1. Muhammad Athar Iqbal Bhutta, Advocate made the claim before this court by alleging the defendant for providing severe defective and faulty service and for causing tension as well as committing fraud by launching a prize scheme and claimed Rs.50,000/- as damages on the ground that it was 26.08.2007 when he visited the defendant's store along-with his wife and children for purchasing school shoes and they remained un-attended for about fifteen to twenty minutes and there after three pair of shoes were provided for his children subject to receipt along- with discount vouchers for the purchase of school bags worth Rs.300/- and three others worth Rs.150/- for purchase of school socks and when the claimant intended to purchase school bag priced Rs. 400/- and one set containing of six pair of socks, he was refused the extension of concession except one on the each.
2. The claimant resisted and claimed that he was entitled to get the concession as per vouchers at which he was humiliated by the defendant. The claimant sent a legal notice to the defendant, which was not responded and the claimant was left with no other option but to file the claim in hand.
3. The claim was vehemently contested by the defendant on the question of maintainability of the claim and also on facts that the claimant wanted to be treated on priority basis whereas the same was not possible for the defendant in view of heavy rush of customers already in the shop, at which the claimant got infuriarated and filed the false claim and no fraud was ever played by the defendant in respect of discount vouchers. It was prayed that the claim be dismissed.
4. The parties failed to reach on any pre-trial settlement, so they were directed to produce the evidence.
5. The claimant appeared as witness along-with his affidavit as Ex.PW1/1 and produced discount vouchers Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and receipt Ex.P7.
6. In rebuttal, the defendant Mr. Waseem Aslam, Manager Bata Shoes Store appeared as witness along-with his affidavit Ex.DW1/1 and also produced a banner of the company as Mark-DA and a circular as Mark-DB and also tendered weekly magazine Akhbar-e-Jahan as Mark-C, copy of shield of honour as Mark-E, socks of Bata Company as Mark-D1, school bag as Mark-D2 and copy of stock report as Mark-F.
7. I have given considerable thought to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. The claimant Mr. Muhammad Athar Iqbal Bhutta, Advocate made his statement through affidavit Exp-Pw1/1 and narrated all the story mentioned in the claim that on the fateful day on 26.08.2007 when he was present at the defendant's store for the purchase of school shoes, he was not provided any service for about fifteen to twenty minutes and thereafter it was on the protest launched by the claimant. Thereafter, on the payment of sale price of the three pair of school shoes he was delivered three discount vouchers worth Rs.300/- for the purchase of school bag and 3 discount vouchers worth Rs.150/- for the purchase of school socks and when the claimant intended to purchase school bag worth Rs.400/- and one set (six pairs of socks) and also sought concession purported in the vouchers but the defendant refused to extend the concession except that of one voucher each and when the claimant pressed his demand, the defendant adopted a very harsh behavior with the claimant. The claimant also demanded Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental tension.
8. In rebuttal, the defendant Mr. Waseem Aslam appeared as Dw1 with his Affidavit Exp-DW1/1 and went on to state that there was a great rush on the day of occurrence at 4/5 P.M as the summer vacations of children were going to end and the claimant was in hurry, at which he was asked to select the design from the display but the claimant again insisted to be treated on priority as being an Advocate and when he was requested to wait, he started extending threats. However, he was provided the shoes of his choice along-with the discount vouchers and the discount concession was provided as per policy of the company. Any misbehavior or insulting attitude was denied by the defendant.
9. As the above discussed evidence of the claimant as well as that of the defendant reveals that the claimant was treated by the defendant just after fifteen to twenty minutes of his arrival in the shoes store and that too due to rush of customers / consumers. There is no solid evidence on the file regarding any misbehavior conducted by the defendant as alleged by the claimant however there is one very important aspect of the matter that the defendant delivered discount vouchers of Rs.100/- each and that of Rs.50/- on the purchase of school bag and that of school socks consisting of six socks in a pack but the defendant accepted only one discount voucher on one school bag and similarly for one school socks on the ground that vouchers were to be used only for once and one voucher was to be issued on the price of one pair and there was some other conditions which are not relevant in the matter under hand in dispute. The claimant who had to wait for his turn and that he was misconceived regarding the offer of defendant in respect of discount vouchers that all the discount vouchers are to be used by him for the purchase of any item whereas it was made clear in the banners as well as brochures produced by the defendant that Rs.100/- on a bag and Rs.50/- on a pack of six socks can be availed for once as discount. The claimant has no allegation against the shoes purchased by him as no defect was pointed out in any product and the claimant has failed to prove defective and faulty service against the defendant. However, as the claimant belongs to a respectable community of lawyers, warning / reprimand is issued to the defendant to be careful in future regarding the adopting of conduct with the consumers. Parties to bear their own costs. File be consigned.