COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE OF MEPCO
2. The case is at the stage of the arguments. I have heard the arguments and perused the file in the light of the arguments. Now I proceed to discuss and dispose off the present complaint in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.
3. Briefly stated the grievance of the claimant is to the effect that he is the consumer of electricity of the connection under reference No. 04-15225-0211002-R; sub-division Kot Chutta; that the meter was disconnected and removed by trouble monger personalities named in the complaint on 08- 07-2010; that the memo was sent by the defendants to the SHO; that the same was not perused afterwards due to influence? that fictitious reading was continued to be recorded without meter; that the actual reading on the meter on the date of removal was approximately 3,900 units; that the claimant has been paying the bill for about 14/15 months without consumption; that the connection is not being restored despite filing of repeated applications; that the complaint is supported with affidavit. It is requested by the claimant that order should be issued for the restoration of the connection and for installation of the meter on the wall of the residence of the claimant and to adjust extra units in the account of the claimant.
4. The main defendants being employees of MEPCO have contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement through the SDO by contending that the meter is being kept by the claimant at his house; that payment of Rs.1,891/- is yet to be made by him; that the disconnection was informed by the claimant in the latter part of August when the reading had already been made; that the memo about disconnection was issued on the application of the claimant which is pending with the police; that the report of M&T would be proper to be obtained before installation of the meter so as to be checked that the same is not tempered.
5. Mahi Khan alleged intervener was impleaded as additional defendant No.4 by acceptance of his own application bearing No.1875/11 as mentioned in order dated 08 12-2011. The written statement of the additional defendant is to the effect that he has alleged the claimant to be the trouble monger personality who wants to cause damage to him having already been the cause of the death of a cow due to electrocution; that he would not have any objection if the claimant is given the connection from any other pole than the pole installed in the house of the said defendant. It is requested by him that the complaint be dismissed with special costs and damages.
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. A perusal of Consumer Service Manual issued by the defendants shows that it is provided by Rule 6.2 (b) that; "In cases where accumulated readings are recorded, segregated bills shall be prepared keeping in view the number of months for which the readings have been accumulated to give relief to the consumers".
9. It is provided by the said Manual relating to the complaints regarding billing by Rule 10.3 (a) (xiii) that Arithmetical errors: ROs and SDOs are both competent to correct such bills forth with upon receipt of the complaint".
10. It is obligatory for the defendants to handle the complaint relating to the errors in bills arising from wrong meter readings and wrong calculation of charges etc within seven days as provided in clause 10.3 (a) (i) in accordance with the procedure as laid down in chapter 10 of the Consumer Service Manual.
11. 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".
12. As far as the cost of defective meter for replacement is concerned, it is provided by Rule No.4.4
(a) of the Consumer Service Manual that "in case of replacement of a meter, the consumer's account shall not be liable to any adjustment on the basis of any discrepancy detected in the impugned metering equipment where the discrepancy is not attributable to any act or omission of the consumer.' It is pertinent to note that the cost of replacement of meter is to be borne by MEPCO relating to defective/ damaged/ brunt meter not due to consumer fault according to the table given under Rule 4.4 (e) of the said Manual. The replacement of defective meter is to be made free of costs according to the schedule provided at the end of Chapter 4 of the Consumer Service Manual of MEPCO.
13. I am of the view that every consumer is entitled to the bill based on correct meter reading and it is basic duty of the defendants to ensure proper checking of the meters regularly and to issue correct bills and failure to record correct reading amounts to the faulty and defective services entitling the consumers to move for correction of the bills as their right with reference to Chapter 6 relating to METER READING AND BILLING' of the Consumer Service Manual of MEPCO available on internet. The defendants are bound to redress the complaints of the consumers within time limit fixed in Chapter 10 relating to CONSUMER COMPLAINTS' of the said Consumer Service Manual of MEPCO.
14. It is observed that the controversy being raised by the rival claimant as additional defendant is to the effect that existing pole from which the connection was removed is situated within the premises of the house of the said defendant and that the same is dangerous for his animal and property. In this regard the report of Mahr Fida Hussain Advocate as local commissioner is included in the file about the present situation of the disputed connection along with the proposal about installation at proper place while the connection has already been installed amicably as interim relief in compliance with interim order passed during the pendency of the present complaint without any further objection from the additional defendant, therefore I find that no further order is required after amicable restoration of the connection about the status of the disputed connection.
15. As far as the challenge against the arrears is concerned, I find that the defendants are liable to cancel the charges relating to the alleged fictitious reading while keeping the different taxes and surcharges intact by issuance of modified bill.
16. As far as the requirement of the checking of the meter by M&T is concerned, I find that the same is the prerogative of the defendants and they can get the meter inspected at any time subject to the condition that the supply should be continued through alternate check meter during the inspection of the original meter.
17. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted to the extent of the restoration of the connection having already been effected by issuance of the direction for issuance of modified bill after rendition of accounts.
18. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. A copy of this order is to be sent to SDO through the representative of the defendants for compliance.
22. 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.