1. Briefly, the claimant obtained services from the defendants as business partner as Merchant Establishment under ME No 200425944075255 for defendant's Ball visa/Master Card No. 4010000080768369 on 14.03.07, but they held the payment of Rs. 200000/- of the claimant without any just cause and reason However, on the claimant's letter dated 15.03.07, addressed to the defendants it was intended that the above said amount had been held due to suspicious activity of the claimant as he has violated the rules and regulations of the Ball Merchant Establishment.
Hence, after delivery of legal notice under section 28(1) of PCPA 2005, the claimant has lodged this claim under section 25 ibid for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1700000/- for loss of physical and mental torture loss of reputation loss of inconvenience and loss of business.
2. The defendants vehemently opposed the above said claim by filing their statement of defence, interalia, on the ground that the claimant in connivance with one, Zulfiqar tried to play fraud and by way of forgery wanted to extort an amount of Rs. 200000/- on the basis of Master Credit Card as NIC of the said Zulfiqar was found forged as the verification system of NADRA also reported it to be counter feit on enquiry and recommended legal action.
3. Both the parties have produced their evidence in support of their respective version.
4. Heard the arguments. Record perused.
5. The claim is not maintainable on the following two fold grounds; a. The transaction dated 14.03.07, has been challenged in this court through this claim on 10.05.08.
As cause of action accrued to the claimant on 14.03.07, therefore, the claim was to be lodged within 30 days u/s 28(4) of PCPA 2005. However, as the claim has been lodged on 10.05.08, therefore, it can by no stretch of imagination can be said to be within limitation, hence, the claim is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. b. There is over whelming evidence on record to believe that the ID card used by the claimant in impugned transaction was found to be bogus as NADRA has also held it so. Therefore the claimant was proceeded against in terms of 5 (b) of Merchant Establishment Agreement as Ball had reason to believe that the charges had been fraudulently incurred on counter feit card (Mark "A").
The upshot of the above whole discussion is that the claim is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.