1. MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---I have heard the counsel patiently. However, neither the counsel for the KESC nor for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been able to meet the very crucial queries raised by the Court.
2. From whatever has been submitted by the learned counsel, it seems that the project was completed in the year 1995 and the plaintiffs were inducted in their respective flats/units in the same year. However, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 even applied for regular electrical connection and for individual meters for each unit as late as in February, 2003, but the defendant No,3 instead of disconnecting the TL facility continued to supply electric power through the same upto 4-4-2009. It is claimed on behalf of the KESC that estimate for payment for the requisite connection and meters were delivered to defendant Nos.] and 2 in the year 2003, but they did not make any payment.
3. However, the counsel for the defendants Nos.1 and 2 controverts the above and submits that some payment has been made towards such demand but admittedly the entire payment has never been made. Except for one written complaint i.e, a letter dated 9-4-2009, there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs ever demanded a regular electric supply or protested on non-availability thereof.
4. In the circumstances, all the parties seem to have been negligent in the matter, mainly the defendants Nos.1 and 2 are at fault, B inasmuch as, as noted above, they did not care even to apply for the requisite connection any time before the year 2003. Though, as noted above, the project completed in the year 1995 and the same year the possession was delivered to the purchasers of various units thereof. Similarly, KESC seems to have been in connivance with defendants Nos.1 and 2, inasmuch as they did not discontinue the TL facility. In the circumstances, I am of the prima facie view that the entire burden of excessive rates/ tariff should not be put on the plaintiffs. Since, as noted above, it is the defendants Nos.1 and 2 who have mainly been at fault, they should bear 50% of the amount charged and being charged in excess of the regular or normal individual residential connection rates. Out of the balance 50% of the excessive amount 25% shall be borne by KESC and 25% by the plaintiffs. The amount can only be determined after proper accounts are prepared, showing the amount due during different periods at the normal individual meter connection basis.
5. The parties are, therefore, directed to prepare their respective accounts, so that, it may be seen as to how much amount has been charged by KESC from time to time in excess of normal residential tariff. The statements shall also show as to what amount of various levies and taxes were imposed on the bill amount. Out of the total amount charged in excess of the normal residential tariff including in various levies thereon. 50% shall be paid by the defendants Nos.1 and 2. The remaining 50% of such excessive amount shall be borne by KESC and the plaintiffs equally. The detailed statements of accounts shall be submitted within three weeks from today. The parties shall exchange copies of their respective statement within such time.
6. As the plaintiffs are without electricity since 4-4-2009, I would direct KESC to restore the supply, though D temporarily, to the plaintiffs upon their making payment of 25% of the amount as shown in annexure-J (Page 109 of the file), total amount being Rs,39,53,300. The plaintiff shall deposit a further 25% of the said amount with the Nazir of this Court, who shall invest the amount in some profitable Government scheme. The rate of the above payments and deposit shall be decided at a later stage. The resumption of electricity shall not be delayed for single day after the amounts have been deposited with the KESC and the Nazir of this Court as prescribed above.
7. ' At this stage, defendant No,1, Rasheed Ahmed s/o Habib Ahmed and defendant No,2. Khalil Ahmed, who are identified by their counsel undertake to pay to KESC all the amounts payable for providing normal/ regular electric connections to the project and to its units and for installing separate meters for each unit.
8. ' Office is directed to fix this case after three weeks.