Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 1248 2012 SLD 1248 2012 CLD 1428
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No.120 of 2008, decision dated: 6-03-2012
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE
Umar Sharif for Appellants.
Respondent ex parte.

MESSRS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE LIMITED THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER AND 2 OTHERS

VS

ABDUL HAMEED

Law: Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)

Section: 25

Punjab Consumers Protection Act (II of 2005)--Ss. 25 & 33--- Consumer Court, jurisdiction of---Consumer Court vide its order had directed Gas Company to revise the bill issued to the complainant---Validity---Consumer Court, prior to deciding the merits of the complaint, was required and obliged to determine its jurisdiction first; being a court of limited and special jurisdiction---No objection as to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court was raised by the defendant Gas Company, however, since the Consumer Court was not a court of general jurisdiction, it was its duty to examine the allegations contained in the complaint in order to determine its jurisdiction---Prayer for cancellation of gas bill issued by Gas Company and change of gas meter; could not have conferred jurisdiction upon the Consumer Court; as the same fell outside its purview---Consumer Court was not vested with any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the grievance of the complainant---Order of Consumer Court was set aside, and complaint was dismissed---Appeal was allowed, accordingly. ORDER 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…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492