Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
โ€”

Ch. Sultan Ahmad Chatha vs Chief Executive Sea World etc

CourtDistrict Consumer Court
Case No.419/DCC-2008.
Date2009-06-08
Judge(s)Muhammad Kaleem Sheikh
ResultN/A

1. Briefly, the claimant has lodged this case for recovery of an amount of Rs. 200000/- including 370/- Saudi Rials, due to faulty and defective services of the defendants as they have not provided the hoteling and transport services to the claimant and his wife according to the settled package during performance of Umra at Saudi Arabia.

2. The defendant No. 1, Chief Executive of Sea World, did not dare to contest this claim despite service therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte on 16.02.2009. However the defendant No.2 has vehemently opposed this claim, interalia, on the ground that the claimant has no cause of action against him as he was not his client for the purpose of performance of Umra at Saudi Arabia.

3. As this intricate matter, involving mixed questions of law and facts, needed evidence to resolve the controversy therefore, the parties in attendance were required to produce their evidence in support of their respective versions. In this connection the claimant Ch. Sultan Ahmad Chatha has got recorded his statement as PW-1, whereas, he submitted the affidavit of his wife Mst. Riaz Fatima EX-PW2/1. In his documentary evidence the claimant has tendered the copy of service voucher as Mark "A", the copy of affidavit of claimant Ch. Sultan Ahmad Chatha as Mark "B". In rebuttal, Muhammad Zulfiqar Shahzad proprietor Raeesa Travel Agency appeared as DW-1, through his affidavit as EX-DW1/1.

4. After conclusion of evidence of parties, I have heard their learned counsel at length and have perused the record carefully.

5. From the contents of affidavit EX-PW1/1, sworn by claimant Ch. Sultan Ahmad Chatha read with "service voucher 2008", as Mark "A", it transpires that the "Sea World Travelling Agency" entered into package with the claimant to provide him and his wife the Hotel accommodation at Abu Khalid Hotel Madina for one night and the transportation Madina-Makkah-Madina by bus. There is no evidence on record by the claimant that he entered into an agreement with "Raeesa Travel" for the purpose of providence of Hotel accommodation and transportation during performance of Umra and Ziaraat. The defendant No.2 has also denied that he entered into an agreement with the claimant for providing him any sort of service of hotelling/transportation at Saudi Arabia. Therefore, I am fortified in my opinion that the relationship of consumer/service provider does not exist in between the claimant and defendant No. 2. However, the claimant has produced his cogent and coherent evidence to the extent of defendant No. 1 to prove that the Chief Executive of Sea World Travelling Agency promised to provide one night stay to the claimant and his wife at hotel Abu Khalid Madina and to provide him transportation for Madina-Makkah-Madina by bus but this travel agency has been unable to provide such services to the claimant and his wife during the performance of Umra at Saudi Arabia because there is nothing in rebuttal of such claimant's evidence. The failure on the part of the defendant No. 2 in ensuring proper arrangements for stay of claimant and his wife and providence of transportation for Madina-MakkahMadina by bus as per the obligations under taken by him for which he had charged a substantial amount from the claimant, which amounts to deficiency in service on his part.

6. The upshot of whole discussion is that the claim is hereby dismissed to the extent of defendant No. 2. However, the claim is accepted to the extent of defendant No. 1 with the observation that as there is no medically recognized psychiatric illness or medical disorder shown in claimant's evidence, there can be no liability for emotional distress or grief, hence, the defendant No. 1 shall now pay 370/- Saudi Rials, already received by him as charges of stay at Madina and transportation expenses and further amount of Rs. 10000/- as legal expenses. The defendant no. 1 shall pay the above said amounts to the claimant within a period of 30 days other wise the matter shall be dealt with under section 32(2) of PCPA 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch