Facts discerning this case in nutshell are that, the FESCO officials installed an electricity meter bearing No.22313474060199-R, Tariff-B-1, Feeder Bhaiwala, Sub Division, Mananwala, Abdullahpur Division at the claimant's premises in Chak No.202/ R.B, Bhaiwala, Ghona Morr, Faisalabad where the claimant is running the business of Stitching Unit for 4/5 months. As the said meter was burnt due to short circuit, therefore, on an application submitted by the claimant, the burnt meter was replaced on deposit of the Demand Notice amount but unfortunately the same was tempered meter. As the replaced meter was installed in violation of prevalent law and rules relating to the replacement of meter amounting to faulty and defective services of the defendants, the Detection Bill approved by Manager Operation (defendant No.2) vide letter bearing No.1905-8 dated 24.01.2008 for the units 7306 for the period of October to December, 2007 was also null and vide and not binding on the claimant. However, the claimant deposited 20% of the detection bill on compulsion for availing the facility of the electricity supply under protest. Anyhow, review committee has been constituted illegally against rules and regulations, which would victimize the claimant, hence, the claimant has lodged this claim for recovery of an amount of Rs.500,000/- as damages for loss in respect of business, mental torture and agony U/S.25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
2. The defendants have vehemently opposed the above said claim by filing their statement of defence mainly on the ground that at the claimant's own request a high ranking review committee has been constituted on 11.03.2008 but that the claimant has submitted this claim without participating in the proceedings of said committee, inter-alia on the ground that the claimant's meter was found tempered on checking, hence, the detection bill has been served to the consumer in accordance with rules.
3. As the matter needed evidence, therefore, the parties have produced their evidence in support of their respective versions, wherein Ashraf Ali claimant appeared as PW-1/1 whereas he produced Anwar-ul-Haq as PW-2/1 who got recorded their statements through affidavits as Ex.PW-1 and Ex.PW-2. The claimant has also tendered documentary evidence consisting of postal receipts as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4, electricity bill month of January, 2008 as Ex.P-5, Legal Notice dated 19.03.2008 as Mark-A, Notice U/S.24(II) of Electricity Act, 1910 as Mark-B, copy of an application dated 12.02.2008 as Mark-C, report on the back of application dated 12.02.2008 as Mark-D, letter No.776 dated 23.02.2008 as Mark-E, Office Order No.220/6457-59 dated 11.03.2007 as Mark-F. In rebuttal, Sayyed Talib Hussain, Line Superintendent-I and Rana Aslam Ejaz, Meter Inspector-II, office of Assistant Manager, FESCO got recorded their statements as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively through their affidavits as Ex.DW-1/1 and Ex.DW-2/1. In their documentary evidence the defendants have adduced the copy of Notice dated 14.12.2007 as Ex.D-1, copy of checking report dated 28.11.2007 as Ex.D-2, Detection Bill as Ex.D-3, copy of Meter Changing Order dated 10.05.2007 as Ex.D-4, copy of Demand Notice dated 12.05.2007 as Ex.D-5 and Electricity Bill month of April, 2008 as Ex.D-6, copy of letter No.333-36/CEF/DDC/12.07.2002 as Mark-A and copy of letter No.1468- 99/M(P)/GMCS/DD(R&CP)/56217 Policy and Procedures on Detection Bills dated 26.10.1999 as Mark- B.
4. Heard the arguments, record perused.
5. From evidence on record on evaluation of statements of the parties and their witnesses and critical appreciation of the documents on record, it appears that the claimant has not so far joined the proceedings of the high ranking committee for review / assessment of the bills and without such assessm ent of the matter by it, he has lodged this claim hastily. It appears to my satisfaction that the review committee with Superintending Engineer as convener, S. D.O and X.E.N concerned as members, has been constituted in pursuance of policy No.333-36 dated 12.07.2002 but the claimant has not joined the proceedings of the said committee, hence, such proceedings have been suspended due to non appearance of the claimant there. As the FESCO Authorities are the best experts of the theft or otherwise of electricity that, therefore, it would be not in the interest of justice and rather unfair to interfere in their matters even prior to assessment of the matter before higher hierarchy. The comprehensive procedure has also been laid down in the office Memo No.1468-9 (Mark-B) issued for the guidance of the all Chief Executives of DISCOS giving the guide lines for scrutinizing the detection bills prepared arbitrarily against the consumers. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the claimant to exhaust his remedy before WAPDA forums and to knock at the door of this court if not satisfied there. Hence, I find myself unable to provide any relief to the claimant as he seems to approach this court with un-clean hands. The claim is disposed off accordingly with the direction to the claimant to join the proceedings in the review committee who shall comply with strictly the relevant rules for preparing / review of the detection bills as provided in the Electricity Act, 1910. However, it is made clear that if the review committee would be unable to comply with the procedure or to review the detection bills in accordance with the prevalent law and rules, the claimant may lodge the claim against all the concerned for recovery of suitable damages against them. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.