1. By way of this order a preliminary objection about jurisdiction of this Court raised by learned counsel for defendant is being decided.
2. This is second round of litigation. In earlier case filed by Dr. Izhar Hussain Abidi/claimant under section 25 of The Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act,) against defendant/Sui Northern Gas Pipeline department according to paragraph No. 5 of that claim there was a prayer for correction of bill for April 2012 which was Rs. 51150/-. In that case defendant was proceeded ex-parte but claim was disposed of on 08.09.2012 by this Court on the reason that it was a matter pertaining to correction of bill so same did not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court.
However, an observation was given that claimant could file a grievance petition before defendant who after inquiry may satisfy him.
3. Same claimant against same defendant now in second round is of the view that his grievance petition was not decided and what defendant had done was that it removed gas meter from premises of claimant. On this cause of action various kinds of reliefs have been prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for defendant contends that still claim of claimant is for correction of bill which matter in view of earlier order passed by this Court is out of domain of the Act; once meter was removed by defendant due to non payment of bill by claimant despite disconnection notice, the relations of consumer and service provider has seized to exist.
5. Learned counsel for claimant, on the other hand argues that gas meter installed at the premises of claimant was defective and due to said reason there was wrong bill sent to claimant hence when the matter involves question of defective and faulty services, the Act shall play its role and claimant is entitled for protection under its provisions.
6. Arguments heard.
7. Without any reservation it is found that even through this claim the dispute which claimant has agitated is about correction of bill sent by defendant to him as according to him he never consumed the units shown against him. It means that even today he is asking for same relief and if it is so, I cannot go beyond my verdict which I made while deciding first round of litigation. My said view is also supported from a latest pronouncement of Honourable Lahore High Court in case title "Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited Vs. Abdul Hameed 2012-CLD-1428" where it was held that prayer for correction Sui Gas bill and change of meter by no stretch of imagination will confer jurisdiction upon Consumer Court.
8. Coming to second contention of learned counsel for claimant about defective and faulty services, I do not find any force in this argument. What to say about today even before filing the claim in this Court there was no relation in existence of parties as consumer and service provider because claimant did not pay the bill against him which could be said a consideration whereas defendant on this reason after disconnection notice removed the gas meter which amounts to withdrawal of services. Hence when there exists no such relations, this Court cannot come forward to adjudicate upon the dispute between parties.
9. In view of above objection of learned counsel for defendant is upheld that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Claim is, thereafter, returned to claimant who shall be at liberty to approach the Court of ultimate jurisdiction, if so advised. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion.