IN THE CONSUMER PROTECTION COURT, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN.

(Before: Abdul Sattar) Judge,

Claim No: 02 of 2019

Kanti Kumar S/o Peetambardas,

Hindu, Adult, R/o Talpur Colony,
Taluka & District Tando Muhammad Khan
………………………………….Claimant/Complainant

VERSUS

1). Azhar Ali Shah, Sub-Divisional Officer, Hesco

Sub-Division Office-I, District Tando Muhammad Khan.

2). Qayoom, Line Men Hesco,

Sub-Division Office-I, District Tando Muhammad Khan.

3). Rameez Khawaja, Line Superintendent Hesco,

Sub-Division Office-I,District Tando Muhammad Khan.

4). Imdad Memon,

Employ of Hesco, Talpur Colony,
District Tando Muhammad Khan
……..…………………………………….Defendants

Mr. Ansar Ali Shar, Learned Counsel for Claimant/Complainant

Ms. Manzoor Ahmed Panhwar, Learned Counsel for Defendants.

(O R D E R)
31-05-2019

By the dint of this Order, I would propose to dispose of instant claim /

complaint filed byclaimant/complainant for restoration of Electricity Line /
Connection for the millstone machine (ATA CHAKI) of claimant / complainant,
for recovery at the rate of Rs.2000/= per day damages on account of
Disconnection of Electricity till the restoration, along with recovery of
Rs.50,000/= as special damages on account litigation U/s 26 of Sindh
Consumer protection act 2014(hereinafter referred as an Act).

FACTS OF THE CASE

2). Precisely facts of the claim/complaint are that the claimant /

complainant is running 3 shops situated at lakhat stop Tando Muhammad
Khan for 32 year. The shops are owned by one Syed Muhammad Ali Shah and
claimant is running these shops as tenant; hence he is authorized to use all
amenities connect with shops including electricity. The 2 electric meters are
installed in these shops on the name of its owner bearing reference No.
27372510021730 and 24372510021730 for the purpose of meet electricity
required for the shops. The claimant is good paying master regularly paying
bill to Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO) in capacity of consumer
and defendants are employ of same company. It is further averred in memo of
claim / complaint that on 26-03-2019 defendants visited the claimant /
complainant house and demand illegal gratification from, on his refusal on
27-03-2019 defendants illegally without any prior notice disconnect the
electricity line/connection bearing reference No. 24372510021730. The
claimant/complainant served legal notice upon the defendants but the same
were not replied by the defendants yet, therefore resultantly he filed present
claim / complaint against the defendants with following prayer:

(a) To direct the defendants to restore the line/connection of

the shop of claimant.

(b) To direct the defendants to pay damages due to

disconnection of line of shop since 27-03-2019 at the rate of Rs.2000/= per
day till the restoration of connection.

(c) To direct the defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/= in

words rupees Fifty Thousand only as special damages born upon the litigation
due to not reply & not compensating the claimant.

(d) Cost of the case may b saddled upon the defendants.

(e) Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems fit, just
and proper may also be awarded to the claimant.

3). That after filing the claim/complaint, summons were issued to the
defendants and in response of summons all the defendants filed their written
statement jointly through their counsel wherein they denied all the allegations
of claimant / complainant and further submitted that the line connection of
complainant bearing meter reference No. 24372510021730 is not
disconnected and same is in working condition, claimant/complainant is
consuming electricity from the same as well.

REFLECTION OF EVIDENCE

4). In order to prove the claim, the claimant/complainant namely Kanti

Kumar examined as PW-1 at Ex-8, he deposed same facts mentioned in memo
of claim/complaint and produced the courier receipt 4 in number at Ex 8/A
to 8/D, invoice/bill in respect of counsel fee at Ex-9. He also produced the
photostat copy of rent agreement and photo state copy of legal notice the
same was only kept on record as marked “A to B” being photocopy and was
not exhibited for want of original, hence learned counsel closed the side of his
evidence vide statement at Ex-10.

5). On the other hand, the defendant side examined only one witness
defendant No.1 namely Azhar Ali Shah (Sub-Divisional Officer, Hesco, Sub-
Division Office-I, District Tando Muhammad Khan) as DW-1 at Ex-11, hence
learned counsel closed the side of his evidence vide statement at Ex-12.

