The briefly stated facts of the case leading to the instant case as divulged out of the complaint, instituted at the instance of consumer-complainant, Zualfiqar Ali Dhudi, Adv. Against P.T.C.L through Chairman etc, herein, respondents are that complainant had got installed a telephone No. 052-4580884, fully described in Para No.1 of the complaint, at his residence, situated in Mauza Aulo Chack in respect of which no bills are outstanding against him but despite open commitment of whole the time service and immediate elimination of any defect in service, in case of defect his telephone connection remained suspended/blocked for about four months and despite various complaints to all concerned department officers/officials the telecommunication service was not restored for a long time, as a result of which he suffered a lot of professional/business and mental loss. He had also issued a legal requisite postal registered A.D. Notice dated 12-07-2007 (Ex-R.W.1/B) to the respondents' side for the correction of defect in service as well as restoration of service and compensation in sum of Rs. 10 millions but without response.
The complainant prayed for the elimination of defect in the service as well as restoration of service and compensation in sum of Rs. 10 millions on the inter alia grounds, 1). He is law abiding citizen, 2)
Ex Nazim of Union Council No.18, Talwarra, 3) Chairman District Committee under the Punjab Marriage Functions Act, 2003 and 4) Commands high reputation in the society, hence, this case.
2. The respondents side while vehemently controverting the allegations and submitting written reply claim the dismissal of the complaint and pleaded that no complaint regarding defective service was ever communicated to the department during the period of July to September 2007 as reflected from the computerized system and it was for the first time that defect in service was known on 18-09-2007.
3. In view of the divergent pleadings, the parties were invited to lead their respective evidence.
4. The complainant-consumer entered into appearance as (A.W.1) in support of his claim, whereas, examined (A.W.2) Mian Qadeer Hussain, (A.W.3) Tariq Bashir, Record Clerk GPO, Sialkot and (A.W.4)
Muhammad Mudassar, postman.
The complainant also placed documentary evidence Affidavits (Ex-AW1/A) and (Ex-A.W.3/A) A.D.
Original notice (Ex-A.W.1/B produced from the custody of respondents), receipt (Ex-A.W.3/A), list of registries (Ex-A.W.3/B) and postal receipt A.D. (Ex-A.W.3/C) and closed the evidence.
5. In rebuttal respondents examined (R.W.1) Azmat Ali, Supervisor of PTCL and authorized agent of respondents and (R.W.2) Arif Ali, lineman while placing their affidavits (Ex-R.W.1/A) and (R.W.2/A) respective alongwith a writing (Ex-R.W2/B) as documentary evidence in support and closed the evidence.
6. Thereafter both parties were invited to lead their respective arguments.
7. Having heard both sides and gone through the record.
8. It is, depicted that the claim of the complainant-consumer against respondents-service providers is fully depended upon the stance that he was consumer of telephone No. 052-4580884, at his residence, Mauza Aulo Chack, Tehsil & District Sialkot, under respondents-service providers, in respect of which no bill or arrears are outstanding, whereas respondents-service provider as expressed and implied terms contained in the agreement as well as propagated through various electronic and print medias, appended with the complaint are bound to provide its service round the clock without any interruption but their service remained blocked and interrupted for about four months before the institution of the complaint, regarding which complainant had launched many oral complaints as well as request for revival of the service and removal of the defect in service to all the respondents but his efforts proved in vain. As per complaint he has also issued a legal requisite registered A.D. Notice (Ex-A.W.1/B) through postal receipt (Ex-A.W.3/A) and also claimed compensation in sum of Rs. 10 millions, on the grounds given herein above. In order to support his allegations, the complainant also entered into appearance into witness box and supported his allegations without any shake or dent. Although the other side cross examined him at large but he fully corroborated his allegations contained in the complaint as well as notice (Ex- A.W.1/B), (A.W.2) Qadeer Hussain also supported his allegations but his evidence is insignificant.
9. (A.W.3) Tariq Bashir record keeper GPO, Sialkot and (A.W4) Muhammad Mudassar postman SITE area furnished important and pivotal evidence in as much as (A.W.3) produced original postal receipt book containing receipt No. 1001 to 1200 w.e.f. 09-07-2007 to 13-07-2007, containing postal receipt (Ex-A.W.3/A) addressed to respondent No. 4 (Director Telecommunication SITE, Sialkot) whereas, (A.W.4) Muhammad Mudassar furnished original record comprising of daily list of registries containing postal registry No.1164 dated 13-07-2007, addressed to Director PTCL, Sialkot, as deposed by (A.W.1) Zulafiqar Ali Dhudi, complainant-consumer in his affidavit (Ex-A.W.1/A) which remained unshattered and unshaken and it is cardinal principle of Justice that portion of evidence which was neither contradicted nor shaken shall stand proved and established without further proof.
10. No doubt the respondents side vehemently resisted the allegations of the complainant- consumer through written reply but their stand introduced through written reply is vague and ambiguous except that it indicates that the interruption and defect in the service of complainant- consumer was removed on 18-07-2008, when this Case was pending for adjudication against respondents-service provider before this Court.
11. When minutely scanned the evidence of the respondents, it is fully manifest from the evidence of (R.W.1) Azmat Ali, supervisor PTCL department, also an authorized agent of PTCL department since long, as admitted by him during his evidence, that blocked and interruption in the service was removed on 18-09-2007, after receiving legal notice at the instance of this Court. (R.W.2) also deposed in the same line, which needs no further discussion.
