1. The facts deciphering this case, in nutshell, are that the claimant is the consumer of the Sui Northern Pipe Line Ltd, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad, under his consumer No.33330473011 and meter No.GA21687936. The claimant/consumer has never been a defaulter in payment of use of Sui Gas consumption as the meter was also functioning properly. However, the defendants have removed the consumer's Gas meter installed out side his house with out any notice, hence, this case u/s 25 of PCPA 2005, for a direction to the defendants not only to restore the Gas connection to the claimant's premises but also to pay an amount of Rs.150000/- as compensation for mental agony, due to their faulty services.
2. The defendants have vehemently opposed the above said claim by filing their statement of defence, interalia, on the grounds that the Gas supply of the consumer was disconnected on 07.05.2009, on account of violation of gas sale contract because the consumer had extended gas supply to eight houses through rubber pipes as also because the meter and regulator were found tempered.
3. On 07.05.2009, Nisar Ahmad Supervisor SNGPL appearing for the defendants stated on oath that during checking on 07.05.2009, the claimant/consumer was found to supply gas through a pipe over his roof to the adjacent house Mirza Manzoor Ahmad Baig that, therefore, no notice for violation was required for disconnection of gas supply on the same day. The claimant Muhammad Sarwar denied such facts for supply of gas by him to his adjacent house therefore, it was deemed in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice to appoint the local commissioner to visit the spot and prepare his report in presence of both the parties as to whether or not the consumer was found to supply the gas connection to his adjacent house. Muhammad Kashif Advocate was appointed as local commissioner for this purpose who submitted his report in this court on 24.07.2009, when his statement was also recorded and his report was tendered as EX-CW1/1, and he was also cross-examined from both the sides.
4. Apart from procuring the above said evidence in this case, the parties were also provided opportunity for production their evidence in support of their respective version through their affidavits. In this regard Muhammad Sarwar the claimant/consumer got recorded his statement as PW1, through his affidavit EX-PW1/1, whereas in his documentary evidence he has tendered Sui Gas bills in original EX-P1 and EX-P2, receipt EX-P3, legal notices EX-P4, to EX-P6, affidavit of Ali Hassan as Mark "A", affidavit of Muhammad Ahmad as Mark "B". In rebuttal, Muhammad Asif Engineer UFG SNGPL Faisalabad, appeared in the witness box as DW1, through his affidavit as EXDW1/1, and Nisar Ahmad Khan Supervisor Fitter SNGPL Faisalabad, also got recorded his statement as DW2, through his affidavit EXDW2/1. In their documentary evidence the defendants have submitted the photo copy of disconnection advice Mark "A", affidavit of Shahid Sohail Mark "B", affidavit of Muhammad Asif Mark "C".
5. After conclusion of evidence of the parties, I have heard learned counsel for the parties, at length and have perused the record carefully and inestimably.