6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties, they have argued the same
points as written in claim/compliant, written statement and their evidence.
So also, I have perused the material available on record very carefully.

7). The points of determination before me now on as under:-

POINTS
Point No.1 Whether the defendants disconnect the electricity line /
connection, illegally, without prior notice to Claimant/Complainant as
required under the law and such act of Defendants comes under ambit of
Faulty and defective service?
Point No.2 Whether the Claimant/Complainant is entitled for damages on
account of disconnection of electric line/connection? If yes, to what extent?

Point No.3 Whether the Claimant/Complainant is entitled for Advocate’s

fee and cost of Claim/Complaint as prayed? If yes, to what extent?

Point No.4 What should the final order be?

8). My findings on the above points, with the reasons are as under:

FINDINGS

Point No.1 ------------------------- In Negative.

Point No.2 ------------------------- In Negative.

Point No.3 ------------------------- In Negative.

Point No.4 ------------------------ Claim/Complaint Dismissed accordingly.

POINT NO.01

9). The burden of proof of this point initially lies upon Claimant /
Complainant that, he has to prove that the defendants disconnected the
electricity line/connection without notice illegally and by violating the
provisions of law. The Claimant/Complainant during the course of
examination-in-chief deposed on oath that no any prior notice was given by
the defendants and disconnected the electricity line/connection
illegally, Claimant/Complainant reiterated the facts of his Claim/Complaint.
On the other hand defendant No.1 deposed in his evidence before the court
that, connection of Claimant/Complainant is in running condition. So also
nothing brought on record by learned counsel for Claimant/Complainant
during lengthy cross examination. Surprisingly, Claimant/Complainant did
not examine any witness in whose presence such disconnection was carried.
The Claimant/Complainant totally failed to produce any witness and
documents which supports his version that, his line/connection is
disconnected by the defendants. Therefore, the version of
claimant/complainant is not proved. So that this point is answered
as “NEGATIVE”

POINT NO.02

10). The burden of proof of this point lies upon Claimant /

Complainant that, he has to prove, what type of damage caused to him, for
this the Claimant/Complainant fail to prove Point No.1 that act of defendants
was illegal and violation of the mandatory provisions of law. as the Claimant /
Complainant fail to prove the Point No.1 and his allegation of disconnection of
line/connection by the defendants. So also fail to prove that any damage is
caused to him by the defendants. It is admitted position
that Claimant/Complainant could not prove his case of faulty and defective
service. Therefore, I am in view that general damages cannot be granted to
Claimant / Complainant account of mental anguish and agony, hence the
answered this point as “NEGATIVE

POINT NO.03
11). The burden of proof of this point lies upon Claimant /
Complainant, who during the course of examination-in-chief produced
original invoice/bill for professional fee at Ex.8/B which shows the
professional fee Rs.50,000/=. Since this point is also connected with Point
No.1 and Claimant/Complainant is not succeeded to prove the same,
resultantly this point is answered as “NEGATIVE”.

POINT NO.04

12). As a result of above, the Claimant/Complainant could not establish that

the defendants provide faulty and defective service and disconnect the line /
connection of Claimant/Complainant and violate legal provisions. The
Claimant / Complainant has failed to prove that, defendants have
disconnected his line/connection, therefore, the defendants are not liable to
restore the electricity line/connection of Claimant/Compliant. Hence the
Claim / Compliant is hereby Dismissed under section 35 of Act, being
Frivolous and vexatious with fine of Rs.10,000/= Ten Thousand Only and
same fine amount is awarded to the defendants collectively and jointly as
compensation.

However, the Claimant/Complainant is at liberty to proceed against the

defendants before the proper forum, if he desires and if any illegal act is
committed by the defendants. Office is directed to fix the

Claim/Compliant on 02-07-2019 for execution or compliance report.

Announced in Open Court,

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on 31thday of May, 2019.

(ABDUL SATTAR)
Presiding Officer
Consumer Protection Court,
Tando Muhammad Khan

IN THE CONSUMER PROTECTION COURT, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN.

(Before: Abdul Sattar) Judge,

Claim No: 03 of 2019

Prem Kumar @ Prem Ratan S/o Kanti Kumar,

Hindu, Adult, R/o Talpur Colony,
Taluka & District Tando Muhammad Khan ….Claimant/Complainant

VERSUS

1). Azhar Ali Shah, Sub-Divisional Officer, Hesco

Sub-Division Office-I, District Tando Muhammad Khan.

