COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE OF MEPCO REALATING TO SIX CONNECTIONS NO.28-15731-0159001; 28-15731-0456801; 28-05731- 0683401; 28-05731-0547219; 28-15731-086530528-05731-0715004.
1. The case is at the stage of the arguments which have been heard today and the file has been perused as such I proceed to dispose off the complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs.
2. The grievance of the claimants through their attorney is to the effect that they had applied for the change of tariff on 19-03-2011 relating to the connections of Aata Chakis into tube-well but the matter is being delayed to the extent of the claimants due to non-payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe while the connections of others have been allegedly adjusted into the required tariff; that the tariff should be directed to be converted and bills should be corrected accordingly.
3. The version of the defendants in their joint written statement is to the effect that no such application has been filed by the claimants; that the attorney of the claimants has no connection in his own name; that the six account numbers given at the end are not in name of plaintiff / petitioner; that they are in the name of others and they have never come forward to witness that they are willing for change of tariff; that if they come forward, matter will be considered as per law and SOP. The defendants have admitted that S.E./ O.P. is competent to accord approval for change of tariff and that it has been allowed to some applicants after all departmental formalities under SOP and that the honourable court will decide the matter and same will be implemented.
4. 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.
5. It is observed that the defendants have changed the tariffs of the present claimants also in addition to other applicants during the pendency of the present complaint but the mode of change is being objected by the claimants through their attorney to the effect that the change should have been effected from the date of the submission of the applications and that the change should have been effected without taking the required bribe.
6. The attorney of the claimants has contended that the claimants had to pay the required bribe because the defendants made it sure to them by their conduct that they would not implement the order of the court even if passed if the bribe is not paid to them.
7. As far as the allegation of the bribe is concerned, I am of the view that the claimants should have arranged for the conducting of the raid at the time of payment of the alleged bribe to catch the defendants red handed at the time of the payment of the bribe money but now they are at liberty to move for appropriate proceedings before FIA about the allegation of bribe if so required.
8. As far as the dates of the filing of the applications to seek the change of tariff are concerned, it is observed that the copies of the series of applications are included in the present file containing the reference of the application dated 19-03-2011 as such the said date is proper to be taken as the starting time of the change of tariff. Even otherwise the defendants have not denied in the written statement about the receiving of the said applications. They have taken refuge behind the plea that no such application was filed by the representative of the claimants which amounts to evasive denial and such denial is not permissible in the eye of law.
9. As far as the date of change of tariff is concerned, I am of the view that the change of tariff is necessary to be effected from 19-03-2011 being the alleged date of the submission of the applications for change of tariff on behalf of the claimants as such the defendants are being directed to do so under this order.
10. As far as the capacity of the representative of the claimants is concerned, it is observed that the copies of the deeds of power of attorneys in favour of the said representative are included in the present file as such the representative is the proper attorney of the claimants.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. As far as the requirement of legal notices is concerned, I have observed that the same has been fulfilled in the present case by including the copies of the receipts of the courier company and the copies of the notices being the substantial compliance of law.
14. It is pertinent to notes 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.
15. 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.
16. In accordance with above mentioned observations, the complaint is hereby disposed off by direction about change of tariff of the connections of the present claimants w.e.f 19-03-2011 and to issue modified bills so as to give the credit of the excess amount.
17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. A copy of this order is to be issued to the defendant No.1/ S.E for compliance by providing to the representative of the defendants during next tours of this court at Layyah.
19. A copy of this order is being 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.
20. 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.