001_new Doc 2019-03-27 09.55.29.docx

1

Factual position of the case is that while taking monthly meter reading our meter reader observed and reported that consumer was using gas in generator of 450 KV for commercial purpose in his Marble Factory from his domestic connection. On the report of meter reader, our technical staff visited the premises of consumer on 05.12.2012 and further observed as under:The consumer has obtained three gas connections, two domestic having consumer No. 67254469090 and 71905000007 and one is the commercial, The residence of the consumer is also in the factory. The consumer was using gas for generator of 450 KV form domestic connection. The consumer has interlinked the houseline of both meters and using gas by enhancing the pressure from regulator and damaged the meter due to overloading. Due to above mentioned violation of gas sales agreement our team disconnected both domestic connections of the consumer on 06.12.2012 and sent these meters to meter workshop for flow proving purpose.. Meter Inspection reports of said meter received us in which it was proved that meter was not registering gas. In the light of site visit and meter inspection reports, the Regional Detection & Evaluation Committee, Bahawalpur calculated and processed pilferage of gas charges for a recoverable volume of 4,434 Hm3, based on the connected load of 5.4 MCF/hr and 8 working hours per day operation as assessed by three members of Regional Load Assessment Committee, amounting to Rs. 9,989,172/- booked against his connection No. 67254469090 as per calculation sheet attached and forwarded the case to Head Office, Detection & Evaluation Committee for approval and finalization of pilferage charges. As per policy of the Company, the consumer was provided the opportunity to plead the case before Head Office, Detection & Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 21.02.2013. Rana Mehboob Alam (consumer) attended the meeting and pleaded his case and denied the allegations. On the other side our Mr. Zia Haider Kazmi, the then Incharge Rahimyar Khan and Mr, Zulfiqar Ali Engineer (Billing) presented the case and informed the Head Office

Committee that gas was being used for preparation of cement pipes basically they run mixer machine and also use in marble factory. They deliberated that the application of the consumer totally baseless and fabricated, After hearing the arguments of both sides the Head Office Detection & Evaluation Scanned by CamScanner

Com mitt ee de cla r e d th a t t he c on s ume r I s I nv ol ved i n pil f era g e of g a s a nd recommended as under:

Immediate booking of 4,434.21 H m 3 t hef t v o l um e a nd re c ov ery of Rs. 9, 9 9 0, 1 9 1/ -.



Existing cash security/bank guarantee be adjusted towards recovery of pilferage charges. FIR may be lodged against the consumer, in case consumer fails to pay the



pilferage charges with due time, as per Gas Theft Act and Pakistan Penal Code. In view of above, it is submitted that above mentioned charges booked to consumer's account are correct and justified as per Company policy which is liable for payment by the consumer. we may add that consumer had also filed a complaint before Wafaqi Mohtasib on 03.06.2013 and challenged the said violation charges. On 10.08.2014, Wafaqi Mohtasib had closed the investigation regarding complaint of consumer with direction that "this office was not the proper forum for investigation of the subject complaint".

We may add that consumer had also filed a complaint in Jan-2016 with Registrar OGRA regarding Detection Charges, whereas gas connection of the complainant was disconnected on 06.12.2012. The above complaint falls under clause 4-C (i) of Complaint Resolution Procedure Regulation, 2003 as well as clause 12 (ii) of Domestic Gas Supply Contract duly approved by OGRA and found as time barred. After examining the complaint case and hearing the arguments the OGRA

decided the case vide orders dated 09.08.2016 in which it was decided that i)

To set aside the pilferage charges amounting to Rs. 9,990,191/ - for 4,434.21 Hm3 volume of gas on account of tampering with meter No. 27317505 & 25891745 against the complainant, on the basis of connected load 5.4 MCF/ day-08 working hours/day for the disputed period of 365 days from 06.12.2011 to 05.12.2012. ii) And instead rework pilferage charges for the revised disputed period from 20.09.2012 to 05.12.2012 on the basis of connected load 5.4MCF/ day -for daily 08 working hours. The same shall be payable by the complainant. iii) L P S may not be charged during the period the case remained under

adjudication with OGRA. We had filed an appeal before Authority of OGRA and challenged the decision dated 09.08.2016 of Designated Officer of OGRA in complaint No. 04/2016. On the other side Rana Mehboob Alam (consumer) had also filed an appeal No. 131/2016 against said decision of Designated Officer of °GRA.

