1. Briefly, the respondent's Sim Card No.0304-0314-3051487 of Paktel Tele Communication Company was blocked on 03.05.2008 without assigning any reason when it contained an account of Rs.92/-, the claimant went to the main office of the Warid Communication Company, Faisalabad for lodging the complaint in this regard but he was disgraced there and was turned out of the office when he also lodged the complaint in this regard under complaint No.6148999 to the computer operator of the said office who told that the respondent's blockage would be removed and balance would be returned up to 08.05.2008 but neither the blockage was nullified nor the balance was returned, hence, the claimant requested for removal of the blockage of the Sim Card and return of balance to him with added prayer for recovery of Rs.50,000/- for the loss of business, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as expenses of litigation.
2. As none appeared for the petitioner / defendant despite service on 11.06.2008, he was proceeded against ex-parte. On production of ex-parte evidence, the claim stood proved in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, hence, the petitioner / defendant was directed to remove the blockage of claimant's Sim Card, to return Rs.92/- as balance and to pay further amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of business, for claimant's disgrace and mental torture and Rs.10,000/- for unnecessarily dragging him in litigation. Consequently, the petitioner / defendant was required to pay total amount of Rs.20,092/- to the claimant / respondent within a period of thirty days, otherwise he was to be dealt with U/S.32 (2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 vide order dated 24.07.2008.
3. On 01.12.2008, the petitioner / defendant (Warid Communication Company, Pvt. (Ltd.) Faisalabad) through his counsel submitted the petition in hand under order IX rule 13 C.P.C read with section 151 CPC for setting-aside the ex-parte decree dated 24.07.2008 and ex-parte order dated 04.06.2008 on the ground that no notice was served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner / defendant may be provided a fair chance to defend his case in the interest of justice.
4. The respondent / decree holder / claimant has vehemently opposed the above said petition by filing his written reply.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. After hearing arguments, and on perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was served summons through Muhammad Shahbaz, Branch Manager of the Warid Communication Company, Pvt. (Ltd.) office at Faisalabad. There is no denial in the petition in hand that Muhammad Shahbaz is not Branch Manager in the said office and that he was not served the summons on 09.06.2008.
The petitioner / judgment debtor / defendant has also not denied that he did not receive the legal notice through Registered cover envelope A.D vide receipt No.569 submitted in this court by the claimant on 04.06.2008. From such facts it has sufficiently been proved that the petitioner / judgment debtor was served properly in the main claim. As such there is no sufficient ground for setting-aside ex-parte order dated 11.06.2008 (which is wrongly mentioned as 04.06.2008) and ex- parte decree dated 24.07.2008 as also because the claim has been decreed in favour of respondent / claimant / decree holder after considering all the pros and cons of the case on due appreciation of evidence and even if the petitioner is provided an opportunity of hearing, it would be futile exercise, under the circumstance that the respondent / decree holder has been awarded nominal damages against the huge damages claimed by him in his claim. In the bargain, the Manager, Warid Communication Company, Pvt. (Ltd.) was required to appear in person for today in this petition but he is not in attendance contumaciously showing lack of his interest in this case.
7. For what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.