1. The case is at the stage of the decision after hearing the arguments of both parties and file has been perused in the light of the arguments as such I proceed to discuss and decide and dispose off the matter in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.
2. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that he is consumer of electricity under reference No.01-15263-0006300-R; that he shifted to his ancestral house due to flood of water; that the house where the meter was installed remained closed; that sufficient units were not consumed; that the claimant has paid the bill up to 5999 units up to May 2011; that the bill of 5095 units has been issued to the claimant although the said units have already been paid; that the charges in the bill of June, July and August amounting to Rs.8160/- are illegal. The claimant has requested for the correction of the disputed bill and issuance of correct bill along with request for the grant of special costs and adjustment of previously paid units.
3. The version of the defendants in their joint written statement filed on behalf of the SDO is to the effect that the disputed bill is correct due to MCO on paper being regular bill; that the complaint is false and base less.
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. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Since there is no explanation in the present complaint about any other damage except the loss of utility or lack of benefit 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.
10. I have observed that since it is deemed to be the fictitious MCO only for the purpose of the completion of the record which is being made the basis of the disputed charges whereas no actual MCO was effected and since the claimant is shown to have remained absent from the locality due to flood of water as such he is not liable to pay the disputed charges.
11. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is hereby partly accepted to the extent of cancellation of disputed charges and modified bill is directed to be issued by deduction of the disputed charges and by credit of previously paid units except fixed taxes from the disputed bill while the complaint is dismissed about recovery of damages.
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. A copy of this order is to be provided to the representative of the defendants along with issuance of a copy through the claimant by hand to the RO / SDO MEPCO for compliance.
16. A copy of this order is directed to be made 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 in accordance with Rule 25 of PCP Rules, 2009.
17. 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.