1. By filing this claim under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act), Mr. Munir Akhtar has asserted that he had applied for installation of meter of Sui Gas for which defendants issued demand notice for Rs. 5,000/-; other inhabitants of same locality had also asked for connections which services were made available to them despite the fact that they approached defendants subsequent to claimant; claimant thereafter, contacted defendants many a time but some un-known official demanded Rs.10,000/- for Gas connection; in spite of passing of three years Gas meter has not been installed at the premises of claimant; notice was sent to defendants but of no consequences.
2. Prayer has been made for issuance of direction to defendants to provide facility Sui Gas to claimant besides payment of costs of litigation and any other relief if found appropriate by this Court.
3. Defendants submitted their joint written statement where question of maintainability of claim and jurisdiction of this Court was taken. On facts it is the case of defendants that issuance of connection depends on seniority of application and in this regard publication was made in daily newspapers by department for the persons who had applied for connection before 01.01.2009.
4. Learned counsel for defendants on the last date of hearing had contended that only demand notice was issued to claimant which does not bring him within the definition of Consumer as provided under section 2 (c) of the Act; unless actual services are provided to claimant by defendants there shall arise no question of defective or faulty services as well as existence of relationship of Consumer and Services Provider between parties. He has made reliance on Chief Executive FESCO vs. Nayab Hussain, PLD-2010-Lahore 95.
5. On the other hand Raja. Zeeshan Munir Satti learned counsel for claimant today has maintained that his client once deposited amount under demand notice, payment of consideration is established; after receiving sum in question first phase of services on the part of defendants had started hence they were bound to ensure installation of Sui Gas meter at the residence of claimant.
According to learned counsel if till today defendants did not move for any action in this context, it amounts to defective and faulty services; facility of Sui Gas is one of the basic human necessities without which it is difficult to survive; claimant because of non-installation of gas connection is compelled to use other sources thus he is suffering from economic losses. Mr. Satti also tried to come out from the precedent relied by other side by arguing that in said case facts were different because petitioner before Honourable High Court had simply applied for electricity connection, therefore he was not considered as a consumer, whereas in the case in hand claimant had deposited amount under demand notice about three years ago.
6. Arguments heard.
7. It is an admitted fact that demand notice was issued by defendants and amount was deposited by claimant. It is also not denied that still gas connection has not been made available to claimant. The question in these circumstances arises that whether claimant is a Consumer within the meaning of Section of 2 (c) of the Act? For effective discussion it is reproduced as under: - "Consumer" mean a person or entity who: -
(i) buys or obtains on lease any product for a consideration and includes any user of such product but does not include a person who obtains any product for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires any services for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services.
8. Above provision clearly indicates about existence of at least two facts simultaneously e.g. hiring of services and payment of consideration to bring a person within the definition of Consumer. To my mind none of these conditions are fulfilled in this case on the reason that demand notice in fact is for payment of amount for miscleneous expenses and security etc. Question of consideration shall come into field only when there will be actual provision of services by a Services Provider. For this view I get support from FESCO case (ibid). In that case one Mr. Nayab Hussain had applied for electricity connection. He approached consumer Court who directed FESCO to issue demand notice to claimant and then make available electricity connection. Said order was challenged and during hearing of appeal it was found that FESCO had also issued demand notice to claimant. Even then Honourable High Court did not appreciate the arguments that claimant was a consumer within the definition provided under the Act. Paragraph 16 of the judgment is quite relevant which is as under: - "The above definition supports the argument that Service actually means the supply of energy, which is missing in this case. In the present case electric supply had yet to be extended and, therefore, no electrical energy is being supplied to the respondent hence no services are being availed by the respondent".
9. No doubt that facts of claim in hand and relied case law are little bit different but it makes no change at all as the principles laid there was that how a person can be consumer when there is no actual provision of services by services provider.
10. In view of above, I am bound to follow what has been settled by the Honourable High Court in similar circumstances hence I have no option but to hold that claimant is not a Consumer within the definition of Section 2 (c) of the Act, and when it is so there arises no question of existence of relationship of Consumer and Services Provider between parties.
11. The result, therefore, is that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter hence claim is returned with the observations that claimant may approach the competent forum, if so advised. There is no order as to the costs. File shall be cosigned to record room after its due completion.