1. Briefly, stated the facts are that on 07.12.2008, the claimant Muhammad Rehan Big approached the defendant Haji Abdul Rasheed Billu the proprietor of Billu Motors at Faisalabad to hire two Coasters for carrying the Barat of his friend Muhammad Maqbool from Ghulam Muhammad Abad to Kaleem Shaheed Park on 19.12.2008, at 2.00PM and it was agreed that the claimant would pay Rs.5000/- for the whole transaction. The claimant paid Rs. 1000/- as advance money. However, the defendant sent only one Coaster at 4.00PM on the said date i.e 19.12.2008, which dropped the Barat at the Wedding Venue but did not return to pick the Barat to home. Therefore, due to this negligence of the defendant, the claimant had to arrange other Coaster on emergency basis causing him to extra charges and mental torture. Under such circumstances, as the services of the defendant are deemed to be faulty and defective the claimant allegedly being consumer has lodged this claim for recovery of an amount Rs.10000000/-. The defendant has vehemently opposed the said claim by filing his written statement wherein he has denied the allegations as levelled in the claim, interalia, on the ground that there was a previous dispute in between the parties about booking of the vehicles on 14.11.2008 that hence, the claim has been brought in retaliation thereof.
2. As the matter needed evidence to resolve controversy in between the parties, hence, they have produced their such evidence in support of their respective versions. In corroboration of his stand, the claimant Muhammad Rehan Baig got recorded his statement as PW-1 through his affidavit EX- PW1/1 whereas he has produced Muhammad Faheem and Maqbool Ahmad as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively through their respective affidavits EX-PW2/1 and EX-PW3/1. In his documentary evidence the claimant has adduced the marriage card EX-P1 visiting card of Billu Motors Mark "A", photocopy of Nikkah Nama as Mark "B".
3. In rebuttal, the defendant Abdul Rasheed has appeared as DW-1 as his own witness through his affidavit EX-DW1/1 and got examined Fiaz Haider as DW-2 through his affidavit EXDW2/1. In his documentary evidence the defendant has tendered visiting card as Mark "A", and the receipt for booking EX-D1.
4. Heard the arguments. Record perused.
5. Without touching the merits of the case, learned counsel for the defendant has out rightly contented that the claim is not maintainable as the claimant is not the consumer within the definition of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, as laid down in its section 2 (c)(ii). Under such circumstance, I have confined myself to the point of maintainability of this claim in view of prevalent evidence on record. Maqbool Ahmad PW3 was the bride groom of the Barat for whom the claimant has allegedly hired the Coasters from the defendants on payment of charges.
However, Maqbool Ahmad PW3 when subjected to cross examination disclosed that all the expenses of his marriage ceremony have been born by his brother and parents. In his affidavit EX- PW3/1, the said Maqbool Ahmad has stated that he himself went alongwith claimant to pay advance money Rs. 1000/- to the defendant on 07.12.2008, for booking the Coaster for 19.12.2008.
Under the above said provision of Law, a consumer is not only the person who hires or avails of any service for consideration but also the person who is the beneficiary of such services". In the instant case, the claimant is neither the person who hired the service for consideration as such considerations have been paid by Muhammad Maqbool himself nor he is the beneficiary of such services, therefore, he can not be said to be the consumer seen from whatever, angle on legal as well as factual plains.
6. The upshot of the above whole discussion is that the claim merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.