2). Qayoom, Line Men Hesco,

Sub-Division Office-I, District Tando Muhammad Khan.

3). Rameez Khawaja, Line Superintendent Hesco,

Sub-Division Office-I, District Tando Muhammad Khan.

4). Imdad Memon, Employee of Hesco,

Talpur Colony, District Tando Muhammad Khan
……………Defendants

Mr. Ansar Ali Shar, Learned Counsel for Claimant/Complainant

Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Panhwar, Learned Counsel for Defendants.

(O R D E R)
31-05-2019

By the dint of this Order, I intend to dispose of instant claim/complaint

filed by claimant/complainant for restoration of Electricity Line /
Connection of his house, for recovery of Rs.50,000/= damages on
account of Disconnection of Electricity Line/connection, removal of
electric meter by defendants illegally and contrary to the law, along with
recovery of Rs.25,000/= as special damages on account litigation U/s
26 of Sindh Consumer protection act 2014(hereinafter referred as an
Act)

FACTS OF THE CASE

2). Precisely facts of the claim/complaint are that the claimant /
complainant is consumer of Hyderabad Electric Supply Company
(HESCO) with one Electric Meter bearing Reference No.
01372510002811U and same is installed at his house for consuming of
electricity and the defendants are employee of same company. It is
further averred in memo of claim/complaint that claimant/complainant
is good paying master and all bills in respect of consumption of
electricity are fully paid by him till to date. Allegedly, on 26-03-2019
defendants visited the claimant/complainant house and demanded
illegal gratification from father of Claimant/Complainant, on his refusal
defendants illegally without any prior notice disconnected the electricity
line of the house of Claimant/Complainant, remove electric meter and
took away the same by issuing threats that they have tempered the
electric meter & charge detection amount. On 27-03-2019 defendants
came at the shop of claimant’s father and disconnect the electricity line
of shop. The father of Claimant/Complainant served two legal notices
upon the defendants for self and on behalf of Claimant/Complainant
but the same were not replied by the defendants yet, therefore
resultantly he filed present claim/complaint against the defendants
with following prayer:

(a) To direct the defendants to restore the line/connection of the house

of claimant.

(b) To direct the defendants to pay damages due to disconnection of line

of house at the rate of Rs.50,000/=.

(c) To direct the defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/= in

words rupees Twenty five Thousand only as special damages born upon
the litigation due to not reply & not compensating the claimant.
(d) Cost of the case may b saddled upon the defendants.

(e) Any other relief, which this Honorable Court deems fit, just and
proper may also be awarded to the claimant.

3). That after filing the Claim/Complaint, summons were issued to

the defendants and in response of summons all the defendants filed
their written statement jointly through their counsel wherein they
denied almost all the allegations of Claimant/Complainant.

REFLECTION OF EVIDENCE
4). In order to prove the claim, the Claimant/Complainant namely
Prem Kumar @ Prem Ratan examined as PW-1 at Ex-8, he deposed
same facts mentioned in memo of claim/complaint and produced the
paid electricity bill of month May 2019 at Ex-8/A, invoice/bill in respect
of counsel fee at Ex-8/B; hence learned counsel closed the side of his
evidence vide statement at Ex-10.

5). On the other hand, the defendant side examined only one witness
defendant No.1 namely Azhar Ali Shah (Sub-Divisional Officer, Hesco,
Sub-Division Office-I, District Tando Muhammad Khan) as DW-1 at Ex-
11; hence learned counsel closed the side of his evidence vide statement
at Ex-12.

6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties, they have
argued the same points as written in Claim/Compliant, written
statement and their evidence. I also have perused the material available
on record very carefully.

7). The points of determination before me now on as under:

POINTS

Point No.1 Whether the defendants disconnect the electricity line /

connection, removed the electric meter and took away the same meter
illegally, without prior notice to Claimant/Complainant as required
under the law and such act of Defendants comes under ambit of Faulty
and defective service?

Point No2 Whether the Claimant/Complainant is entitled for damages

on account of disconnection of electric line/connection and removal of
electric meter? If yes, to what extent?

Point No.3 Whether the Claimant/Complainant is entitled for

Advocate’s fee and cost of Claim/Complaint as prayed? If yes, to what
extent?

