Better Copy1

Better Copy. WAFAQI MOHTASIB (OMBUDSMAN)’S SECRETARIAT FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS.

Complaint No. L/325/91(R) & L/335/91(R) in L/7535/90 Name and Address of the complainant Mr. Muhammad Boota. Mouza Chandali Tehsil Kamonki District Gujranwala. Name of the Agency: Brief Subject: -

WAPDA

REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE AGENCY.

Name of the investigating officer MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHAUDHRY. Designation of the investigating officer DIRECTOR.

The complainant Mr. Muhammad Boota lodged the complaint bearing No. L/7535/90 that his meter was declared slow and a penalty to the sum of Rs. 8840/- was imposed upon him. The complaint was investigated and it was held that: “I have gone through the facts of the case. The L.S. Kamonki Sub-Division No. II visited the site of the connection on 26.7.1990 and declared the meter of the complainant slow by about 60% which indicates that he has gone by approximation rather than checking the meter with an instrument. No approximation can be accepted to penalize the consumer. In another case my learned predecessor had issued instructions that no meter shall be declared slow till such time it is checked by an S.D.O. with the instrument in the presence of the consumer and his signature be obtained in lieu of acceptance. No such document was produced by the Agency. I therefore, directed that all the detection bill be withdrawn. The connection be restored immediately and charges for disputed period be levied on the basis of consumption recorded during corresponding months of previous year. Compliance of this order be reported to me by 30.11.1991.” The Agency felt aggrieved and filed a review application on the grounds that: “Through the P.O. it has been advised that detection bill be withdrawn and charges for the disputed period be

levied on the basis of consumption recorded during the corresponding months of the previous year.” In this respect, it is stated that the order given is not in accordance with the facts of the case, which clearly indicates that side seals of the meter were bogus and postal order affixed thereupon were also not the same as pasted by the Department meaning thereby that complainant was involved to the theft of energy. The detection bill charged to him therefore is not unjustified and as such it is requested that instant order may please be got reviewed from KWM. Although no fresh ground was taken by the Agency in the review application even then the review was admitted and a chance was provided to both the parties to represent their respective points of view. The agency did not present any fresh point. They repeated their old stand that ATB was tampered, meter was slow and WAPDA security slips were torn. It has been repeatedly held that no retrospective effect whatsoever can be given to the punishment to the awarded. WAPDA despite our repeated followed the same practice which amounts to victimization and harassment to the consumers and WAPDA insists to continue their illegal arbitrary behaviour despite the fact that it has been pointed out to them repeatedly. WAPDA can if they so desired charge it prospectively and not with retrospective effect. In view of the above stated facts the review applications are dismissed. I direct Chairman, WAPDA, to issue instructions to all concerned that any detection bill should be with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. A copy of the instructions issued be furnished to this Sectt. by 15.1.1993.

(JUSTICE (R) S. USMAN ALI SHAH) WAFAQI MOHTASIB 26.12.1992