' ARSHAD MAHMOOD TABASSUM, J. --- From the documents, available on the record, it appears that the respondents herein on 03.09.200W, submitted three separate applications for provision of electricity connections for their shops. Ultimately, the appellant/department issued separate Demand Notices to the respondents on 03.10.2007. The ammount of the said demand notices was accordingly deposited by the respondents in the authorized branch of National Bank of Pakistan, whereafter the appellant/department delayed the installation of the electricity meter on one pretext or the other and its officials also demanded huge amount on account of illegal gratification for provision of electricity. Facing with the situation, the respondents instituted three separate applications before the District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur. The said applications were ultimately consolidated by the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur and vide order dated t5.11.2008, the appellant was directed as under:- "At this stage, AMO states that meters are not lying in the stock so far. Same will be available in near future. Hence, I direct the AMO concerned to install electricity meters at the shops of the petitioner as early possible but not beyond the period of fortnight."
' Feeling dissatisfied with the said order, the MEPCO has preferred the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant have argued that the shops for which the respondents sought installation of electricity meters, come within the ambit of "plaza", hence, without making payment for installation of an independent transformer, no electricity can be provided to the said shops; that he impugned order passed by the learned Presiding District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur is without jurisdiction and unjust; that the respondents had procured demand notices through mis- representation and fraud and that the appellant was condemned unheard, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has fully supported the impugned order.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and myself perused the record with their able assistance.
5. There is no denial of the fact that demand notices were issued to the respondents and the amount was accordingly deposited by them. Even the stand of the appellant before the District Consumer Court was that due to non-availability of electricity meters, the same could not be installed at the premises in question. Once the appellant had issued the demand notices, he was estopped to take the excuses for not installing the electricity meters. There is nothing on record to suggest that the shops, where the respondents sought installation of the electricity meters come within the ambit of "plaza". Moreover, according to the memo. No, 29320-29/Manager (P&D), dated 12.03:2008, relied upon by the appellant, five or more shops with covered area 200 x 5 Sq. Ft. To be treated as plaza." There is nothing on record to show that the shops owned by each respondent are-five or more in number. Moreover, as pointed out above, after issuance of demand notices, the appellant cannot take somersault and refuse provision of electricity connection to the respondents on the said ground, because officials of the appellant must have inspected the said shops before issuance of demand notices. It is also noteworthy that Section 22 of the Electricity Act, 1910 obligates the appellant to give fair and equal treatment in tike matter of supply of
6. It has been argued, by the learned counsel for the appellant that the word "product" does not include electricity, hence, in the cases pertain in to the provision of electricity. The Consumer Protection Court has got no jurisdiction.. I am afraid, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any substance. In this regard, it is observed that as per definition of "product" as defined in Section 2(j) of the Punjab Consumer-Protection Act, 2005, the product has the same meaning as assigned to the word "goods" in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and according to Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the word "goods" has been defined as under:- "goods" means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes [electricity, water, gas] stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;"
' Thus electricity is very much included in the definition of product and the Consumer Protection Court under Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act has got jurisdiction in the matter.
7. In the light of the above discussion, the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur has lawfully exercised jurisdiction and correctly directed the appellant to provide the electricity connection to the respondents. No exception can be taken to the impugned order, which is perfectly alright. This FAO is without any merit, which fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
F.A.O. Dismissed.