QALANDAR ALI KHAN,J:- Regional Manager SNGPL Abbottabad/appellant, has impugned acceptance of complaint No.68/4 of the respondent, Haji Muhammad Iqbal, by the learned Consumer Court/Sessions Judge, Mansehra, vide order dated 27.03.2013, whereby disputed bill for the month of March, 2012 amounting to Rs.141660/- was declared unjustified and respondent was directed to charge complainant/respondent only for Rs.10280/-, on the basis of Gas bill for the month of February 2012.
2. The respondent/complainant moved complaint to the learned Consumer Court/Sessions Judge, Mansehra, therein complaining about inflated Gas bill for the month of March 2012 to the tune of Rs.1,41,660/- for his domestic gas connection, whereas, on the other hand, his average monthly bill was around Rs.1600/-. The respondent/complainant alleged that on the receipt of bill for the month of February 2012 amounting to Rs.10280/-, he complained to the appellant/respondent for correction of the bill but on the assurance of the latter to rectify the fault, if any, the bill was deposited. However, the next bill for the month of March 2012 was for a staggering amount of Rs.1,41,660/-, which was justified by the respondent on the ground of leakage from the elbow of the gas meter during the last four months, which fault/defect was never removed despite repeated requests/complaints by the respondent/complainant in this behalf.
3. The petition/complaint was resisted by the respondent, and in the written reply several objections/pleas were raised, including the plea that bill for the month of March 2012 was based on correct reading of the meter and actual consumption of gas by the petitioner/complainant. The respondent claimed that maintenance of domestic line beyond the gas meter was the responsibility of the consumer and that the respondent/company was not responsible for the leakage from that line.
4. The learned Consumer Court/Sessions Judge, Mansehra, appointed Malik Abdul Qaddus, Advocate, as local commission, who visited the spot and submitted a comprehensive and detailed report, and on the basis of his report, the learned Consumer Court/Sessions Judge Mansehra disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.10280/- as consumption bill for the month of March, 2012.
5 Aggrieved of the order dated 09.07.2012 of the learned Consumer Court/Sessions Judge, Mansehra, the Sui Northern Gas Pipe Line Limited, Haripur, through its Regional Manager, Mansehra road, Abbottabad, preferred appeal to this Court which was allowed vide judgment/order dated 29.11.2012 and while setting aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2012, the case was remanded back to the learned Consumer Court for decision afresh, after recording statement of only one witness of the appellant/company to substantiate its claim, and also after hearing the parties.
6. After remand, statement of Waqar Ahmed, Senior Supervisor Revenue billing SNGPL Mansehra was recorded as RW.1, where-after the learned Consumer Court/Sessions Judge, Mansehra again declared bill for the month of March 2012 amounting to Rs.141660/- as unjustified and directed that the complainant/respondent be charged only for Rs.10280/-, which was equal to the monthly bill of February 2012. IT is against this order dated 27.03.2013 that the appellant has lodged the instant appeal, whereas, objections/pleas raised in the written reply to the complaint/petition were reiterated.
7. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
8. It is an admitted fact that gas meter for supply of gas to the premises of the complainant/respondent was installed over the main road at a considerable distance (30 feet) from the premises of respondent/complainant, and there was also no denial of the fact that the respondent/complainant had been receiving average monthly gas bill in range of Rs.1600/-, and for the first time, he received excessive bill of Rs.10280/- for the month of February, 2012, followed by even more excessive bill of Rs.1,41,660/- for the Month of March 2012. The appellant/company has taken the stance that the excessive bill was the result of leakage from the house line of the respondent/complainant, which was not the responsibility of the appellant/company; but they failed to furnish legal justification and cogent reason for shifting the responsibility of maintenance and record of leakage to the consumer for a meter installed on the road side at a considerable distance from the premises. Of course, there is evidence to the effect that the premises of the respondent/complainant consist of four flats having two geysers for catering to the needs of the premises, but there is nothing on record to show that increase in consumption was recorded due to subsequent installation of the geysers or the increase was due to some other pilferage of gas; rather it is the case of the appellant/company that there was leakage form meter which was the responsibility of the respondent/complainant.
9. Notwithstanding allegation of the respondent/complainant that the appellant/company did not pay heed to his complaint about excessive billing because of leakage, which was never rectified, it is on the record that no consumption of gas was shown for the preceding three months, as admitted by RW.1 in his statement before the Court, meaning thereby that consumption was not recorded and monthly bills were prepared on average basis, without showing actual consumption to the consumer on regular basis. In these circumstances, the appellant/company could not justify the inflated bill of Rs.141660/- for the month of March 2012, after billing the respondent/complainant on average basis, even much more than his earlier average bills amounting to Rs.1600/- per month. The appellant/company can, under no circumstances, shirk its responsibility of maintaining gas supply to the consumer in proper order while removing defects, if any, causing leakage of gas, so as to bill the consumer on the basis of his actual consumption of gas. The non recording of reading for three/four months and billing the respondent/complainant on average basis speak volume about the negligence and apathy on the part of the appellant/company.
The appellant/company cannot absolve itself or its primary responsibility and cannot shift the burden to the consumer.
10. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 27.03.2013 of the learned Consumer Court/Sessions Judge, Mansehra, is not open to exception, hence the appeal stands dismissed.