CHIEF EXECUTIVE, FESCO, FAISALABAD versus NAYAB HUSSAIN
Jurisdiction for user court scope complaint against powers of Sections 2 (c) (13), 13 and 31 application for installation of power supply meter W complained that WAPDA's PPA Palia did not issue a demand notice Electricity connection could not be provided for lack of framing to the complainant; there was no power to disperse the complaint in the area; that the consumer court had no jurisdiction to dispel the complaint because the complainant was not a user nor had Services were performed. And that WAPDA is prepared to provide the power connection to the complainant on payment of its capital cost, which did not pay the correct price, to request the consumer court jurisdiction, the complainant must first Had to be eligible to become. In the presence of a user, no service was being provided to the complainant for availing of any of the services through him and payment for such service to Wapda, thus no services were received by him. And he was no consumer under Punjab consumers. The Protection Act, 2005 shall not make such complainant a "user" of the application and shall not be appreciated for the purposes of WAPDA's inactivity act for the decision of this application, from the beginning of the original service. There was no prior administrative action under the Service Consumer Court to identify the user who used the service, and if such service was found to be defective, it could recover damages and provide C to the same user. ust could not issue a mandomus as requested by the complainant. Get an electrical connection
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
