2012 PLP 1428 (CLD)

MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.

Order dated 2-5-2008, recorded, by learned District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal has been called in question by the appellants whereby learned trial Court while issuing direction to the appellants to revise the questioned bill according to the consumption also burdened the appellants with costs to the tune of Rs.1,000.

2. The respondent, who was consumer of gas energy aggrieved by the alleged non-feasance on the part of present appellants to correct the bill of energy, approached learned consumer Court for issuance of direction to the appellants to change the meter of sui gas and cancellation of meter reading. Maintained that the meter installed in his premises showed excessive consumption though in fact energy was not consumed in like manner.

3. The complaint was contested by the appellants maintaining that bill was issued to the respondent according to consumption and as such respondent is liable to pay the said bill. After submission of written reply to the complaint, learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties passed impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants while making reference to the provisions of the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005 (II of 2005) maintained that keeping in view the grievance and allegations contained in the complaint, the Consumer Court was neither competent nor authorized to deal with the grievance of the respondent as the same was outside the domain of said Court and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Further submitted that even otherwise no opportunity was provided to the appellants to produce evidence and after submission of reply to the complaint, learned trial Court allowed the complaint though factual controversy was involved.

5. Perusal of contents of complaint suggests that grievance of present respondent was that his meter is defective and despite making complaints to the appellants his meter was not changed resulting in receipt of exorbitant suit gas bill. With this background, relief was sought for change of the meter as well as cancellation of meter reading. According to section 25 of the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005, the Consumer Court got jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages arising out of contravention of any provision of said Act. Admittedly prior to deciding the merits of the complaint, learned Consumer Court was required and obliged to determine its jurisdiction being a Court of limited and special jurisdiction. No doubt no objection was raised at the instance of present appellants questioning the jurisdiction of consumer Court but since the consumer Court is not a Court of general jurisdiction, therefore, it was its duty to examine the allegations contained in the complaint in order to determine its jurisdiction. Prayer for cancellation of sui gas bill and change of meter by no stretch of imagination could have conferred jurisdiction upon the consumer Court as the same falls outside the purview of consumer Court. Keeping in view the allegations and relief sought for consumer Court was not vested with any jurisdiction to take the cognizance of grievance of respondent and as such while accepting the appeal, order dated 2-5-2008 is hereby set aside resulting in dismissal of complaint filed by respondent leaving the parties to bear their own costs. K.M.Z./S-40/L Appeal accepted.