1. The case is at the stage of the arguments which have been heard 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.14-15711-0970000-U; that the meter reader being defendant No.3 is dishonest; that fictitious bill is being issued since March 2011 without checking of meter at the spot; that the claimant was promised for correction on his complaint; that the said process continued till August 2011; that defendant No.3 is threatening for dire consequences by issuance of the bill of his choice; that the reading on the meter was 31787 on 05-10-2011; that fictitious bill issued on 20-09-2011 contained the reading on said date as 31713; that the bill of Rs.14052/- on the basis of 1091 units is not justified; that the bill would not have been excessive if the said units were segregated regularly; that the price of the units has increased due to excess units as mentioned in the schedule; that the bill is liable to be cancelled being against the facts, justice and law; that threats are being issued for the disconnection to the claimant due to non payment; that response has not been given about legal notice. The claimant has requested for cancellation of disputed bill of September 2011 with the request for cancellation of excess fictitious units and recovery of Rs.30,000/- as damages and action against the defendants under the Consumer Act to restrain them from disconnection and from demand of excess bill.
3. The version of the defendants in their joint written statement filed on behalf of the SDO is to the effect that the claimant has not come in the court with clean hand; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the claimant is responsible to pay the charges of consumed electricity; that the claimant has no cause of action; that meter was disconnected due to non payment; that RCO was effected on 11-12-2010 by restoration of the meter; that replaced meter contained 30619 units but the computer had shown the said reading as zero; that WCC being computer mistake was corrected on 20-09-2011 on the basis of dial meter reading; that the claimant is bound to pay the said bill; that the complaint is false, baseless and based on malafide which should be dismissed with costs.
4. The application for temporary injunction was also filed on behalf of the clamant along with the main complaint and the defendants has filed joint written reply of the said application also by repeating the version contained in the written statement with prayer for dismissal of the said application also with costs.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. I am of the view that since previous reading mentioned on the replaced meter was admittedly not consumed by the claimant as such he is not liable to pay the charges of said reading therefore he is entitled to the cancellation of the disputed charges and segregation of the actual units consumed by him on monthly bases so as to provide due relief to him.
12. For what has been discussed above, the complaint is partly accepted with the direction about cancellation of the charges based upon previous reading of the replaced meter and further segregation of actual consumed units by issuance of modified bill while the complaint is dismissed to the extent of the recovery of damages.
13. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.