1. The claim was made by the minor claimant Mst. Surriya Kausar through her father Mr. Muhammad Shakoor that her father made payment of Rs.90,000/- for three Motor Cycles of New Asia Company to the defendant on 07.02.2007 under the Book No.31, Receipt No.3037, Old Receipt No.2211, New Asia 70cc with the National Auto Traders but even after of the ninety days specified period, neither the said Motor Cycles were delivered nor the amount was returned. Legal notice was issued at the name of the defendant which was not responded, hence the claim.
2. The claim was hotly contested by the defendant that he was not the owner of National Auto Traders but he was just an employee and he was working as an Auto Electrician against the salary of just Rs.5,000/- and put his signature on the receipt in favour of the claimant as buyer as the claimant was minor and the original proprietor was one Mr. Muhammad Siddque who has decamped and has made the petition with the concerned court for insolvency.
3. No such offer as required by section 29 of the Punjab Consumer protection Act, 2005 was made by the defendant for pre-trail settlement, so the parties were directed to produce their evidence.
4. The claimant examined M/s. Muhammad Arshad and Mirza Shahid Baig as PW1 and PW2 with their respective affidavits as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW2/1 and the father of the claimant Mr. Muhammad Shakoor himself appeared as PW3 with his affidavit as Ex.PW3/1 and the claimant tendered the original receipt as Ex.P1.
5. In rebuttal, the defendant himself appeared as DW1 with his affidavit as Ex.DW1/1 and examined M/s. Tahir Latif and Abid Mehmood as DW2 and DW3 with their respective affidavits Ex.DW2/1 and Ex.DW3/1.
6. Arguments heard, record perused. The perusal of record file reveals that the claimant made the payment of three Motor Cycles to the defendant who used to work as commission agent at National Auto Traders owned by Mr. Muhammad Siddque and as per receipt Ex.P1, the defendant was an introducer and he also put his signature as buyer on the said receipt. The version of the defendant that he was just working as an Auto Electrician is not supported by any document, whereas the claimant and all the witnesses have fully disposed that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was received from the father of the claimant Mr. Muhammad Shakoor by the defendant Mr. Muhammad Jamshaid as Commission Agent. The claimant paid the said amount as a consumer and the defendant was to provide the service by delivery of three Motor Cycles to the claimant in lieu of said amount and the defendant is liable to return the said amount of Rs.90,000/- to the claimant and though the claimant has not annexed any certificate of his counsel but as she is pursuing her matter since 18.12.2007, so she is also entitled to recover the costs of litigations as Rs.10,000/-. Accordinly, the defendant is directed to pay the total amount of Rs.100,000/- to the claimant within a period of twenty days but not later than 30th of this month to the claimant, otherwise the defendant shall be proceeded U/S.32 sub section 2 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. File be consigned.