1. This date was fixed for arguments however copies of the latest bills having been presented on behalf of the claimant today are being included in the file under objection of learned counsel for the defendants and the arguments have been heard and file has been perused as such I proceed to dispose off the complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs.
2. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that he obtained domestic telephone connection number 2522281-1 19-05-2023; that the connection was disconnected after payment of last bill in January 2010 due to disconnection of main line; that the reason for disruption was stated by the defendants to be the theft and terrorist activity; that it was promised that no bill would be issued and no line rent would be charged till restoration; that the bill dated 06-04-2011 valuing Rs.7180/- has been issued against the facts and against the regulation and against the facts which is void and ineffective against the rights of the claimant; that the claimant is not bound to pay the bill; that the notice dated 10-04-2011 issued by the claimant has not been responded; that the bill should be cancelled till restoration of connection; that the claimant should be awarded Rs.10000/- as litigation charges and Rs.24000/- as damages for mental tension.
3. The defendants have contested the complaint by joint written statement with the preliminary objections to the effect that the claimant has no cause of action; that the claimant is estopped by his words and conduct; that heavy dues are payable by the claimant; that the complaint is time barred; that the claimant has not come to the court with clean hands; that the claimant has committed concealment of facts; that the claimant is not entitled to any relief; that the cable of the claimant was not stolen and the same is intact; that the claimant has not filed any application about alleged theft of main line; that even the previous bills were not paid; that the bill is about the line rent because the telephone is being used by card; that the claimant is bound to pay the bill; that the claimant is defaulter; that legal notice has not been received; that the claim is baseless, concocted and based on incorrect circumstances; that the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
4. The evidence of the claimant consists of his own affidavit as Ex.A-1 and cross examination as AW-1; affidavit of Nasarullah PW as Ex.A-2 and cross examination of said witness as AW-2; affidavit of Younas Ahmad PW as Ex.A-3 and cross examination of said witness as AW-3; original postal receipts as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3; copy of legal notice as Ex.P4; original bill of 03-2011 as Ex.P5; original bill of Ex.P6; original bill of 02/2010 as Ex.P7; original notice issued on behalf of the defendants as Ex.P8; original receipt about payment of PTCL bill dated 08-07-2011 as Ex.P9; original receipt about payment of PTCL bill dated 16-04-2011 as Ex.P10; copy of the latest bill as Mark P1; copy of CNIC of the claimant as Mark P2; copy of the list of consumers as Mark P3; copy of another list of consumers as Mark P4; copy of the application which was submitted by the claimant to the defendants as Mark P5 with reliance on the affidavits produced during oral evidence as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3.
5. The defendants have not produced any evidence.
6. I have observed from the perusal of the evidence in the light of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties that since it has been admitted by the claimant himself in his cross examination as AW-1 that no information was given to the PTCL after theft of cable and that the bill has already been waived off by PTCL while AW-2 has concluded his cross examination with the admission that he has no knowledge about any matter of the claimant. AW-3 has also stated at the end of his cross examination that he has no knowledge about any other thing.
7. I have therefore come to the view that the claimant is entitled to the cancellation of the disputed bill as well as the cancellation of the charges contained in future bills but he is not entitled to the recovery of the damages or litigation charges.
8. As far as the period of limitation is concerned, the same is deemed to be one year from arising of the cause of action in such cases in which the period of guarantee or warranty is not involved while the period of one month is fixed with power to extend upto sixty days in such cases where the period of guarantee or warranty has been completed and even the said cases can be filed during the period of guarantee and warranty at any time even before the expiry of the said period. In the present case the cause of action is continued by issuance of the bills as such I find that the complaint is not time barred.
9. As far as the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, the same extends to Tehsil Taunsa and the relationship of the consumer and service provider is in existence between the parties due to the issuance of repeated bills and the dispute relates to the providing of services as such I find that the complaint is maintainable in this court.
10. As far as the request about recovery of the damages and litigation charges is concerned, I find that 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.
11. It is pertinent to note that the grant of damages is curtailed even under Contract Act, 1872 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.
12. 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 such I find that the claimant is not entitled to recover the damages or compensation or counsel fee or litigation charges through this court under the law of consumers.
13. It has been contended by learned counsel for the defendant that the future bills issued during the pendency of the present complaint may also be treated to be cancelled and not liable to be paid by the claimant.
14. In accordance with above situation, the complaint is hereby accepted partly to the extent of the cancellation of the disputed bill as well as remaining bills issued after the disputed bill also while the complaint is dismissed to the extent of the remaining relief.
15. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
16. A copy of this order is to be provided to the representative of the defendants on demand in addition to the copy to be sent by the claimant to the defendants for implementation.
17. 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 they would be liable to pay the costs of such application and proceedings in case of delay.
18. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCPA 2005, if the appeal is not preferred under S.33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
19. A copy of this order would be available for publishing on the internet to the website of Punjab Consumer Protection Council, 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 R.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.