1. The claimant made the claim that he was running his own business of printing in the name and style M/s. Zammad Printers operated at six Sabir Plaza, opposite Sabina Hotel, Press Market, Aminpur Bazar, Faisalabad and on 29.09.2007, he engaged the services of the defendant company M/s. Deltex Courier Services located at P-6, Jail Road, Faisalabad and delivered one packet containing one CD / Software having intellectual work done by the claimant and his staff i.e original specimen of CPR form worth Rs.45,000/- for Mr. Khurram Qadri C/O Paradise Printing Press, Paradise Building AM 6, Hashim Khuzdar Road of Muhammad Bin Qasim Road, Karachi, Ph.021- 2638453-54.
2. That the defendant company charged Rs.30/- as charges from the claimant and assured the delivery of packet to be made within 48 hours to the addressee and issued a receipt having consignment note No.12258 but after three days from 29.09.2007 it came into the knowledge of the claimant that parcel did not reach by 1.10.2007 to its destination, so he approached the office of the defendant company but defendant company failed to offer any explanation about the non- delivery of said consignment to the addressee rather a request was made by the defendant company to probe into the matter and again assured to the claimant that the consignment would be delivered very soon.
3. The claimant again inquired from the addressee about the delivery of consignment after two days but the situation was same. So the claimant approached to the defendant company and put the matter before the company, upon this defendant company informed the claimant that the delivery of consignment had been made at the given address, at this, the claimant became satisfied and again contacted the addressee but he told back to the claimant that packet had not still received to him. This situation embarrassed the claimant and put him in mental agony and he again contacted the defendant company and asked that if the packet have been delivered at the address to the addressee then the details may be shown to the claimant but the defendant company failed to produce any record of delivery regarding the consignment to the claimant in any manners.
4. The claim was hotly contested by the defendant by filing the written reply on 21.01.2008 in which he denied the issuance of receipt No.12258dated 29.07.2007at which the claimant sought an amendment in the claim and he did omit mention the original date 29.09.2007 instead of 29.07.2006, amendment was allowed. At which the defendant filed another written statement on 20.02.2008 in which it was contended that the version of the claimant was wrong and no receipt was issued to the claimant under the number mentioned as 12258 dated 29.09.2007 as a parcel on the said receipt and date was delivered to Mr. Mughal at Karachi sent by Khan Book Binder, Faisalabad. The defendant further contended that the receipt mentioned by the claimant was fictitious.
5. No such offer required by section 29 of the Punjab Consumer protection Act, 2005 shall have by the defendant for pre-trail settlement, so the parties were directed to produce their evidence.
6. The claimant himself appeared as PW1 with his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and tendered the original receipt No.12258 as Ex.P1, carbon copy of T.C.S (Courier Service) as Ex.P2, Legal Notice as Ex.P3 and the learned counsel for the claimant further tendering a certificate of fee of Rs.11,000/- close the evidence of the claimant.
7. In rebuttal, the defendant Mr. Shabbir Hussain Sani, Branch Manager of the defendant company himself appeared as DW1 with his affidavit Ex.DW1/1, copy of the register in respect Serial No.12251 to 12300 as Ex.D1, copy of manifest Ex.D2, copy of the receipts Ex.D3 and copy of the letter in favour of the defendant by the director of his company as Mark-A. The defendant examined one Mr. Muhammad Abid Khan who appeared as DW2 along-with his affidavit as Ex.DW2/1 and produced a copy of the receipt No.12258 as Ex.D4.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material placed by the parties on the file. The claimant who has running his own business for printing delivered a packet to the office of the defendant on 29.09.2007 containing one Compact Disc / Software having intellectual work done by the claimant and his staff worth Rs.45,000/- which was to be delivered the said consignment booked by the defendant under receipt No.12258 after charging Rs.30/- within the undertaking to deliver the said packet to Mr. Khurram Qadri, C/o Paradise Printing Press, Karachi within 48 hours but the said consignment never reached to its destination.
9. The claimant approached the defendant in his office but the defendant has no explanation to offer, thereafter the claimant sent the legal notice to the defendant which was not responded hence the claim. The claimant himself appeared as PW1 and supported the averments of his claim by tendering an affidavit as Ex.PW1/1 and also tendered the original receipt No.12258 as Ex.P1. The defendant by appearing himself as DW1 with his affidavit as made the attempt to controvert the claim of the claimant and for that matter he examined one Mr. Muhammad Abid Khan as DW2 who had the version that under the receipt No.12258, the parcel was delivered by him one Mr. Mughal which was delivered on the 3rd day the defendant also tendered the copy issuance books register as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 but the maker of the said document namely Mr. Babar has not been examined in the witness box. DW2 namely Mr. Muhammad Abid Khan the business partner of the defendant, so there is a presumption the said DW2 appeared in the witness box to save his partner from the claim of the claimant for damages. The claimant has made the claim with a very genuine receipt and reasons mentioned there in and there is no reason to believe that the claimant may have prepared a fictitious receipt to drag the defendant. If such the fictitious receipt was to prepare the claimant may have had the claim in millions not for just Rs.45,000/-.
10. In the light of the above discussion, it is proved that the claimant made a consignment to the defendant for its delivery to Karachi which was containing one Compact Disc / Software worth Rs.45,000/- and the said document was never delivered to its destination. The claimant also paid Rs.11,000/- to his counsel, so the claimant is entitled to recover Rs.45,000/- as loss in the value of consignment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation from the defendant and the defendant is directed to pay the total amounting to Rs.56,000/- to the claimant within fifteen days i.e on or before 25th of July, 2008. Otherwise he shall be proceeded U/S. 32 sub section II of the Punjab consumer Protection Act, 2005, with these observations file be consigned.