After hearing the arguments from both appellants 1-e. SNGPL and Rana Mehboob Alam on 28.12.2017, the Authority of OGRA decided the appeals in favour of SNGPL and against the Consumer vide orders dated 08.01.2018 in which it is directed as under:"In view of above a nd a fter hea ring th© parties at length, the Authority considers that the charges booked by the SNGPL are correct and payable by the consumer and therefore, sets aside the decision of the D.0 and holds the

Scanned by CamScanner

consumer liable to pay the outstanding dues, if any. The appeal filed by the consumer is accordingly dismissed".

Rana Mehboob Alam (consumer) has filed a review petition bearing No. OGRA-6(12)-1(131)/2016-Review dated June 26, 2018 against decision of Authority of OGRA dated 08.012018. We have submitted our para wise comments / reply on said review petition of consumer. The review petition of consumer is subjuced so far in OGRA whereas the consumer filed this civil

suit in this honourable court.

Scanned by CamScanner

• PARAWISE COMMENTS RANA MEHBOOB ALAM VS SNGPL CONSUMER NO. 67254469090 & 71905000007

1. Correct. The consumer had obtained three gas connections, two domestic having consumer No. 67254469090 and 71905000007 and one is the commercial. 2. Incorrect. As explained above in para No. 1 that the consumer had obtained three gas connections, two domestic and one the commercial. The residence of consumer is also in a Marble factory so the purpose of usage of gas has been changed. On 30.11.2012, during the course of monthly meter reading our meter reader observed and reported that gas is being used for commercial purpose in a marble factory from a domestic connection No. 67254469090. The report of meter reader was not hypothetical but it was based on factual grounds. 3. Incorrect. Factual position of the case is that while taking monthly meter reading our meter reader observed and reported that consumer was using gas in generator of 450 KV for commercial purpose in his Marble Factory from his domestic connection. On the report of meter reader, our technical staff visited the premises of consumer on 05.12.2012 and further observed as under:•

The consumer has obtained three gas connections, two domestic having consumer No. 67254469090 and 71905000007 and one is the commercial. The residence of the consumer is also in the factory. The consumer was using gas for generator of 450 KV form domestic connection. The consumer has interlinked the houseline of both meters and using gas by enhancing the pressure from regulator and damaged the meter due to overloading. Due to above mentioned violation of gas sales agreement our team disconnected both domestic connections of the consumer on 06.12.2012 and sent these meters to meter workshop for flow proving purpose. Meter Inspection reports of said meter received us in which it was proved that meter was not registering gas. In the light of site visit and meter inspection reports, the Regional Detection & Evaluation Committee, Bahawalpur calculated and processed pilferage of gas charges for a recoverable volume of 4,434 Hm3, based on the connected load of 5.4 MCF/hr and 8 working hours per day operation as assessed by three members of Regional Load Assessment Committee, amounting to Rs. 9,989,172/- booked against his connection No. 67254469090 as per calculation sheet attached and forwarded the case to Head Office, Detection & Evaluation Committee for approval and finalization of pilferage charges. As per policy of the Company, the consumer was provided the opportunity to plead the case before Head Office, Detection & Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 21.02.2013. Rana Mehboob Aram (consumer) attended the meeting and pleaded his case and denied the allegations. On the other side our Mr. Zia Haider Kazmi, the then Incharge Rahimyar Khan and Mr. Zulfiqar All Engineer (Billing) presented the case and informed the Head Office Committee that gas was being used for preparation of cement pipes basically they run mixer machine and also use in marble factory. They deliberated that the application of the consumer totally baseless and fabricated. After hearing the arguments of both sides the Head Office Detection & Evaluation

Scanned by CamScanner

Committee declared that the consumer is involved in pilferage of gas and recommended as under:  

