2. The case is at the stage of the decision while the arguments were heard on the previous date and this date was fixed for the decision.
3. I have perused the file in the light of the arguments as such I proceed to dispose off the application by discussion in the following paragraphs.
4. The cumulative version of the petitioner gathered from the applications included in the present file alongwith the main application for execution, briefly stated is to the effect that earlier order of this court passed on 13-04-2010 should be implemented; that contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for alleged violation of the said order; that the decision of the Review Committee should be declared void due to expiry of the period fixed by the earlier order of this court; that the registration of the criminal case which is being registered with malafide intention against the petitioner by the respondents in violation of the said order should be prohibited; and that the disputed charges should be cancelled and that the electric connection should be restored and that new meter should be installed; that litigation charges amounting to Rs.13,000/- alongwith costs of Rs.1000/- imposed by the said order should also be recovered from the respondents and be paid to the petitioner.
5. The version of the respondents according to the copies of the letters included in the present file is to the effect that the Review Committee has rejected the case through the order, copy of which is annexed with the written reply of the respondents and it is mentioned in the order of the said committee that fresh proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the report of the Circle Surveillance Team for using the supply direct from LT line and that fresh detection bill has been charged against the petitioner for 06 months at 30 percent load factor.
6. The back ground of the present pending applications is to the effect that the respondents were directed vide order dated 13-04-2010 passed in connection with Complaint No.621 which was filed on 02-12-2009; that the matter should be revised by the Standing Review Committee in presence of the claimant and the Review Committee was required to decide the matter within three months failing which the disputed detection bill was deemed to be set aside automatically and costs of Rs.1000/- alongwith counsel fee and litigation charges were also directed to be paid by the respondents while FIR was permitted to be lodged for alleged theft of electricity subject to the cogent reason.
7. The version of the respondents is to the effect that the Consumer Court has been prohibited by Honourable High Court from determination of the detection bill according to the un-reported judgment titled Mst. Shaheen Akhtar & another Vs. Superintending Engineer MEPCO & others passed in F.A.O No.78/09 passed on 07-12-2009.
8. I am of the view that since the present application relates to the implementation of the earlier order of this court as such the ruling of Honourable High Court is not applicable on the facts of the present case.
9. It is pertinent to observe 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.
10. 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 respondents 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.
11. As far as the prayer about the recovery of the damages is concerned, it is hereby observed that: the return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs is provided in the law where the consumer has suffered the loss of utility or lack of benefit only while the manufacturer or service provider is also liable for the damages where the consumer has suffered any damage from the defective product u/s 10 & faulty service u/s 15; that the manufacturer or service provider is liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by the defective product u/s 4 & faulty service u/s 13; that the liability of the manufacturer or service provider is not limited or excluded by the terms of any contract or notice about the defective product u/s 12 & faulty service u/s 17; that the disclosure of the details has been made essential about the product and service where the nature of the same is such that it is material to the decision of the consumer to enter into the contract with reference to the product u/s 11 & service u/s 16; that the standard for the provision of services is determined as such which a consumer could reasonably expect to obtain in Pakistan at the time of the provision of the service u/s 14; that the court is authorized to direct the respondent to pay reasonable compensation for any loss suffered due to negligence of the respondent u/s 31(e); that to award damages where appropriate u/s 31(f); that to award costs including lawyer's fees incurred on the legal proceedings u/s 31(g) of PCP Act, 2005.
12. As far as the justification or otherwise of the decision of the review committee is concerned; it is observed that it was necessary to associate the petitioner with the proceedings of the review committee on the basis of natural justice as well as under order dated 13-04-2010 but no such effort seems to have been done by the review committee as such I find that the order is in sheer violation of valid order of this court and the order of this court has become final due to non filing of appeal by the respondents.
13. It is also observed that the decision of the Review Committee is not maintainable because the date of the assembling of the committee has been concealed by keeping the line about the date of the meeting as blank in the said decision.
14. As far as the time of three months fixed by this court for the decision of the Review Committee is concerned, it is observed that the same was to commence from the receipt of the copy of order dated 13-04-2010. It is revealed from the copy of letter dated 26-10-2010 that the SDO (E) had notified the Deputy Manager (OP) about the order of this court vide previous letter mentioned in the subsequent letter being dated 17-08-2010 with the reminder letters issued on 21-09 2010 & 26- 10-2010. It transpires that the first letter on the subject was issued by the SDO for implementation of order dated 13-04-2010 after about four months on 17-08 2010 whereas the decision of the review committee was required within three months of the said order.
15. The decision of the Review Committee endorsed on 04-11-2010 is therefore utterly time barred without any justification given in the said decision about the reason for un-necessary delay in the implementation of the earlier order and the disputed charges which were in existence before the said decision as well as the modified charges determined by the Review Committee are therefore deemed to have been cancelled automatically due to the willful delay in the decision of the Review Committee.
16. As far as the request of the petitioner is concerned to prohibit the registration of FIR, it is observed that it was permissible under the same order to get the FIR registered against the petitioner as such the same cannot be prohibited. The request of the petitioner is therefore rejected with the observation that the petitioner would be entitled to disprove the allegations leveled against him during police investigation and during trial of the criminal case.
17. As far as the request for the recovery of Rs.13,000/- is concerned, it is observed that the same relates to the counsel fee about which the petitioner was required by the order under implementation to file the certificate of his learned counsel about the payment of the fee but no such certificate appears to have been filed because the same is not mentioned in the decree sheet. The request for recovery of the litigation charges is therefore rejected, however the respondents are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as ordinary costs to the petitioner.
18. For what has been discussed above, the application is hereby accepted to the extent of the cancellation of the decision of the Review Committee and recovery of Rs.1,000/- as ordinary costs and cancellation of disputed charges and restoration of electric connection and installation of new meter; while the application is dismissed to the extent of the request about prohibiting the registration of criminal case and the application is also dismissed to the extent of the recovery of Rs.13,000/- as litigation charges. Consequently the decision of the Review Committee is declared as null and void and cancelled and the disputed charges are cancelled and the respondents are directed to credit the excess payment if previously paid by modification of the future bills and the connection should be restored immediately and new meter should be installed under intimation to this court.
19. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
20. A copy of this order be provided free of costs to the representative of the respondents along with issuance of a copy by hand through the petitioner to the respondents for compliance.
21. The petitioner 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.
22. This order would not become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is 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 Lahore High Court.
23. The file of this application 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.