1. The case is at the stage of the proper order after hearing the arguments as such I proceed to discuss and decide and dispose off the matter in accordance with the discussion in the following paragraphs.
2. At the very outset, it is observed that the claimant has challenged the disputed bill relating to the electric connection bearing reference No.03-15224-0535211-U by claiming to be unjustified while the defendants have objected to the jurisdiction of this court by clarification that the disputed bill is based upon detection charges which are not challengeable before this court due to bar of jurisdiction created by virtue of an un-reported ruling of Honourable High Court.
3. A perusal of the file shows that prior notice bearing No.4914 dated 26-02-2010 was issued before charging of excess units but the claimant had given no response; that again prior notice bearing No.5042 dated 15-04 2010 was issued before including said units in the account of the claimant without any response from the claimant.
4. It has been contended by the representative of the defendants that the jurisdiction of this court is barred on the basis of letter No.8272-77/MF dated 07-05-2010 issued by the Superintending Engineer MEPCO Circle D.G.Khan, according to which Honourable High Court has declared in the decision of the case titled Shaheen Akhtar etc. Versus Superintending Engineer MEPCO etc. bearing FAO No.78/09 that the Consumer Court cannot decide the case regarding detection bill and such matter either can be taken before Electric Inspector or before the civil court.
5. A careful perusal of the above mentioned decision of Honourable High Court relied upon by the Representative of the defendants a copy of which is available in the correspondence file of the office of this court that the said decision is deemed to be applicable to all the cases relating to the detection bills based on theft or otherwise.
6. It is therefore clarified that although the consumer of tempered or defective meter has also got the alternative relief about invoking the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector but the consumer having the detection bill has to resort to the civil courts to challenge the detection bill in any form according to the said ruling of Honourable Lahore High Court.
7. It is therefore proper to return the complaint for presentation before learned civil court of competent jurisdiction.
8. Meanwhile the defendants are advised to consider about referring the matter to the standing review committee so that due relief may be provided by the said committee if admissible to the claimant for settlement out of court, to avoid further litigation between the parties.
9. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is hereby disposed off by return for presentation before learned civil court, if so required to be agitated by the claimant while the earlier order of this court is hereby withdrawn.
10. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. 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 High Court.
12. 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 information.
13. 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.
14. 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.