Immediate booking of 4,434.21 Hm3 theft volume and recovery of Rs. 9,990,191/-. Existing cash security/bank guarantee be adjusted towards recovery of pilferage charges. FIR may be lodged against the consumer, in case consumer fails to pay the pilferage charges with due time, as per Gas Theft Act and Pakistan Penal Code. In view of above, it is submitted that above mentioned charges booked to consumer's account are correct and justified as per Company policy which is liable for payment by the consumer. We may add that consumer had also filed a complaint before Wafaqi Mohtasib on 03.06.2013 and challenged the said violation charges. On 10.08.2014, Wafaqi Mohtasib had closed the investigation regarding complaint of consumer with direction that "this office was not the proper forum for investigation of the subject complaint".

We may add that consumer had also filed a complaint in Jan -2016 with Registrar OGRA regarding Detection Charges, whereas gas connection of the complainant was disconnected on 06.12.2012. The above complaint falls under clause 4-C (i) of Complaint Resolution Procedure Regulation, 2003 as well as clause 12 (ii) of Domestic Gas Supply Contract duly approved by OGRA and found as time barred. After examining the complaint case and hearing the arguments the OGRA decided the case vide orders dated 09.08.2016 in which it was decided that i)

To set aside the pilferage charges amounting to Rs. 9,990,191/- for 4,434.21 Hm3 volume of gas on account of tampering with meter No. 27317505 & 25891745 against the complainant, on the basis of connected load 5.4 MCF/ day-08 working hours/day for the disputed period of 365 days from 06.12.2011 to 05.12.2012. ii) And instead rework pilferage charges for the revised disputed period from 20.09.2012 to 05.12.2012 on the basis of connected load 5.4MCF/ day—for daily 08 working hours. The same shall be payable by the complainant. iii) LPS may not be charged during the period the case remained under adjudication with OGRA. We had filed an appeal before Authority of OGRA and challenged the decision dated 09.08.2016 of Designated Officer of OGRA in complaint No. 04/2016. On the other side Rana Mehboob Alam (consumer) had also filed an appeal No. 131/2016 against said decision of Designated Officer of OGRA. After hearing the arguments from both appellants i e. SNGPL and Rana -

Mehboob Alam on 28.12.2017, the Authority of OGRA decided the appeals in favour of SNGPL and against the Consumer vide orders dated 08.01.2018 in which it is directed as under:"In view of above and after hearing the parties at length, the Authority considers that the charges booked by the SNGPL are correct and payable by the consumer and therefore, sets aside the decision of the D.0 and holds the

Scanned by CamScanner

consumer liable to pay the outstanding dues, if any. The appeal filed by the consumer is accordingly dismissed".

Rana Mehboob Alam (consumer) has filed a review petition bearing No. OGRA-6(12)-1(131)/2016-Review dated June 26, 2018 against decision of Authority of OGRA dated 08.01.2018. We have submitted our para wise comments / reply on said review petition of consumer. The review petition of consumer is subjuced so far in OGRA whereas the consumer filed this civil suit in this honourable court. 4. Incorrect. That is incorrect as explained above in para No. 3. The consumer had filed an appeal No. 131/2016 against orders dated 09.08.2016 of OGRA in complaint No. 04/2016 on which we have submitted a proper reply to OGRA. 5. Incorrect. It pertains to OGRA. The OGRA is our Regulatory Authority and their decisions are issued on the basis of available documentary evidence as well as arguments of both parties. 6. Incorrect. It pertains to OGRA. 7. Incorrect. The OGRA and SNGPL are not twin departments. The OGRA is a Regulatory Authority which decisions are issued on merit based on available documentary evidences. The plaintiff was involved in theft of gas ,therefore, gas pilferage chargers were booked to him on the following grounds:-

1)