Point No.4. What should the final order be?

8). My findings on the above points, with the reasons are as under:

FINDINGS

Point No.1 ------------------------- In Affirmative.

Point No.2 ------------------------- In Affirmative.

Point No.3 ------------------------- In Affirmative.

Point No.4 ------------------------- Claim/Complaint Allowed Accordingly.

POINT NO.01

9). The burden of proof of this point initially lies upon Claimant
/ Complainant that, he has to prove that, Defendants disconnected the
electricity line/connection and removed his meter without notice
illegally and by violating the provisions of law.The Claimant /
Complainant during the course of examination-in-chief deposed on oath
that, no any prior notice was given by the Defendants and disconnected
the electricity line/connection and removed meter illegally. Claimant /
Complainant reiterated the facts of his Claim/Complaint and nothing
brought on record by learned counsel for Defendant during lengthy
cross examination. On the other hand, defendant No.1 deposed in his
evidence before the court that he serve the notice upon the
Claimant/Complainant but the defendant No.1 failed to examine any
witness or his member of staff in whose presence he served notice upon
Claimant/Complainant even same notice was not produced during
course of evidence. The Defendant No.1 also admitted in his evidence
that, his subordinate staff disconnected the line/connection, remove the
meter and took away on his direction as it was found suspicious.
Surprisingly, Defendant No.1 did not examine his subordinate staff who
carried such disconnection. The Defendant No.1 further deposed that
same meter is sent to the M&T laboratory for examination and it was
found in tempered condition but again he failed to produce such report
before this court during his evidence, as it is report the defendant has
to produce the same through its maker/expert, but the defendants
totally failed to produce any witness and documents which supports
their version that act of disconnection of line/connection and removal
meter by the defendants was legal and under the parameters of the
law. It is also pertinent to note that, defendant No.1 himself admitted in
Examination-in-chief that on 01-04-2019 my sub ordinate staffs
disconnect the connection of Claimant/Complainant on my direction”.
Since alleged notice was issued on 29-03-2019 and line/connection was
disconnected on 01-04-2019, which culminate only 3 days. However, as
per section 24 (1) of Electricity Act 1910, if any meter is found tampered
before removing the same 7 days’ notice is mandatary. In present case,
defendants given alleged notice of 3 days, which illegality on part of
defendants and violation of provisions of law. It was held by Hon’ble
Sindh High court in case law reported as Messrs Abdul Khaliq Ice
Factory V. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd, 1984 CLC (Sindh)
at page No. 2720

S.24-----Expression "neglects to pay in S. 24(1), held, was different from

failure to pay or make a default in payment of undisputed liability?
Consumer, held further, would have protection of "seven days" notice
and electric supply cannot be disconnected unless licensee has given
not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such consumer.

Apart from it, the question arises here as to whether after compliance of
section 24 (1) of Electricity Act 1910, whether the defendants can
disconnect the line/connection and remove the meter under the
law? On this point I am guided by the case law reported as Patoki Ice
Factory V. Revnue Officer Etc, in PLJ 1996 Lahore at page No. 668 (DB).
Wherein Honorable High Court held as under:

S.24-----Disconnection Notice, on bare reading of section 24 it becomes

obvious that in first instance a demand should be made by licensee for
payment of specified sum of money by a specified date, if consumer
neglect to pay amount demanded then licensee is required to issue a
notice calling upon consumer to pay amount with in a period which
should not be less than 7 days and also inform consumer that in event
of non-payment of amount electric connection would be disconnected.

Bare reading of the Ibidcase law and Section 24 (1) of Electricity Act
1910it is clear position that issuance of 7 days’ notice to consumer
before disconnection of supply of electricity is a mandatory. In such
case defendants can refer matter to electric inspector u/s 26(6) of
Electricity Act 1910 after removing meter and installing another
temporary meter till settlement of dispute. There is no compulsion that,
with removal of alleged defective meter supply of energy is bound to do
disconnection. Reliance is respectfully place upon the (NLR 1988 Civil
696). Moreover, the defendants did not produce any evidence either
documentary or oral which may establish that they took any effort to
comply with legal requirements, therefore, the version of Claimant /
Complainant is proved after clear admission of defendants, in cross
examination regarding non production of any documents in support of
his version. Defendants act of disconnection of line/connection and
removing the meter by violating/ignoring the mandatory provisions of
law, fall under the faulty and defective service. So that this point is
answered as “AFFIRMATIVE”.

