1. Case of the complainant is that he is a bonifide consumer of respondent, SNGPL Sargodha Region.
2. Bearing Consumer No.94351900009 a connection is installed at his residence situated in Mohallah Islampura. In the month of February, 2011 the gas meter became out of order and started recording of excess consumption than the actual. Respondent was informed. A mechanic visited the site and removed the fault. However, the Gas Bill received in the next month was showing an exorbitant amount of Rs, 25325.42/- as a price of consumption which was shocking as complainant has never utilized the gas to such extent. It was claimed that respondent has wrongfully charged the above said amount and has been guilty of defective services.
3. Respondent's company appeared and replied that a complaint was lodged on their UAN toll free number by the consumer regarding some defects in the meter. The departmental representative visited the site and reported that there was leakage of Gas from the internal fitting of the consumer. According to the respondent due to this leakage the meter recorded the consumption.
4. The complainant appeared as Pw-1 in support of his version. He stated that no such leakage of Gas as alleged by the respondent was found inside his house even when the internal wiring was got checked from the plumber. During the cross examination he disclosed that his family comprises of 05 persons and is using 02 Gas burners in the house. He denied that any leakage from the internal wiring was pointed out by departmental representative. On the other hand the respondent produced Nafees Ahmed as Rw-1 who stated that he had visited the house of consumer and no defect was found in the meter, the house line fitting was leaking about which the consumer was informed telephonically. Leakage report Ex-RA was submitted to the company. Another witness Hamad Tarar appeared As Rw-2 to support the respondent version.
5. Arguments heard record perused.
6. The point in issue in this case is that as to whether there was no defect in the meter and the consumption shown in the meter in the month of February is the actual one due to some leakage in the internal pipeline/fitting. The consumption data of the consumer no where reflects such kind of consumption of gas neither in the past nor in the future. Size of the family and house as disclosed by the consumer goes un-rebutted meaning thereby that the gas was not consumed in normal circumstances. As for as cause of showing/recording the consumption, the leakage of gas in the internal fitting is concerned, onus to prove rested upon the shoulder of the respondent who has alleged so. The person deputed to attend the complaint by the respondent is Matriculate having no technical education in the line or any past technical experience of the work. It is not understandable as to how Rw-1 Mr. Nafees Ahmed was deputed and allowed to work as "fitter" by the respondent company to take risk of his own life to attend the complaint when he does not know the mechanics of the meter. Admittedly he has not inspected the pipe fitting inside the house of the complainant, therefore, the declaration by such a person about the leakage of internal wiring is not more than a joke which can't be taken seriously as at the most it is his presumption but such presumption cannot be given weightage as evidence. The respondent company at least should have asked the consumer to submit a fresh test report from a qualified contractor regarding internal pipe fitting and after indentifying any such leakage the signature of the consumer to this effect should have been obtained. The gas meter was not sent to central laboratory shop Sargodha for inspection and report. The complaint recorded by office of the respondent shows that meter was making noise. Rw-1 has neither verified the same nor clarified that there was no such noise found by him at the spot in the meter. Respondent has failed to discharge its burden to prove the point in issue. The treatment of the respondent with the consumer throughout the transaction remained unsatisfactory and it was the defective service provided to the consumer by charging extraordinary amount of Rs. 25325.42 without any just cause. Claim of the complainant is admitted and respondent is directed to overhaul the consumer's account adjusting paid amount of the above said amount by the consumer in future consumption and deleting the remaining amount from the consumer account. File be consigned to record room after due completion.