APPLICATION ABOUT COMPLIANCE
1. The court is on tour at Layyah.
2. The case is at the stage of the arguments. I have heard the arguments and perused the file. I proceed to discuss and dispose off the 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 under reference No.29-15731-0863200-R and aggrieved by the disputed bills containing disputed charges being unjustified and liable to be cancelled. He has requested for cancellation of the disputed charges along with request for the grant of damages, compensation, litigation charges and counsel fee.
4. The defendants have contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement through SDO
(Op) with the assertion that disputed bill is correct and relates to the rendition of accounts about previous dues and the charges mentioned in the bill are outstanding against the claimant with the request that the claimant should be directed to pay the disputed charges and also requested for dismissal of the complaint 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. As far as the request for action against the defendants 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.
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 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. A perusal of Consumer Service Manual published on internet 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".
11. It is also 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".
12. I am of the view that such charges which were either segregated or amended by correction of monthly bills cannot be levied again by way of rendition of accounts because the same are deemed to have been waived competently and the relief about withdrawal or cancellation of the bill once given cannot be levied again therefore the defendants are not entitled to recover the previously cancelled amounts in the garb of rendition of accounts. The latest bill containing arrears is therefore liable to be cancelled but the claimant is not entitled to the recovery of damages, compensation, litigation charges and counsel fee.
13. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted and direction is issued to the defendants to cancel the arrears being shown in the bills and to issue modified bill accordingly.
14. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. A copy of this order is to be provided to the representative of the defendants free of costs for compliance.
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.