COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE
1. The case is at the stage of the arguments which have been heard and file has been perused in the light of the arguments as such I proceed to discuss and dispose off the complaint in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.
2. Briefly stated the version of the claimants being father and son inter-se is to the effect that they are consumers of Suigas under Meter No. MR-02299793; that about one year ago the meter was defective; that the meter was replaced with Meter No. MR-02201179 on complaint of the claimants; that last bill of Rs.1230/- was paid on 10-03-2011; that the bills were stopped afterwards due to alleged replacement of meter; that excessive bill has been issued in May 2011 amounting to Rs.33580/-; the there were no arrears due from the claimant but arrears were shown in the bill; that legal notice has been issued; that the claimant No.1 has become seriously ill due to the tension about excess bill; that the expenses of Rs.24000/- have been incurred on treatment; that the said expenses should be recovered from the defendant; that the defendants have violated the Consumer Act; that the claimants have not been provided right of hearing; that legal action should be taken against the defendant; that disputed bill should be corrected; that any other admissible relief should also be granted.
3. The version of the defendants in his written statement is to the effect that the petitioner has no cause of action; that the complaint is time barred; that it is an attempt to refrain/ restrain the SNGPL in recovering the bill; that the connection is in the name of Ghulam Rasul under Consumer No.18390700242; that old meter was damaged by the complainant; that meter was replaced on 27-01-2011; that theft charges and damage charges are included in the bill; that the bill has been delayed due to installation of new meter; that the defendant is entitled to recover the bill; that the complainant wants to avoid the payment; that the petition has no legs to stand; that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. 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 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.
5. As far as the request for action against the defendants is concerned, it is observed that it is settled law that the manufacturer or service provider is not liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs, specifically where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the product or provision of service except lack of utility/ benefit.
6. It is pertinent to note that the grant of damages is curtailed even under Contract Act, 1872 in which it is provided in S.73 to 75 that the damages should be proportionate to the loss and not excessive by mentioning that such compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. It is an embargo placed by the general law of contracts upon the powers of the courts about grant of damages.
7. It is also observed that further embargo on the quantum of damages to be awarded by the consumers courts has been placed by the law provided in S. 4, 10, 13 & 15 of PCP Act by declaring that the manufacturer or service provider shall be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by anticipated use of the product or provision of services that have caused damage but he shall not be liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs in such cases where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the provision of service except lack of benefit or loss of utility as such I find that the claimant is not entitled to recover the damages or compensation or counsel fee or litigation charges through this court under the law of consumers.
8. I have observed from a perusal of the file in the light of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties that since the previous defective meter was replaced without any charge of theft and since the alleged theft charges have been imposed without prior notice to the consumer as such theft charges and damage charges mentioned in the written statement as Rs.19721/- & Rs.3834/- total Rs.23555/- are liable to be cancelled while the remaining charges being related to actual consumption are liable to be paid by the claimants.
9. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is hereby accepted partly to the extent of cancellation of Rs.23555/- from the disputed bill and modified bill is directed to be issued by deletion of said charges while the complaint is dismissed to the extent of remaining claim.
10. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. 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.
12. In case of delay in compliance, the claimants are 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 defendant that the costs to be incurred for and during the application for implementation would be liable to be recovered from him.
13. A copy of this order is to be provided to the representative of the defendants on demand along with issuance of a copy through the claimants to the defendant for compliance.
14. A soft copy of this order would be available for publishing on the internet to the website of Punjab Consumer Protection Council Secretariat, 135-J, Model Town, Lahore for public disclosure and easy access of information to the consumers relating to the products and services under Rule 25 of PCP Rules, 2009.
15. 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.