12. During evidence both (R.Ws) deposed that there was no interruption and blocked in the service and it was in telephone set of the consumer-complainant when relying upon a writing (Ex-R.W.2/A) at the instance of Anwar Hussain, father of complainant-consumer, then present at home and categorically and consistently deposed that normally neither any written receipt or any writing regarding correction or removal of defect/interruption in the service is received from the consumer-complainant by the officials but the question arises as to why receipt (ExR.W.2/A) was procured? The logical answer by a prudent mind is that the service provider department, in order to defeat the claim of the consumer-complainant and to justify the defect in telephone set of the consumer-complainant was so done, even, if it is believed that there was any defect in the telephone set of the consumer-complainant, as deposed by (A.Ws), why the officials did not approach consumer complainant who is well educated. Of course the documentary evidence of (R.W.2/A) is legally presumed to be a manufactured, concocted doubtful and a document dubious character which is, hereby, ignored and thus, stance and plea of the -service provider is, hereby, disbelieved.
13. This matter can be well dealt through another important aspect prevailing upon the face of the record as much as initially the service of legal notice (Ex-A.W.1/B) was neither admitted nor denied and thus, a legal presumption can be drawn that it was so delivered to the respondents side. To supplement this legal presumption, this Court is mindful to discuss the demeanor of the respondents side during the trial of this matter i.e. Initially respondents-service provider side, vide their written reply dated 14-04-2008 expressly denied the receipt of legal notice (Ex-A.W.1/B) and also put full thrust to keep it hidden as fully transparent from memo dated 11-07-2008, at the instance of respondent No.4 as submitted during pendency of this case but latter on, after seeking a lot of time original notice (Ex-A.W.1/B) was produced before this Court on 20-08 2008. All this makes it crystal clear that respondents-service provider side had been playing hide and seek as well as somersault not only to the consumer-complainant but also with the Court and thus, it can be legally held that conduct demeanor of the respondents-service provider is not only dubious but also tainted with serious doubts which cannot be depended upon at any cost.
While adding to above discussion, it is revealed from the legal notice (Ex-A.W.1/B) available on the record that it was marked and signed by the concerned authority on 16-12-2007 but as per prevailing tendency of usual negligence and neglect to the consumer Rights neither it was communicated to the concerned officials for the removal of defect/interruption in the service for the redressal of the complainant-consumer nor any action thereupon was ever taken. All this proves and establishes that the service provider department remained negligent and slept upon its duties resulting into denial to the uninterrupting and standardized service to the consumer- complainant, thus, it is, hereby held that consumer-complainant had proved and established that he was denied standardized and up-to mark services of telephone on account of negligence of the respondents-service provider.
14. During the arguments learned counsel for the respondents attracted the attention of the Court to Clause 11 (2) of the original agreement by the consumer-subscriber in favor of respondents company, wherein a condition was imposed to restrict the right of litigation for damages of loss to the consumer-complainant-subscriber and argued that complaint launched at the instance of consumer-complainant-subscriber is hit by the above said condition but this Court is afraid to persuade his argument while looking into clear cut provisions of Sec.26 of Contract Act, which envisages that "Any agreement or term of the agreement which restrain enforcing of right of legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunal is always void" , thus, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents in this respect being not sanctioned by law and un-convincing is, hereby, ruled out of consideration.
So for as the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents that PTCL Co. Is regulated by Central Statute, is concerned also does not convince the mind of the Court as per clear cut terms of proviso provided under Sec. 14 (2) of PCP Act, 2005, which contemplates that under this Act all bodies regulated by special law or principal or Federal law fall within the domain of this Court, hence, the argument contain no force therein and is also, hereby, declined.
16. Now the only question left to be deal table by this Court is whether the faulty or defective services provided by the respondents-service provider are liable to be compensated in favour of consumer-complainant-subscriber and whether consumer-complainant-subscriber has suffered any loss? The natural answer to this question is in positive in as much as all the departments which provide service to the consumer-complainant subscribers are always found to charge rent lines from their customer-subscribers despite fault or defect of interruption or blocked in the services, exclusively attributable to the service-provider department, which in any case cannot be charged.
Although from both sides nothing has brought on record that if consumer-complainant-subscriber had paid line rents during disputed four month (long period of blocked of the service) but this Court has no other option but to direct the return of all line rents and other charges (if so charged and recovered) by the department service-provider from consumer-complainant-subscriber within twenty (20) days positively.
17. Thus, it is proved and established from the face of the record that consumer-complainant- subscriber is an advocate by profession Having long standing who needs whole the time contacts with his own customer-clients regarding their legal matters but undisputedly during the period of four months when service providers failed to take action and also neglected to remove the interruption-bloc in their service provided to his consumer-subscriber (herein complainant) while embarking upon their duties and confessing the right of consumer, even otherwise, telecommunication service provided to a consumer complainant-subscriber brings him near to his relatives, friends and clients living at a distance and in some eventualities, it is the only service which provides easy access to the destination. Of course in case of long blockade of service the consumer-complainant-subscriber has suffered a lot of mental and physical loss, accordingly, this Court has no other option but to conclude that respondent-service providers are bound to compensate consumer-complainant-subscriber (herein complainant) with compensation, which is, hereby, assessed as Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousands) payable within twenty (20) days positively with the clarification that in case of non compliance of the order the proceedings under Sec. 32 of PCP Act, 2005 will be initiated.
18. In nutshell, the consumer-complainant-subscriber has proved its allegations and claim against respondents-service provider and thus, respondents are, hereby, directed to return line rents and other charges recovered if so) during the abovementioned period and to pay compensation in sum of Rs. 45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousands) to the consumer-complainant-subscriber. The legal expenses born by the complainant in this litigation are hereby assessed as Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands) all payable by service-providers to the complainant-subscriber within twenty (20) days positively. Service provider is also burdened with costs in sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousands only). File be consigned to the record room after its due compilation.