1. The court is on tour at Layyah.
2. The case is at the stage of the filing of the written statement and compliance of earlier order relating to the issuance of modified bill. Since the modified bill is being stated to be issued and since written statement has been filed today as such I proceed to dispose off the complaint after hearing the arguments of the parties by discussion in the following paragraphs:-
3. The grievance of the claimant as stated in the complaint is to the effect that advance reading is being charged to agriculture tube well of the claimant; that on 11-06-2011 a new digital meter was installed by removing the existing digital meter by recording the total reading as 066081 relating to reference No.29-15731-696300 by the nominated staff of MEPCO 1st Sub Division Layyah; that the bill received on 13-06-2011 was advance by 1481 units while previous was advanced on the basis of old meter by 596 units; that the reading was incorrectly mentioned on the back of the removed meter by the staff as found by Mr. Saleh Mohammad AM Layyah during verification on the request of the claimant; that the SDO Operation MEPCO 1st in writing informed about the correction of bill vide letter No.79 dated 22 01-2011 which was also got allowed from Ex-En MEPCO; that provisional bill could not have been issued after elapse of 43 days and new bill relating to June 2011 was corrected; that the husband of the claimant remained shuttle cock between AM 1st, RO and Ex-En; that new meter is complicated and non understand-able; that the suitable action should be taken against all concerned and provisional bill should be issued payable in three installments and status quo order to be passed against any illegal victimization, corrosive measures; that previous meter should be restored.
4. The version of the defendants in their joint written statement is to the effect that the letter about correction relating to excess charging of 596 units in 05/2011 issued by SDO MEPCO received on 22- 06-2011 which was corrected vide adjustment note number 769 with credit of Rs.3491/- dated 15- 09-2011; that approval is required from SE Muzaffargarh along with result of M&T; that the bill has been corrected with some delay due to official proceedings; that the bill has been further corrected on the basis of previous order of this court; that the complaint may be disposed off accordingly.
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.
6. I am of the view that certain cases can be effectively disposed off without recording regular evidence and by reliance upon the copies of the documents annexed in the file of the court for quick disposal so as to avoid the technicalities and unnecessary delay in the disposal of cases. It is further observed that 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 are capable of disposal without recording regular evidence just like the present case.
7. The documents to be relied upon by the claimant and included in the file consist of the copy of CNIC of the claimant; copy of the license of learned counsel for the claimant; original affidavit of the claimant; copy of the legal notice issued by the claimant; copy of the disputed bill; copies of the previous bills; original postal receipts about issuance of legal notice.
8. It is pertinent to observe 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.
9. 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 respondents 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.
10. The documents presented during the arguments by the representative of the claimant are being included in the file and a perusal of the same shows that the reading of the old meter is being shown as still running which is highly objection-able and disapproved by this court while it is prima-facie established from the said documents that the correction is also required for 14831 as written off which are pending since November 2008 and all late payment surcharges are also liable to be written off in the interest of justice.
11. As far as the request of the claimant for re-installation of old meter is concerned, the same cannot be accepted because the claimant would have to be briefed to understand the new meter and the same can not be removed only due to non understanding of the claimant.
12. As far as the prayer about the recovery of the damages is concerned, it is hereby observed that: the return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs is provided in the law where the consumer has suffered the loss of utility or lack of benefit only while the manufacturer or service provider is also liable for the damages where the consumer has suffered any damage from the defective product u/s 10 & faulty service u/s 15; that the manufacturer or service provider is liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by the defective product u/s 4 & faulty service u/s 13; that the liability of the manufacturer or service provider is not limited or excluded by the terms of any contract or notice about the defective product u/s 12 & faulty service u/s 17; that the disclosure of the details has been made essential about the product and service where the nature of the same is such that it is material to the decision of the consumer to enter into the contract with reference to the product u/s 11 & service u/s 16; that the standard for the provision of services is determined as such which a consumer could reasonably expect to obtain in Pakistan at the time of the provision of the service u/s 14; that the court is authorized to direct the defendant to pay reasonable compensation for any loss suffered due to negligence of the defendant u/s 31(e); that to award damages where appropriate u/s 31(f); that to award costs including lawyer's fees incurred on the legal proceedings u/s 31(g) of PCP Act, 2005.
13. 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. Since there is no explanation in the present claim about any other damages except the loss of utility or lack of benefit as such I find that there is no need to put the case for evidence to provide such damages and the claimant is not entitled to recover the damages in the given circumstances.
14. As far as the request for suitable action against the staff of MEPCO is concerned, the same would be liable to be taken when the defendants would fail to comply with the order of this court as such they are being provided the chance to make the correction in accordance with the findings of this court failing which they would be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for three years each along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each during the proceedings of the application for implementation of this order if the claimant would have to resort to the said proceedings by future conduct of the defendants/ MEPCO.
15. The complaint is accordingly disposed off to the extent mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
16. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
17. A copy of this order be provided free of costs to the claimant and the representative of the defendants if demanded within 30 days along with urgent issuance of a copy through post to the RO MEPCO Layyah for immediate compliance.
18. 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.
19. The file of this complaint is to be consigned to the record room 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.