1. Muhammad Bashir S/o Adbul Ghani has filed this complaint against Sui Northern Gas Pipe line Ltd.
2. Case of the complainant is that he has obtained a connection of Sui Gas from respondent's company since December 2006 and has been allotted consumer No. 50202737600 and meter No. MK-02452325. He was paying Sui Gas bills issued by respondent company regularly but in the month of June 2007 he received a bill amounting to Rs. 53780/-. He has never consumed the Sui Gas for which he had been charged the above said amount by the respondent. According to the complainant the respondent was approached for amendment of the bill and it was clarified by the respondent that consumer has been charged as average amount because matel seal of the meter was found broken. Complainant contended that respondent company was bound to provide him the services free from any faults.
3. The complaint was contested on various grounds like; complainant is not a consumer; gas is not a product as defined by section 2 (i&j) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. On merit respondent pointed out that on 12-04-02 the Gas meter installed at the premises of the complainant was replaced and was sent to Central Workshop Lahore. According to the report of the said workshop seal was found to have been stolen, therefore. Consumer was charged the bill amounting to Rs. 48074.67/-.
4. The complainant produced the following evidence in support of his claim:- Copy of legal notice mark "A", postal receipts of legal notices Exhibit "A to D", AD of legal notices Exhibit "E to H", controversial bill of Sui Gas Exhibit "I", bill of Sui Gas Exhibit "J" and certificate of counsel fee Exhibit "K" The respondent produced the following evidence:- Photo copy of advice for the replacement of meter gas mark "A", copy meter report of Central Meter shop mark "B", copy of report of deduction and evaluation committee mark "C/1-3" and attested photo copies documents Exhibit "RA", Exhibit "RB/1-3".
5. In this case the points for determination are as to whether the respondent does not fall within the definition of manufacturer;- whether Gas is not a product as defined by section 2(i&j) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005;- whether the consumer was rightly charged the bill amounting to Rs. 48074 for theft of Sui Gas.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the counsels and gone through the record.
7. Respondent M/s Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984. The company receives Gas and further distribute the same to the different consumers. The Revenue/price of the Gas consumed by a buyer is collected by the company. To ensure the uninterrupted supply of Gas, up to the premises of a consumer and also charge the consumer the actual price of the gas utilized by him is the activity which comes within the definition of service. The company as a seller exercise control over the quality of the product. The company also labels the Gas as his own. There can be no denying the fact that respondent company is involved in the sale and distribution of product "Gas". Supply of Gas which is made through out the Gujranwala region mainly by the respondent, which is a statutary body, is included in the term "service" under clause 2(k) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and similarly charging the consumer the price of Gas is a function being performed by it is also part of the a service. Similarly Goods means "every kind of moveable property including electricity, water, Gas etc", therefore, Gas is a product as defined in clause 2(j) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
8. Main contention of the respondent for charging the consumer amount Rs. 48074/- in the bill is that matel seal of the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was found broken. It is admitted by the respondent that Gas meter installed at the premises of the complainant was replaced by the company by another meter. The respondent has not mentioned in the written reply as to why the meter was required to be replaced and if at the time of dismantling the meter the matel seal was found broken, the same was brought into the notice of the consumer. However RW1 during his statement comes forward for the first time with assertion that meter was replaced due to breaking of seal. If this was the reason, the consumer was not given any notice of this fact and was not afforded an opportunity to explain or clarify his position qua the broken seal. The consumer was taken at surprise when the bill containing penalty reached in his hands.
9. I have also perused the meter inspection report, Exhibit "RB". According to this report the meter was removed from the site on 12-04-07 and was sent to Central Workshop on 26-04-07. There is no explanation as during this period meter remained in whose custody and what happened with meter. It is not the case of the respondent that immediately after removal of the meter from the site it was sealed in a pack within the view of the consumer and his signature was obtained to this effect. According to this report index lead bit seal was missing, Index cup seal was lose, BOD lead cup seal was OK. There is nothing on the record from the side of the respondent that lead seal was missed or become lose by the consumer himself with some ulterior motives. None of the witnesses of the respondent has narrated that he has seen the consumer while removing the seal. In most of the cases meter is installed by the department out side the premises which is accessible to everybody. One important thing which can not be lost sight of is that according to Exhibit "RB" meter was checked from inside and index assembly and other parts were found in ok position.
10. Mere missing of a seal roped with a thin lead wire although may create doubt that it might have been missed by the consumer for some malafide but doubts and suspicions, how much stronger it may be, can not take the place of evidence, especially in this case when the index assembly and parts of the meter was found ok by the respondent's own laboratory.
11. Arguments of learned counsel for respondent that consumption of gas by consumer during this period was found to have been shown less in quantity by the meter have no force at all as it is also based on surmises and conjectures that gas might have been stolen during the period.
12. On the other hand it was argued that during this period due to various factors consumer might have utilized the Gas in less quantity. The onus to prove that there was a pilferage of Gas by the consumer for which he was charged the exorbitant bill rested upon the shoulders of the respondent in order to justify his act of charging the consumer and I am convinced to hold that respondent has badly failed to discharge its burden. The consumer was charged the bill on the basis of doubt and suspicions. Thus the respondent has been found guilty of providing of deficient service to the consumer. The complaint is accepted and the respondent is directed:-
(a) to return the amount of Rs. 48074/- deposited by the consumer.
(b) To pay the complainant Rs. 5000/- as counsel fee.
(c) Pay Rs. 1000/- as cost of legal expenses.
(d) respondent is also burdened to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- which shall be deposited in the state treasury.
13. All the above said direction shall be complied within the two weeks of the passing of this order without fail, other wise under section 32(2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 respondent shall be liable to the punishment with imprisonment which may extend to three years.
14. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.