stood exhaustively dealt by this court, vide order dated 15-09-2008, according to which this objection was answered in negative against the respondent-service provider and in favour of the complainant-consumer which remained unchallenged throughout and thus has attained finality, accordingly, at this stage this court avoids to deal it any further, for the purpose of herevity.
14. During the arguments the heavy emphasis was also laid by the learned counsel that the complaint was time barred and that consumer had no cause of action against the respondent-service provider and even, if he intended some relief, he should have launched his claim before civil court as per terms of Sec.42 of Specific Relief Act but this court is afraid to be convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel who appears to be misconceived in as much as, vide Sec.3 of PCP Act, 2005, the legislature has clearly clothed the consumer to approach before this court under this public welfare Act for relief in addition to other prevailing laws which reads as under; Sec.3. "The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in Derogation of the Provisions of any other Law for the time being in force".
15. The bare reading of the terms of Sec.3 PCP Act 2005, makes it crystal clear that legislature had intentionally enacted and promulgated this act for additional and quick relief in order to save the consumer from agonies of long litigation, hence, the arguments in this regard advanced by learned counsel for the respondent is, hereby, repelled.
16. So far as the objection of no jurisdiction to this court viz-a-viz GEPCO is governed by the central government is concerned has no force, therein, while having gone through the provisions of Sec.14 of PCP Act, 2005, which reads as under; Sec. 14. (1).Where the standard of provision of a service is regulated buy a special law, provincial or federal, the standard of services shall be deemed to be the standard laid down by such special law.
17. (2).Where the standard of a service has not been provided for in any law or by the professional or trade body concerned, the standard shall be that which at the time of the provision of the service, a consumer could reasonably expect to obtain at that time in Pakistan".
18. According to which the services rendered and regulated by Federal Government also lie within the orbit and jurisdiction of this court. No doubt the GEPCO is governed by Central/Federal Government but its services are being provided within the limits of Punjab as such in any way the jurisdiction of this court is not ousting which is fully supported by the terms laid down in the above quoted Sec.14, thus, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent-service provider is also, hereby, declined.
19. No doubt while making statement (A.W.1) Amjad Pervaiz had specifically answered that after the issuance of disputed demand notice amounting Rs.63,910/- (Ex-A.W.1/A) instant complaint was launched but nothing has come on the record from the respondent side as to when disputed demand notice was served, even, otherwise the trend of cross examination which culminated into answer reveals that it was an answer in multiple from to a multiple question and thus, while deciding a case only particular or single answer is not sufficient to keep into consideration as held in PLJ 1996 SC 613 & 1986 CLC 2958 (Budhoo VS Liaqat Hussain & ten others).
20. Apart from this it was must for respondent side to show and suggest a specific day of service of disputed demand notice (ExR.W.1/A) in order to bring the case within the mischief of time barred but no efforts what so ever was ever made and respondent side tried to attract the attention of the court only to above quoted answer of the (A.W.1) Amjad Pervaiz. Be that as it may till the time of recovery of demand notice (Ex-R.W.1/A) by a department or organization or licensor the cause of action remains alive and hence, this court is of fortified view that the cause of action against the respondents to the complainant-consumer, even, to the date of filing of complaint was recurring and, hence, the complaint is within time.
21. As per pleadings of the parties and pros and contras evidence inclusive documentary evidence, it is quite obvious that the respondent-service provider side laid emphasis that as per affidavit (Ex- A.C) and document of additional terms and conditions (Ex-AD) the complainant-consumer side was bound to satisfy the future liabilities including increase in the costs of material as per terms and conditions of the application for the claim of electric connection (ExR.W.1/B), and stressed that after getting the connection of the electric supply consumer cannot take deviation from the Terms of affidavit (Ex-A/C), Additional conditions (Ex-A/D) and rates of tariff (Ex-A/E) according to which consumer had, ever, bound himself to pay additional or increased charges in the costs of material supplied to him at the time of his electric connection but this court is afraid to agree with the emphasis laid down by the respondent-service provider as held by Hon,'ble High Court, Lahore in a case titled Wapda and others VS Umair Khan (1988 CLC 501) according to which a consumer cannot be made liable for any amount and could not bring about any agreement between such authority and consumer making later liable to pay amount enhanced on the basis of audit report.
22. While further dilating and adverting to documentary evidence placed before the court it is shown that complainant-consumer was demanded Rs.1,28,420/- according to the rate list for the supply of material dated 31-05-2006, by the GEPCO which was duly deposited by the complainant- consumer on 03-07-2006. No matter the complainant-consumer had deposited the amount of demand notice on 03-07-2006 after getting extention therein but while extending time the respondents-service provider had never imposed the condition to the consumer-complainant to deposit further amount according to new rate list (if any) while explaining that in case period is extended consumer would be liable to pay additional amount, meaning thereby respondent- service provider had no objection for the deposit of amount of demand notice (Ex-R.W.1/C) within extended time nor any record is brought before this court to show that if any such condition was ever imposed nor any rule is produced before the court which would enable the respondent- service provider to charge additional amount of costs, hence, this court is of the considered view that entire evidence placed before this court is sufficient to justify and establish the allegations and claim of the consumer-complainant against the respondent-service provider and thus while concluding its discussion this court has no other option but to hold that claim of further demand by the respondent-service provider, vide demand notice (Ex-R.W.1/A) in addition to earlier demand notice (Ex-A/B-Ex-R/C) is unlawful, illegal, ineffective, inoperative and inconsequential qua the rights of the consumer-complainant on account of defective and faulty service of respondent- service provider and thus, service provider are restrained to lay any such claim.
23. In nutshell the instant complaint is, hereby, allowed with costs in sum of Rs. 2, 000/-(Rupees Two Thousands only). The costs of legal expenses incurred by the complainant-consumer are assessed as Rs.5,000/-, all recoverable from respondent-service provider Within Twenty Days positively, failing which the proceedings under Sec.32 of PCP Act, 2005 will be initiated. File be consigned to the record room after its due compilation.