1. Complainant's case is that he is a practicing lawyer in Gujranwala. On 07-03-09 he placed an order for a group photo to respondent and paid Rs. 200/- at the spot who promised to deliver the photograph after three days but could not fulfill his promise. On 14-03-09 respondent told that list of persons photographed has been lost. After prevaricating for some time he refused to perform his promise. In this way the complainant suffered loss of his time, money and also severe mental stress. The complainant claimed Rs. 100000/- compensation and further Rs. 100000- as damages.
2. He mentioned the break up of this amount in the following:- Loss of time : Rs. 50,000/- Mental Torture : Rs. 75,000/- Loss of investment : Rs. 50,000/- Legal Fee : Rs. 25,000/- The respondent in compliance to the process of this Court appeared and submitted reply to this complaint contending that complaint is not maintainable; that respondent is a photo journalist and is an employee of daily "Khabrain" and as such does not run any shop of photography; Complainant met him at Shelton Hotel Gujranwala in a huge gathering where Mr. Aitztaz Ahsan and Mr. Ali Ahmed Kurd, leaders of lawyers fraternity has arrived where the respondent was present to cover the occasion on behalf of his news paper. Respondent stated that the present case has been filed in order to blackmail and force him to give coverage in the news paper to the brother of complainant who used to contest election. Respondent specifically denied the receipt of any consideration for the photograph from the complainant. Later on the respondent absented himself from the proceedings so he was proceeded exparte. The complainant in support of his claim himself appeared as PW1 and stated that he paid Rs. 200/- to the respondent at his photo studio situated at Hospital Road Civil lines Gujranwala who handed over to the complainant a visiting card as receipt of the amount. Muhammad Arshad Butt appeared as PW2 and stated that he, on 07-03-09 alongwith complainant went to the photo studio of respondent where complainant placed an order of photograph but respondent has not fulfilled his promise up till now. The complainant produced Exhibit "PA" visiting card, postal receipt of dispatch of the legal notice Exhibit "PB", acknowledgment due Exhibit "PC" and copy of the legal notice mark "A".
3. Argument heard record perused.
4. It is to be decided firstly as to whether the complainant is a consumer? According to the complainant he placed an order to the respondent for a group photo. During the course of evidence complainant has only mentioned that he placed an order for a photograph. Anyhow, according to the complainant he made payment of Rs. 200/- to the respondent at the spot at his shop who issued his visiting card Exhibit "PA". Perusal of back side of the visiting card reveals the following scripture "
5. This visiting card Exhibit "PA", however, does not prove that the complainant has paid price of photograph to the respondent. It is not understandable as to why the complainant who is double graduate and a practicing lawyer did not demand for a proper receipt of the consideration he has paid. It has not been proved that the writing on the back of Exhibit "PA" belongs to the respondent even it does not contain signature of the respondent. The Muhammad Arshad Butt PW2 has not mentioned any where in his deposition that he witnessed the passing of consideration from complainant to the respondent. For the sake of arguments is admitted to that respondent made promise to give the complainant his photograph with Ali Ahmed Kurd Advocate even than in the absence of any cogent prove of consideration for the same it can only be considered a mere promise in morality. In this way complainant is not a consumer who has made a payment. There is another aspect of the case is that if after making payment the respondent did not fulfill his part of performance the question arises as to weather this court can enforce the specific performance of the contract? The answer is obvious. Only Civil Court has such jurisdiction. As far as complainant's demand for damages of Rs. 50000/- for loss of his time, Rs. 50000/- for loss of investment and Rs.
6. 75000/- for mental torture is concerned, according to the section 10 and 15 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 where the consumer has not suffered any damage form the product or from the provision of the service except loss of utility/lack of benefit, the manufacturer or service provider shall not be liable for any damages except return of the consideration of the cost. The complainant has also demanded legal fee Rs. 25000/- but has not produced any receipt showing that he has paid any such fee to an advocate engaged by him to conduct this case especially when he himself claims to be practicing lawyer. The up short of the discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove his case which is hereby dismissed, however with no order as to cost. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.