' Through this F.A.O. The order dated 28.06.2012 passed by District Consumer Court Multan Camp at Vehari has been assailed by the appellant.
2. Briefly, respondent filed a complaint under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 alleging therein that despite payment of Sui Gas monthly bills commencing October till December, 2011, the appellant charged excessive units for the month of January, 2012.
3. The appellant, through written statement controverted the allegations of the respondent and conceded that the relevant bill was lied on its actual consumption for the month in question. The order passed was without giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. That Sections 4, 31 and 31(e) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 are not applicable to the appellant further averred that provisions of the Act, ibid with reference to the grievances raised in claim were not applicable. The Court was neither competent nor authorized under the law to take cognizance of the claim because the matter fell outside the purview of the Punjab Consumer Court.
4. On the other hand counsel for the respondent argued that the impugned order dated 28.06.2012 was in accordance with law and the appeal be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard and available record perused.
6. A bare reading of the complaint reveals that grievance of the respondent was in respect of the excessive billing. Since factual controversy vas involved the Court without recording evidence should not have passed the order.
7. The Court below before proceeding in the matter should have decided the question of jurisdiction in the first instance. Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 is a special law; consumers aggrieved can file a claim for damages under Section 25 of the Act supra.
8. Section-4 is reproduced as under:--
(1) The manufacturer of a product shall be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by, a characteristic of the product that renders the product defective when such damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product by a consumer.
(2) A product shall be defective only if --
(a) it is defective in construction or composition as provided in Section 5;
(b) it is defective in design as provided in Section 6;
(c) it is defective because an adequate warning has given as provided in Section 7; and
(d) it is defective because it does not conform to an express warranty of the manufacturer as provided in Section 8.
'A bare reading of the section reveals that its provisions are not applicable, because appellant is not a manufacturer of a product as defined in the section, the appellant is merely a gas supplier and/or its seller, stretching liability for excessive billing would be putting an altogether different meaning than that intended by the legislation.
9. The consumer Court being a Special Court and not a Court of general jurisdiction cannot take up matters relating to excessive Su) gas billing as the same do not fall under its purview/domain, the spirit of enactment does not cater to such eventualities. A complete mechanism for redressal of grievance to consumers is provided under the OGRA Ordinance 1992. Respondent had the alternate remedy which he did not avail. The consumer Court has acted and exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. Consequently, instant appeal is accepted and the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer District Consumer Court, Multan is set aside and the complaint filed by respondent is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.