1. The facts deciphering this case, as put forth in the claim, in nutshell are as under;
2. On 12.12.2008, the claimant made a booking of the Hotel/Restaurant of the defendant No. 1, for marriage ceremony of his daughter to be celebrated on 28.12.2008, on deposit of booking fee amounting to Rs. 10000/- vide receipt No. 30 dated 12.12.2008. The menu was one dish that is Chicken Masala and Gajrela for about 350 guests. The defendant No. 1 (GM Usmania Restaurant) agreed to receive Rs. 415/- per head. The defendant No. 1 received an amount of Rs. 125000/- from the claimant at the end of the function vide receipt No. 20 dated 28.12.2008. However, the defendant No. 1 the (Contesting Defendant) has supplied and placed faulty, stale and contaminated food and most of the guests fell ill and suffered food poisoning on taking such food.
During taking the meal, the claimant and the guests protested and lodged complaint against supply of stale and contaminated food for which the staff made so called excuses. As due to such faulty services of the contesting defendant, the claimant had to face heart burning mental agony disorder in his physical condition, irreparable loss of his repute before guests, thereof, after serving legal notice to the contesting defendant through registered post on 01.01.2009, the reply of which has not been received by the claimant, he has lodged this claim to recover the actual amount incurred by him on the banquet Rs. 125000/- and damages Rs. 1000000/- u/s 25 PCPA 2005.
3. The contesting defendant has vehemently opposed the claim by filing his statement of defence, interalia, on the ground that the allegations levelled in the claim are baseless, unfounded and after thought as no medical certificate of any victim of the alleged contaminated food has been attached with the claim with the further averments that the Usmania Restaurant has good name and reputation in respect of services and quality of food.
4. As the matter involved complex questions of Law and Facts hence, the parties were directed to produce their evidence in support of their respective versions. Mian Masood-udHassan the claimant got himself examined as PW-1, whereas, he produced Muhammad Tahir as PW-2 and Shahbaz Yaqoob PW-3, through their respective affidavits EX-PW1/1, EX-PW2/1 and EX-PW3/1. In his documentary evidence, claimant has tendered the receipt dated 12.12.2008, of Rs. 10000/- as EX-P1, postal receipt as EX-P2, Banquet Bill dated 28.12.2008, as EX-P3, card Barat EX-P4, copy of legal notice dated 01.01.2009, as Mark "A".
5. In rebuttal, Zubair Hussain Shah the special attorney of the defendants has appeared as DW-1, vide his affidavit EXDW1/1, whereas he has submitted the Power of Attorney as EX-D1, visiting card Usmania Hotel as Mark "A", copy of complaint dated 29.12.2008, as Mark "B", copy of report of the Public Analyst dated 17.01.2009, as Mark "C", copy of reports of Analyst, as EX-D2 to EX-D8, Dr. Muhammad Akram Public Analyst City District Government Faisalabad has also been produced as CW-1, who submitted his report as EX CW1/1 and his statement has been recorded as CW-1.
6. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the record carefully and inestimably after conclusion of evidence of the parties.
7. The claimant Mian Masood-ul-Hassan and his witnesses who attended the function of Barat and took meal in the Usmania Restaurant on 28.12.2008, have concurrently stated on oath that the food supplied by the functionaries of the Usmania Restaurant was faulty, stale and contaminated due to which they fell ill and suffered food poisoning so as to get treatment from the Doctor. The witnesses Muhammad Tahir Rafique, Shahbaz Yaqoob and Faisal Shahzad are related with the claimant but they have no previous animosity with the defendants, therefore, their statements can not be discarded due to their such relationship. Such witnesses including the claimant were subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendants but nothing could be elicited from there which might be helpful to the defendants.
8. In rebuttal, Zubair Hussain Shah Regional Manager Usmania Restaurant has appeared as special attorney of the defendants. Although he has denied the claimant's allegations about the defendant's faulty and defective services but he has been unable to produce any witness of the occurrence who would have corroborated him. He has dared not to say that the claimant and his guests (PW's) did not lodge a protest against the contaminated food served on there during the function of marriage ceremony of the claimant's daughter on 28.12.2008. It is worth mentioning here that the defendants have not appeared in properio persona in rebuttal of claimant's cogent, coherent and confidence inspiring evidence. From a plane reading of the language employed by the legislature of the clause expressly defining defendant's, defective and faulty services in the Act, it appears that the intent was to give the widest amplitude to such definition pertaining to the defective service meaning thereby that this definition does not seem to confine such words within any narrow or technical limitations. Such definitions are deliberately couched in the widest horizon of their being any fault imperfection or short coming casting its net so wide as to bring within its import any deviation from the requirement spread out in the definition related to the quality/quantity, purity of standards of services/goods, hence, such definition of defective; is intended by legislature to be cast and constitutionaly has to be liberally construed. While applying this definition is this particular case, it is to be squeezed out with clarity that there is prevalent evidence on record so as to believe that the defendant's services in providing contaminated food to the claimant and his guests on the occasion of claimant's Barat ceremony of his daughter on the Fateful day i.e 28.12.2008, were not only faulty but defective.
9. The claimant has demanded the damages from the defendants for their defective services but such damages are recoverable in respect of injury of consumer's life or property. Any how, the claimant or his guests (PW's) have been unable to produce their Medical Certificates so as to enabling this court to dig out the nature of their ailment for such defective services therefore, the damages can not be recoverable for this reason from the defendants. The claimant has also not been unable to produce a medical prescription from medically recognized Psychiatrist showing illness or medical disorder from nervous shocks including depression, personality change, post- traumatic stress disorder.
10. The upshot of the whole discussion is that although the claim is hereby accepted with the observation that the claimant being not entitled to recover damages from the defendants he may be compensated due to their faulty and defective services.
11. The only irresistible conclusion drawn from the facts and circumstance is that the defendants shall now return the claimant's deposited amount Rs. 125000/- and shall also pay an amount of Rs.
10000/- as compensation i.e total amount of Rs. 135000/- to the claimant within the 30 days otherwise the matter shall be dealt with u/s 32 (2) of PCPA 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.