1. Mr. Waseem Talib Chattha, resident of House No. 1020/G, Gulistan Colony, Faisalabad the consumer of the defendants being user of electricity meter installed at the name of his father Mr. Talib Hussain Chattha has made the claim for faulty and defective service of the defendant No.2 that bill for the month of September, 2007 amounting to Rs.2,774/- was paid by him on 23.09.2007 at NADRA Kiosk Franchise whereas the last date was 22.09.2007 and the bill for the month of September, 2007 with surcharge was also included in the bill for the month of October, 2007 which was got corrected from Mr. Muhammad Nauman, Assistant Manager Operation, Tariq Abad and the remaining bill was paid by the claimant on 23.10.2007 with Habib Bank Ltd. Circular Road, Faisalabad. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2007 bill amounting to Rs.5188/- was issued with arrears of Rs.3262/-, whereas the claimant had already paid the said bills and the defendants even in the electricity bill for the month of October had issued the disconnection notice.
2. Aggrieved with this situation, the claimant approached the defendant No.2 in his office and made him aware of the situation faced by the claimant but he was flatly refused to be listened by the defendant No.2 and even the claimant was threatened with the disconnection of his electricity connection in case of non payment of bill, whereas no disconnection notice was there in the bill for the month of November, 2007. This attitude and threat of the defendant No.2 made the claimant afraid of situation, as the claimant was residing with his family consisting of younger kids and remained with no option but to pay Rs.5188/- with Habib Bank Ltd. Circular Road, Faisalabad on the same day despite the fact that both the previous bills stood paid by him.
3. That such acts and omissions on the part of the FESCO generally and on the part of defendant No.2 especially amounted to faulty and defective services within the purview of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 that claimant had suffered a lot of mental agonies, financial loss and harassm ent at the part of the defendants for which claimant deserved to be compensated amply and suitability in the terms of money. That the claimant served separate legal notices on both the defendants through Courier service (T.C.S) against receipts dated 23.11.2007 demanding compensation of Rs.5,032,62/- but the defendants did not respond.
4. It was prayed by the claimant that the defendants to pay a compensation amounting to Rs.5,000,00/- for putting him in mental tension, financial loss and harassment which was caused to him due to the faulty and defective service provided by the defendants and to pay back Rs.3,262/- to the claimant the extra deposited amount with the defendants and also to pay the litigation costs amounting to Rs.22,000/-
5. The claim was hotly contested by the defendants that there existed no relationship of consumer and that of service provider between the parties and that the defendants do make the sale of electricity and do not fall with the definition of service-provider and the NADRA was not the licensee of the Faisalabad Electricity Supply Company. The claimant failed to deposit the bill for the month of September, 2007 up to last date and defaulted amount of Rs.3,045/- which reached up to Rs.3,262/- was deposited subsequently with the bill of November, 2007 and credit of the same had been given in the bill for the month of December, 2007. It was lastly contended that the claim of the claimant was not made out and liable to be dismissed.
6. The parties were afforded an opportunity to enter into the pre-trial settlement, failing which they were directed to produce their evidence in the court.
7. The claimant Mr. Waseem Talib Chattha appeared as PW1 with his affidavit as EX-PW1/1 and produced bill for the month of September, 2007 as EX-PA, bill for the month of October, 2007 as EX- PB, bill for the month of November, 2007 as EX-PC, copy of the legal notice as EX-PD and receipt of courier service (T.C.S) as EX-PE.
8. To rebut the case of the claimant, defendant No.2 appeared as DW-1 with his affidavit EX-DW-1/1 and verification report of NADRA as Mark-A and further produced copy of the bill for the month of December, 2007 as Mark-B, NADRA verification list as Mark-C, copy of Abridged conditions as Mark- D, accounts verifications as Mark-E, computer Performa as Mark-F, G, H and Receipt of NADRA as Mark-I.
9. The case of the claimant though revolves around the correction of bill issued for the month November, 2007 with an accumulated amount of September and October, 2007 which were already paid by him, but the point under discussion is only that the defendant No.2 did not hear the claimant rather extended the threat to disconnect the meter in case of non payment of electricity bill on the same date, when he was approached on 23.11.2007 by the claimant along-with his clerk Abdul-Rasheed (not examined). It was the claimant who with all bonafide deposited the electricity bill with NADRA franchise kiosk and also made the payment of electricity bill for the month of October, 2007 on 23.10.2007 in the Habib Bank Ltd, circular road, Faisalabad after getting the same corrected from the Assistant Manager Operation namely Mr. Muhammad Nauman working in Tariq Abad sub division, FESCO. It is natural that if one makes the payment of all the dues against him, he is issued the same bill and he is also not given proper hearing by the concerned functionary, one feels embarrassed. The defendant No.2 stated that the bill for the month of September, 2007 was not deposited by the claimant and if the same was paid with NADRA that was not paid in the proper form as the NADRA office issues a receipt as produced by him as Mark-J and the bill was not in such like form and it was November, 2007 when the claimant approached him for the correction of bill at which the defendant No.2 tried to make the claimant to understand the mode of payment of NADRA but the claimant was insisting for the correction of the same at which he was sent to Accounts Officer.
10. All the above mentioned situation goes to prove that the problem of the claimant crept at the refusal of defendant No.2 to correct the bill who was duty bound to do so having working as Customers Services Officer, FESCO. Whatever the situation was regarding the correction of bill, whether the receipt of NADRA was valid or not, it was the duty of defendant No.2 to get the record checked regarding the correction of bill himself as a public functionary and to redress the problem of the consumers i.e claimant which was not done by him and he is guilty of defective and faulty service towards the claimant as public functionaries are not meant to sit on their chairs with the concept to rule rather they are paid in terms of salary from the public exchequer to save the public.
11. However, as the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 is a recent legislation and yet the public service provider departments are not fully acquainted with the new consumer law / consumer forum, so the defendant No.2 is not burdened with damages / compensation and costs of litigation and the defendant No.2 is reprimanded and is directed to be careful in future regarding his conduct in respect of performance of his duty towards the consumers and the defendant No.1 is directed to keep proper vigil on his subordinates regarding the redressal of grievances of the consumers arising out of the conduct and behaviour of the officials. With these observations, the claim stands accepted. File be consigned.