COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE OF MEPCO
2. The court is on tour at Layyah.
3. The case is at the stage of the decision while the arguments were heard on previous date. I have considered the arguments and perused the file. I proceed to discuss and dispose off the complaint in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.
4. Briefly stated the grievance of the claimant is to the effect that he is consumer of electricity under Reference No.11-15731-1012118; that his meter is being threatened to be removed illegally without any justification; that there are no arrears due from the claimant; that he would suffer irreparable loss in case of disconnection. The claimant has requested fro grant of permanent injunction against disconnection and removal.
5. The defendants have contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement in which they have raised certain preliminary objections about lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction of court, extra length of cable at distance of 200/300 meters from the pole, no right for taking connection from distribution transformer by inhabitants of the colonies, entitlement of special costs, lack of legal notice. It is contended by the defendants that they have issued legal notice to the claimant for shifting of illegal connection; that they are entitled to disconnect illegal meter; that there is no loss to the claimant; that the complaint is incorrect and baseless. They have requested for dismissal of the complaint with special costs u/s 35-A of CPC.
6. It is pertinent to note that although evidence is necessary to be recorded under S.30 of PCP Act 2005 for disposal of the complaints by the Consumer Courts but since the procedural laws known as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, special rules of evidence u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of the Consumer Courts, as such the propriety demands that the regular evidence should not be recorded in such cases where the points for determination are mostly based on the copies of the admitted documents available in the file of the complaint or admitted in the pleadings just like the present case.
7. It is proper to be observed that the ELECTRICITY is a PRODUCT according to the definition provided in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the said definition has been made applicable on the cases under PCP Act, 2005 by S.2 (j) of the latter Act. It is also observed that the AUTHORITY providing the ELECTRICITY as a product comes within the definition of the MANUFACTURER under S.2 (h) as such the AUTHORITY is obliged to fulfill all the responsibilities of a MANUFACTURER of the product under S.4 to 12 & 18 to 20 being supplied in dual capacity of the MANUFACTURER along with responsibilities of the SERVICE PROVIDER under S.13 to 17 of PCP Act, 2005. The responsibilities of the defendants are therefore dual as MANUFACTURERS as well as SERVICE PROVIDERS. The expectation of the public about better services of the MEPCO is therefore genuine and enforceable under the law.
8. As far as the objection of the defendants about colony area is concerned, I find that when a colony is not sanctioned by TMA due to non-conformity with required standards than the area included in the colony becomes a Mohalla or locality consisting of private plots and public roads and streets and sewerage etc as the locality developed individually by the owners of the plots and buildings just like the land of any other Block or Mohalla or locality of the city or revenue estate and that such area does not become noman-land and does not become excluded from the general area of the city or revenue estate even if situated in urban area or rural area, both areas being within jurisdiction of TMA and such area does not fall out of the province or out of the country and that the roads and streets of such colony automatically vest in the TMA just like the roads and streets of any other Mohalla or locality of the city or urban area and the TMA becomes entitled to apply the building bye-laws on the constructions being raised in illegal housing colonies and the people constructing the buildings become liable to get the site plans approved from TMA as pre- condition for raising any construction while TMA becomes entitled and even liable to issue notices to call for the regularizing of the constructions of buildings whereas taxation department becomes entitled to impose property tax on such buildings in accordance with its rules and all the government departments and public become entitled to open access inside the area of illegal colony including MEPCO.
9. It is clear from Ch.3 Rule 3.2 of the Consumer Service Manual containing the rules and regulations of MEPCO that; "Routine repair/ replacement of service wires feeding the consumer premises up to the metering point shall be the responsibility of the MEPCO".
10. I have observed that since the claimant is being alleged to have applied for less length of cable and absence of transformer in comparison with the distance of his premises from LT line at the time of new connection as such he is bound to get the extension of his electric wire near his house by depositing the charges of excess wire and poles and Ant Conductor and transformer in accordance with the prescribed rates so as to get his connection regularized and the defendants are required to issue demand notice for the extension by keeping in view the length of wire and material required to regularize the connection in accordance with rules otherwise the defendants would be entitled to disconnection in accordance with law.
11. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted and direction is issued to the defendants to issue demand notice to the claimant for deposit of required charges so as to regularize the connection in accordance with law.
12. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
13. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is not preferred within period of 30 days under S.33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
14. In case of delay in compliance, the claimant is entitled to get the order implemented by filing the application for implementation with reference to S.31, 32 & 36 of PCP Act, 2005, if so required with the warning to the defendants that the costs to be incurred for and during the application for implementation would be liable to be recovered from them.
15. One copy each of this order is directed to be issued to the DCO, DPO, TMO & SE MEPCO for general information.
16. The file of this complaint is to be consigned to the record room of this court duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.