6. The crux of the matter in this case is whether or not the claimant has supplied gas to eight houses adjacent to his premises from his gas meter with out unlawful authority and even if it was so whether the claimant/consumer was issued notice prior to disconnection. In order to resolve this controversy, I have made hectic efforts to reach a safe conclusion through deeper appreciation of evidence on record as under: Firstly. The local commissioner having no animosity with the defendants or any relation with the claimant/consumer therefore, being an independent witness submitted his report that the claimant/consumer had not supplied gas to any of his adjacent houses. On perusal of the report and evidence appended alongwith, it appears that the learned local commissioner has provided full opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence before him. Nisar Ahmad Supervisor Fitter DW2, while appearing before the local commissioner could point out only one house to whom the claimant/consumer has allegedly supplied gas with out the permission of department as he could not locate the remaining seven houses even on query by the local commission therefore, from the report of the local commissioner read with his statement as CW1, it is crystal clear that the defendants have put forth a lame excuse for disconnecting the gas connection to the claimant's premises as even the illegal supply of gas to the house of Saeed being has not been proved because learned defendant's counsel during arguments has placed before me Sui Gas bill of his premises showing that Saeed Baig is an independent consumer of SNGPL as consumer No. 33330473011 under meter No.GA21687936; Secondly. The claimant/consumer has univocally sworn affidavit EX-PW1/1, showing that the defendants dislocated his Sui Gas meter from his premises with out any notice on 07.05.2009, despite that he was never defaulter in the payment of his Sui Gas Bills. He has produced the Sui Gas bills disclosing that he is not defaulter in payment of bills Ali Hassan and Muhammad Abid have sworn their affidavits Mark "A" and Mark "B", fully corroborating the statement of the claimant/consumer. They have also disclosed that one, Mumtaz, the factory owner of toffees etc in front of the claimant's house misappropriated Sui Gas for his factory in connivance with the functionaries of SNGPL, that the claimant brought such fact before the higher officer of the department which its functionaries took ill therefore, disconnected his connection in revenge. When subjected to cross-examination Muhammad Sarwar PW1, denied to have supplied gas to other eight houses adjacent to his house and stated that the department functionaries took away his gas meter in his absence, that he had never tempered his meter. Under such circumstance, the evidence as produced by the claimant/consumer in support of his version is confidence aspiring and worth believing; Thirdly. The evidence as produced by the defendants in rebuttal, is wavering, weak, based on conjecture and surmises, on the following grounds: a. Muhammad Asif DW1 stated in his affidavit EX-DW1/1 that the consumer had unlawfully extended gas supply to eight houses through rubber pipes but in cross-examination he disclosed that he was not present on the spot when the consumer's meter was removed meaning there by that he relied on hear say evidence having no evidentiary value. However, DW1 has admitted that the factory owner in front of claimant's house had got installed illegal connection to his factory so as to misappropriate Sui Gas and that the connection of the factory was removed fifteen days before disconnecting gas supply to the claimant's house. It is very strange to note that the SNGPL authorities have taken no action against the factory owner despite his illegal act as is manifest from the further cross-examination of Muhammad Asif; b. Nisar Ahmad Khan DW2 has admitted that the claimant/consumer was not defaulter in the payment of gas bills but that he had extended gas connections to eight/ten houses. He has affected his ignorance on the point whether or not the claimant had lodged a complaint against the factory owner for his illegal consumption of Sui gas. This witness is unreliable for the reason that in his affidavit he stated that the consumer's meter was found tempered but he confuted himself in his statement dated 14.07.2009, in this regard wherein he has stated that the claimant provided illegal gas connection to only one of adjacent houses.
7. Apart from the above said scrutiny of the case on factual plane in favour of the claimant, the matter also needs its appreciation on legal plane as under: When it has been proved to the satisfaction of this court in view of overwhelming evidence on record that the claimant's gas connection was dislocated with out any justification, it has been contended from defendant's side that in view of letter No.OGRA9(2)/2005 dated 16.08.2005, in case of strong evidence leading to the confirmation of act of theft, the company is entitled to disconnect the gas supply of consumer defaulter. However, such provision can not provide canopy or rescue to the defendants to escape their liabilities for the following reason: I. Admittedly, it is not a case of theft as even if it is presumed that the claimant was providing gas connections to the adjacent premises, the meter was showing full reading of consumption; II. Under the law, the consumer was entitled to have been associated with the proceedings of checking the meter as no body should be judge of his own case but he was not joined in such proceedings; III. The claimant/consumer was also not given any notice prior to disconnecting the gas connection supply showing that he was condemned unheard.
8. Seen from what ever angle, the claimant has proved his case up to the hilt to the entire satisfaction of this court therefore, the claim stands accepted. Accordingly, the claimant/consumer is not only entitled to restoration of his gas connection but also to compensation for harassm ent and mental agony which can be assumed from the undisputed facts that he had been running pillar to post to get redressed his grievances as the company has also subjected him to humiliation which attitude of company is most deplorable.
9. The upshot of the above whole discussion is that, the defendants shall not only restore the gas connection of claimant, but they shall also pay Rs.25000/- to him as compensation within a period of 30 days. In case of non compliance of the order the defendants shall be dealt with u/s 32(2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.