COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE OF MEPCO ABOUT VOLTAGE RELATING TO CONNECTIONS NO.07- 15721-0583404-R & 07-15721-0583406-R
1. The case is at the stage of the decision after hearing the arguments by Mohammad Idrees LS-1 MEPCO sub division Kot Addu while the arguments of the claimant in person were heard on previous date and the file has been perused in the light of the arguments as such I proceed to dispose off the present complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs.
2. Briefly stated the grievance of the claimant is to the effect that the defendants being the service providers are liable to provide un-interrupted supply of 220 volts of electricity except the situation in which the supply is suspended due to tripping of feeder or scheduled load shedding or emergency or storm or rain; that electric supply of both electric connections of the claimant remained suspended for 04-30 hours on 12-06-2011 w.e.f 06-30 PM to about 11-00 PM; that the staff of the defendants was informed by telephone numbers mentioned in the complaint about non existence of electricity but the claimant had to suffer alongwith his family members and innocent children due to closure of electricity and due to the closure of the telephone of the first in-charge; that the record of the concerned grid station should be summoned for perusal; that the record of the domestic connection of one Mst Abida Bibi being used for the medical centre should also be summoned for perusal. The claimant has requested for the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages being the compensation for the loss and the costs and litigation charges in addition to the prayer for proper supply of 220 volts of electricity and disconnection of the supply to the medical centre.
3. The case was previously adjourned sine die without fixation of date due to absence of the claimant vide order dated 15-09-2011 but the proceedings were resumed on acceptance of the application of the claimant vide order dated 29-09-2011 after which the defendants have filed their joint written statement and documents.
4. The version of the defendants in their joint written statement is to the effect that the version contained in Paragraph No.3 of the complaint has already been answered by the reply of legal notice dated 29-06-2011; that the cases of the claimant are pending with his relatives due to which he has filed present complaint; that the supply is being provided on the standard of 220 volts; that the affidavit of the claimant is incorrect; that the complaint should be dismissed 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. The documents filed by the claimant consist of the original affidavit of the claimant to substantiate the version contained in the complaint; original Wakalatnama to establish the engaging of learned counsel; copy of joint legal notice to reveal the contents; two copies of the letter relating to the enhancement of the departmental charges; copy of the application to show that the claimant has already moved the defendants for the redress of his grievance without any action; copy of receipt dated 17-10-1984 about payment of charges in compliance with advance Para No.2; copy of another receipt relating to the recovery of maintenance cost dated 19-03-1984; copy of electricity bill relating to the month of 04/2010; copy of electricity bill relating to the month of 07/2005; copy of pension book; copy of the revenue record.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. It is pertinent to note that the grant of damages is curtailed even under the Contract Act, 1872 being the law of the land 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.
10. 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.
11. It is therefore concluded that the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- Lakh as compensation, damages etc. is deemed to be the demand for remote and indirect damages which are not permissible to be granted either under general law of contracts or under the law of consumers and the same are prohibited by S.15 of PCP Act, 2005 in such cases therefore the claimant is not entitled to recover the compensation or damages or litigation charges in the given circumstances.
12. Main question which arises is to the effect that if separate transformer should be installed on the connection of Mst. Abida Bibi for providing due electricity to the other consumers. It is being pointed out that the copy of the notice issued to the said lady by the defendants is included in the file of the present complaint. It is therefore admitted fact between the present parties that the domestic connection is being used for commercial purpose at the premises of the said lady. It is therefore proper for the defendants to issue demand notice about installing separate transformer for the said connection in accordance with rules so that the other consumers including the claimant should get their due share in the load factor.
13. In accordance with above mentioned observations, the complaint is partly accepted and disposed off to the above mentioned extent while the complaint is dismissed to the extent of the recovery of the compensation, damages and costs and litigation charges.
14. The 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 of the copy 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 claimant would be entitled to recover the costs to be incurred for and during the pendency of the application for implementation from the defendants by attachment of their salaries in case of the delay in the implementation of this order.
17. A copy of this order is to be sent by post to the AMO / SDO concerned at the responsibility of the Ahlmad of this court for compliance.
18. 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.
19. 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.