1. The case is at the stage of the joint written statement of the defendants which has been filed today alongwith filing of the copy of letter dated 30-07-2010 and arguments have been heard on joint request and file has been perused in the light of the arguments as such I proceed to discuss and decide and dispose off the matter in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.
2. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that he is consumer of electricity under reference No.28-5719-00891445-R; that 853 excess units have been charged on 30-06-2010; that bill was not corrected despite filing of the application; that the meter was disconnected due to non payment; that further units are being shown to have been consumed without meter; that the bill is being issued without meter; that the meter might have been installed at some other place; that the last bill contains the charges of Rs.32921/-; that the area was devastated by flood of water; that the business of Chakki was finished; that the claimant has been subjected to mental tension due to excess bill. The claimant has requested for correction of the bill and restoration of connection without costs.
3. The version of the defendants in their joint written statement filed on behalf of the SDO/ AMO is to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable in presence form; that the meter has been changed according to general policy; that the letter which was issued for correction of 853 excess units was kept by the claimant with himself without any progress; that the meter was disconnected vide order dated 01-07 2010; that the meter was removed on 21-10-2010; that the defendants have no objection on restoration if the arrears are paid along with RCO charges and cost of meter; that the complaint is false and baseless and concocted; that the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
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 just like the present case.
5. 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.
6. I have observed from perusal of the file that since the recommendation of the SDO mentioned in letter dated 30-07-2010 is proper to be implemented as such the same is directed to be incorporated in the record by issuance of modified bill.
7. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted by direction about implementation of letter dated 30-07-2010 and issuance of modified bill in accordance with the reduction of 853 units as recommended in the said letter while the complaint is dismissed to the extent of remaining relief.
8. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. A copy of this order is to be provided to the representative of the defendants along with issuance of a copy through the claimant by hand to the RO / SDO MEPCO for compliance.
12. A copy of this order is directed to be 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.
13. 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.