COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE OF SNGPL
2. This date was fixed for the compromise. Copy of duplicate bill has been filed on behalf of the defendants and ancillary application has been filed on behalf of the claimant. The application filed today is being contested on behalf of the defendants. It is stated by learned counsel for the defendants that no further relief is admissible to the claimant. The opportunity for completion of compromise has therefore been foiled. The arguments already heard on previous date are being repeated by learned counsel for the parties. Now I proceed to dispose off the complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs.
3. The grievance of the claimant as alleged in the complaint is to the effect that he is the consumer of gas from the defendants; that his meter was stolen; that Rapt was registered at the police station; that file was submitted by the claimant for new meter along with payment of Rs.1,500/- to one Mohammad Shahid claimed to be the agent of defendants No.3 & 4; that the claimant had been paying further amounts to the predecessors of the defendants; that the file of the claimant was misplaced due to the grudge of complaint to the higher officers, that new file for new connection was submitted in 2008; that the papers from the file were constantly being lost by the defendants and being replaced by the claimant, that the gas was not used by the claimant since 01-06-2006 but he had to pay unjustified bill of Rs.9,890/-; that another file was got prepared on requirement of the defendants; that the fee of new meter was also got deposited by the defendants from the claimant amounting to Rs.2,550/- in compliance with Challan dated 26 04- 2010; that the defendants and their predecessors kept on demanding illegal gratification for providing the meter due to which the claimant exhausted in his patience and refused to get the connection in covert way and demanded back his file; that some papers were kept by the defendants and some were returned on his demand out of his file; that the meter could not have been installed in previous six years despite payment of official dues. It is requested by the claimant that the supply of gas should be directed to be restored by restoration of the meter; that excess deposit of Rs.9,890/- should be refunded or adjusted; that unjustified bill of Rs.3,520/- should be cancelled; that damages for mental, physical & financial loss should be got compensated from defendants No.3 & 4; that action should be taken against the defendants for negligence, carelessness & corruption.
4. The contempt application was filed on 26-01-2012 to allege that the defendants have not complied with the initial order of this court by which they were directed for restoration of gas connection at the earliest.
5. The version of the defendants in the joint written statement is to the effect that in obedience of the order of the court dated 23-02-12 the gas meter has been installed bearing Meter No.MG07046464 on 06-03-2012; that they have adjusted subject amount by issuing him computerized credit bill for Rs.4,300/-; "that some further adjustable amount is also under process which will be adjusted procedurally in issuing/coming bills however cost of lost/theft meter will be charged to our valued customer as per company policy/agreement". It is requested by the defendants that the petition may be disposed in the supreme interest of justice.
6. It is pertinent to note that 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, 1891 are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of the Consumer Courts, as such regular evidence is not being recorded in this court 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.
7. It is further observed that in such cases where regular evidence is not recorded, it is proper and necessary to treat the copies of the documents annexed with the complaint and written statement including the documents filed during the pendency of the complaint, as prima facie proof and evidence of the parties for reaching to the safe and just conclusion in such cases which can be effectively disposed off without recording regular evidence.
8. It is pertinent to observe that distribution of the gas after purchase from the government by SNGPL amounts to the manufacturing of PRODUCTS and the AUTHORITY providing the GAS 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 by it 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 expectations of the public about better services of the COMPANY are therefore genuine and enforceable under the law.
9. As far as one of the possible objections about jurisdiction of this court is concerned, it is necessary to be observed that the provisions of PCP Act 2005 have been held to be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force according to S.3 of the said Act. Therefore I find that the conditions contained in the agreement between the parties cannot be implemented due to prohibition of exclusions from liability contained in S.12 & S.17 of PCP Act 2005 so as not to take away the plenary jurisdiction of jurisdiction of this Court relating to the domestic connections only with the clarification that the disputes relating to commercial connections should be dealt with OGRA itself.
10. It should be kept in mind while interpreting the jurisdiction of this court that the procedure for redress of grievance provided in all the laws are to be followed in the forum provided under the said laws but the same grievance can also be redressed by this court on strength of S.3 read with S.36 of PCP Act 2005. It is provided in S.3 that PCP Act, 2005 is in addition to the other laws and not in derogation of other laws while it is provided in S.36 that all agencies of the Government shall act in aid of the Consumer Court in the performance of its functions under this Act. The objection against jurisdiction of the court is therefore rejected.
11. As far as the request for grant of damages 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 the recovery of the damages or compensation or litigation charges or counsel fee.
14. As far as the ordinary costs are concerned, it is observed that since the defendants have co- operated by restoration of the connection during the pendency of the present case by compliance of the interim orders of this court as such it is not proper to burden them even with ordinary costs.
The claimant is therefore not entitled to the proximate charges or litigation charges mentioned in S.13 & 31 of PCP Act, 2005. The contempt application is not maintainable for the same reasons.
15. I have observed that the claimant is justified in the refund of excess payment of Rs.5,590/- as claimed in the ancillary application filed today because he has been given the credit of Rs.4300/- out of his claim of Rs.9,890/-. He is also entitled to the cancellation of the disputed bill of Rs.3,520/- because the connection was disconnected during the period of both bills. It is clarified that the claimant is not liable to pay the charges of the new meter because the said charges have been previously paid by him without installation of new meter.
16. For what has been discussed about, the complaint is partly accepted and it is clarified that the disputed bill of Rs.9,890/- and of Rs.3,520/- is cancelled by this court with direction for credit of the remaining paid amount of Rs.5,590/- in addition to the exemption from payment of the charges of new meter. The complaint is however dismissed to the extent of the recovery of the damages etc. The ancillary contempt application is disposed off due to partial compliance during the pendency of the case.
17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is not preferred within prescribed period after deduction of the period if consumed for obtaining certified copies of this order under S.33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
19. 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.
20. One attested copy of this order is directed to be provided to the claimant and one copy to the defendants jointly on filing the applications without court fee tickets even on plain papers free of charge by entry with signatures in token of receiving in Dak Register with the clarification that extra copies would be liable to be issued at their own expenses.
21. 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.