The case is at the stage of the arguments which have been heard and file has been perused in the light of the arguments as such 1. The case is at the stage of the arguments which have been heard 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.13-15711-0933204-U; that the defective code has been removed from the defective meter suddenly and 864 average units have been charged amounting to Rs.10482/- in June 2011; that said average is in excess of the actual average; that if the meter is defective then the same should be replaced by healthy meter; that defective code should be restored till replacing of the meter; that the bill should be corrected.
3. The version of the defendants in the joint written statement filed on behalf of the SDO is to the effect that it is AC premises due to which the average of 864 units is justified on the basis of defective meter with the request to file the application.
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.
6. 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.
7. I have observed from perusal of the file that since the defendants were obliged to change the defective meter as early as possible and since defective code was necessary to be applied in the given circumstances as such the defendants are not entitled to recover the estimated charges on any other basis other than the basis of the consumption of the same months in the previous year and meter is necessary to be changed at the earliest.
8. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted and disposed off by direction about correction of disputed charges in accordance with the consumption of the same months of previous year by issuance of the modified bill and it is also directed that the defective meter should be replaced immediately.
9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.