COMPLAINT ABOUT CHANGE OF METER/ CORRECTION OF ILLEGAL BILL
1. The case is at the stage of the arguments which have been heard and file has been perused as such I proceed to discuss and dispose off the complaint in the light of the arguments in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.\
2. Briefly stated the grievance of the claimant is to the effect that he is the consumer of electricity under 3/4 reference numbers mentioned in the complaint and aggrieved by the change of Batch without change of PC meters of the disputed connections from batch 21 to 28 resulting in the raise of tariff equal to TOD meters being incorrect and against the law. He has requested for alternate relief either for change of PC meters or change of batch to the previous batch and also requested for correction of the remaining charges.
3. Further grievance of the claimant is to the effect that the order of this court dated 29-07-2011 about payment in installments was not complied; that connection was disconnected on 03-08- 2011; that Ex.En Layyah has demanded Rs.30000/- as expenses and bribe for making installments; that the defendants have refused to acknowledge the order of this court; that the claimant has suffered loss of Lakhs of rupees due to disconnection; that he has got installments by political approach; that the bill of Rs.81000/- was paid on 27-08-2011; that the meter was re-installed on 30- 08 2011; that the claimant has been made to suffer for one month by order of chief engineer namely Shamasudin; that fine should be imposed against the Ex.En and SDO by issuance of arrest warrants.
4. The defendants have contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement through SDO with the assertion that the batch has been correctly changed because the load on the disputed meters is more than 7 KW each falling in the category of TOD. They have raised certain preliminary objections and requested for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
5. The defendants have also contested the contempt application by filing the written reply by Ex.En and relied upon by SDO to the effect that they have not demanded any bribe; that the connection has been restored in compliance with order of this court after payment of installment; that the application should be dismissed.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. I have observed that the allegation of the demand of bribery is within the jurisdiction of the police as such the claimant is entitled to lodge the complaint with the concerned police about said allegation without any action taken by this court.
9. As far as the disconnection is concerned, the same was due to non payment of dues and even otherwise no stay order was issued at the time of the institution of the complaint and no stay order was issued after restoration of the complaint during further proceedings of the complaint while the connection was duly restored with installments in compliance with the order of this court therefore the defendants are entitled to the exemption from contempt proceedings. The contempt application is to be dismissed accordingly.
10. As far as the remaining charges are concerned, I find that since the batch was changed for higher tariff without change of PC meters as such the claimant is entitled to the segregation of the disputed charges in accordance with the tariff of previous batch.
11. As far as the change of batch is concerned, the alternate request of the claimant is proper about change of PC meters by TOD meters.
12. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted to the extent of the issuance of the direction to the defendants to replace the PC meters with TOD meters and to segregate the charges relating to the disputed period in accordance with the tariff of previous batch while the contempt application is dismissed.
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 on demand alongwith issuance of a copy through the claimant to the RO / SDO MEPCO for compliance.
17. A soft copy of this order would be 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 under 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.