Incorrect. That Mr. Zia Haider Kazmi was transferred to Rahim Yar Khan as Incharge in 3rd week of November 2012 and he was absolutely new corner at Rahim Yar Khan. Further, Mr. Kazmi has expressed that he never met the complainant nor he knew the complainant before the date of raid dated 05-12-2012. Therefore, the question of grudge with the complainant becomes in-effective and is being fabricated by the complainant to deceive the Honorable Court. The Then Incharge Rahim Yar Khan has further informed our office that he never ordered any casual meter reader to visit the premises of complainant as it was the domain of The Then Billing Officer Rahim Yar Khan. It is a fact that our casual meter reader Mr. Zaman Ahmad reported on 30.11.2012 that he found a meter No. GN25891745 bearing consumer No. 67254469090 with suspected seals, meter sticky and gas was being used commercially in a marble factory to generate electricity through a gas operat ed generator from above mentioned domestic gas meter. That is, casual employees / meter readers are hired as per standard operating procedure laid by the Company and therefore, the reporting by such employees is deemed to be true. The complainant in his petition claims contradictory views as he negates our meter reader's report dated 30.11.2012 while on the other side he owns the affidavit dated 13-4-2013, given by the subject meter reader to the complainant with t he mut ual connivance and mala fide of both complainant and subject meter reader. The above meter reader was paid off in Dec ember 2012 whe reas t h e so - call ed a ffidavit was writte n after a lapse of 3 months from the date of his services termination. It is worth mentioning here that the above meter reader has never submitted any affidavit within the company and he only gave it to the complainant which shows all mala fide intention clearly. The complainant has falsely tried to diversify the direction of case in his favor to avoid detection bill amounting to Rs 9,990,191/- for 4434.211-1M3.

Scanned by CamScanner

I n c or r e ct : Ou r v ig ila n c e te a ms c omp r ise d of J a m A r n ee r Lu x Sub Engineer ftahlm Yar Khan with fitters raided at the .site ran 05 -12-2012 and found that consumer was using gas for generators of 450 KVA from 2 Nos. of domestic meters by inter - linking house lines and by enhancing pressure from regulator, The meters were n ot registering gas but the generator was running, Our teams tried to disconnect both the d o m e s t i c m e t e r s d ue t o v i o l at i o n o f g as s a l e s ag r e e m e n t b u t t h e consumer did not allow disconnection. In the meantime, Incharge Rahim Yar Khan was apprised of the situ ation and he reached at site where he found the same condition as narrated above. He advised the team to shut off the service valve. As soon as the valve was closed, the generator stopped working automatically and electricity disappeared, Hence, It was proved that generator was being run on gas to produce electricity. In the meantime, the consumer mobilized the labor of the factory and did not allow our teams to disconnect the meter, Our teams tried to negotiate with the complainant but all in vain. It was a security risk and local police did not provide security and therefore, the then R e gio n al M a na ge r B a h aw a ip ur a r ra ng ed P aki st a n Ra ng e rs to gi v e s e c u r i t y t o o u r t e am s a n d t o d i s c o n n ec t b ot h m e t e r s , O ur t e a m s disconnected both domestic meters on the same day and sent to meter workshop for flow proving. In a situation like this, it was impossible to make any video at that time.

iii)

Incorrect: As the high pressure gas is stepped down through TBSs and supplied to consumers in low pressure distribution mains and therefore, pressure cannot be kept constant round the clock. It varies off and on as per consumption. At the time of raid on 05 -12-2012, the pressure measured at outlet of the meter G-4, 27317509 was 1.5 PSIG while the pressure on second meter G -4, 25891745 was "line pressure" as 4.5 PSIG verified by 3 members committee on 11 -12-2012. (2 Nos, of site r e po rts of bot h m et e r s an n ex ed ). O n 5 - 1 2 - 20 1 2, t h er e was a lso a reverse flow due to interlinking of house lines due to which difference of pressure was observed in both meters. On the other side, there was no use of gas on 11-12-2012 as the meters were disconnected on 05 -122012 and line pressure was measured as 4.5 PSIG. It was observed by the 3 membe rs committee vide Ref: DRYK.1(765) dated: 11 -12-2012 that 3-5 PSIG pressure is required to run a generator. In this regard, complainant has pointed out only one site report of 1.5 PSIG whereas

second site reports shows that the second meter was being operated at line pressure which was 4.5 PSIG, Hence, complainant was enjoying simultaneously two pressures as 1.5 PSIG at one meter & 4.5 PSIG at second coupled meter. iv)