POINT NO.02
10). The burden of proof of this point lies upon Claimant /
Complainant that, he has to prove that, what type of damage caused to
him, for this the Claimant/Complainant succeed to prove Point No.1
that, act of defendants was illegal and violation of the mandatory
provisions of law. Due to illegal act of the defendants, Claimant /
Complainant suffered from mental agony as electricity is basic necessity
of life and its’ cut off by the defendants without following mandatory
requirements of the law caused discomfort and created hardship for
Claimant/Complainant. The section 13 of Act, empowers to this court
for granting damages in such situation. For this ready reference, of
section 13 of the Act is reproduced as under:

13. Liability for faulty or defective services. A provider of services shall

be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by the
provision of service that have caused damage.

11). The above provisions of law protect the consumer and given right
to him to claim damages on the ground of providing faulty and defective
service, so also the above provision empowers to this Court for granting
damages caused due to faulty or defective service. Keeping in view all
the surrounding circumstance of the case, the Claimant /
Complainant and his family felt discomfort, anxiety, depression, and
grief, due to the such act of the defendants and stander of providing
faulty and defective service. There is dispute between Claimant /
Complainant and defendants regarding date of disconnection of
Electricity line/connection and both sides failed to prove their assertion
by leading any evidence on this point. However, it is admitted that, legal
notice was sent by Claimant/Complainant on 03-04-2019. In above
circumstances, I am of considered view that damages on account of
faulty and defective service be granted to Claimant/Complainant at the
rate of Rs.1000/= per day from sending legal notice to Defendants i.e.
(03-04-2019) till restoration of line/connection in the terms of clause (f)
of section 32 of Act. Hence the answered this point as “AFFIRMATIVE”.

POINT NO.03
12). The burden of proof of this point lies upon Claimant / Complainant,
who during the course of examination-in-chief produced original invoice/bill
for professional fee at Ex.8/B which shows the professional fee Rs.25000/= is
paid by him to his advocate on account of professional fee and same was not
challenged by learned counsel for Defendants during whole cross
examination. It is settled principle of appreciation of evidence that, if any
portion of chief examination is not challenged by Adverse party same deems
to be admitted by him. There is no reason whatsoever came on record which
may be ground for declining professional fee on account of litigation. In above
circumstances, I am of the humble view that, in the terms of clause (g) of
section 32 of Act Claimant/Complainant is entitled for litigation/professional
fee of advocate at the rate of Rs.25000/-, resultantly this point is answered as
“AFFIRMATIVE

POINT NO.04
13). As a result of above, the Claimant/Complainant has fully established
that, the defendants provide faulty and defective service, as they disconnected
the line/connection of Claimant/Complainant and remove the meter by
violating legal provisions. The defendants have failed to perform and infringed
the liabilities provided in Section 24(1) of Electricity Act 1910, therefore, the
defendants are hereby collectively and jointly directed under Section 32 of Act
to restore the electricity line/connection of Claimant/Compliant forthwith.
The Defendants are also directed to pay Rs.1000/= per day from the date of
sending legal notice (03-04-2019) till the restoration of line/connection as
general damages on account of mental anguish and agony, so also the
defendants are directed to pay Rs.25,000/= (Rupees Twenty five Thousands
Only) total litigation/advocate charges to Claimant / Complainant within
fifteen days from the date of this order. The Defendants are further directed to
make ensure that in future they will not repeat same act without fulfilling all
legal requirements on just cause. In case of failure to comply with above
order(s), the defendants shall suffer for 6 months (six months with simple
imprisonment) in under section 33 (2) of Act. Consequently, the
Claim/Complaint is “allowed accordingly”.

However, the defendants are at liberty to proceed against the

Claimant/Complainant before proper forum, if they desire and any
illegal act is committed by the Claimant/Complainant. Office is directed
to fix the Claim/Compliant on 02-07-2019 for execution or compliance
report. Announced in Open Court,
Given under my hand and seal of the Court on 31thday of May, 2019.

(ABDUL SATTAR)
Presiding Officer
Consumer Protection Court,
Tando Muhammad Khan