Incorrect: Meter inspect ion report of G-4, 27317509 shows that calibration gear found disengaged with wear and tear of parts due to

which meter is not registering gas. Meter inspection report of second meter G-4, 25891745 shows that one flag rod was found loose and diaphragm supports damaged including wear & tear of parts due to which meter is not registering gas. It is evident from billing/consumption history of gas connections of consumer that meter GN25891745 of consumer have same reading on previous months which shows that meter is not registering gas. The meter inspection reports of the respective meters of said gas connections also clearly confirmed/remarked that meters are sticky and not registering gas. Meter Readers have the capability to visually assess whether meter is sticky or not but later on this will be authenticated by metering workshop. The violation/sticky charges are booked to consumer as per meter inspection reports and site visit reports.

Scanned by CamScanner

v)

It is evident from billing/consumption history of gas connections of consumer that meter GN25891745 of consumer have same reading on previous months which shows that meter is not registering gas. The meter inspection reports of the respective meters of said gas connections also clearly confirmed/remarked that meters are sticky and not registering gas. Meter Readers have the capability to visually assess whether meter is sticky or not but later on this will be authenticated by metering workshop. The violation/sticky charges are booked to consumer as per meter inspection reports and site visit reports.

vi)

The site visit reports of our field staff proved that consumer was using gas in a generator of 450 KV and meter of consumer was also reported sticky. As consumer is admitting that if he used this capacity generator than on technical ground G-4 meter would be undersized and could not measures gas or measures enormously so the billing history become null and void at this connecting load.

vii)

At the time of raid on 05-12-2012, the pressure measured at outlet of the meter G-4, 27317509 was 1.5 PSIG while the pressure on second meter G-4, 25891745 was "line pressure" as 4.5 PSIG verified by 3 members committee on 11-12-2012. (2 Nos. of site reports of both meters annexed). On 5-12-2012, there was also a reverse flow due to interlinking of house lines due to which difference of pressure was observed in both meters. On the other side, there was no use of gas on 11-12-2012 as the meters were disconnected on 05-12-2012 and line pressure was measured as 4.5 PSIG. It was observed by the 3 members committee vide Ref: DRYK.1(765) dated: 11-12-2012 that 35 PSIG pressure is required to run a generator. In this regard, complainant has pointed out only one site report of 1.5 PSIG whereas second site reports shows that the second meter was being operated at line pressure which was 4.5 PSIG. Hence, complainant was enjoying simultaneously two pressures as 1.5 PSIG at one meter & 4.5 PSIG at second coupled meter.

viii)

It pertains to plaintiff.

ix)

The. consumer had strongly resisted at site and mobilized the labor of the factory which created a security risk to life of our teams and did not allow our teams to disconnect the meters. In a situation like this, it was impossible to make any video at that time. Moreover, the meters were disconnected by arranging security from Rangers Pakistan. It has been already conveyed in para 4 that Incharge Rahim Yar Khan advised the teams to shut off the service valve and by making this, generator and electricity were found stopped which clearly indicated that gas was being pilfered by subject domestic meters. After the raid, an application was submitted at Police Station Rahimyar Khan but the local police did not acknowledge it and the application became rolling stone between our SNGPL Office and Police Station. The subject Police Station lodged FIR against the complainant on 21-6-2013 after a lapse of more than 6 months. Our application to lodge FIR was delayed unnecessarily due to influence of the Complainant on local police. In the meantime, Mr.Zia Haider Kazmi was transferred to Bahawalpur in June 2013 and police never issued any notice to Mr. Zia Haider Kazmi to come up for evidences and to participate in investigation on our end and therefore, the said FIR was dismissed with the connivance of local police and that was an ex-parte decision.

Scanned by CamScanner

x)

Incorrect. That is incorrect as explained in above paras.

xi)

Legal

In view of above facts it is prayed that consumer has not come with clean hands in this honorable court as he is defaulter of gas theft and pilferage of gas charges. He filed this suit just to escape from payment, therefore, he may please be advised to pay our all outstanding arrears Rs. 9,990,191/ and his suit be disposed off with cost.

(M Azam Manzoor) Executive Engineer Billing Bahawalpur

Scanned by CamScanner