1. Succinctly, the facts of this case as put forth in the body of the claim are that the claimants, Yasir Shabbir and Irfan-ul-Haq, got admission in the Computer Department in "The Center In Computer Excellence", Government College of Science Samman Abad Faisalabad to get education in PGD Program (one year) in 2007, offered by the defendants and they were registered in the said institution under roll Nos. 548 and 554 respectively. The claimants paid fee on the basis of fee concession but they were not provided adequate receipts despite demands the defendants issued result cards of first three semesters to the claimants but the result card of fourth semester and certificate of PGD (one year) program were not issued despite that the claimants passed their from semesters as well as the claimants requested in writing a number of times to get result card and certificate of PGD but in vain showing the defective and faulty services of defendants. As the claimants have suffered great monetary loss, mental agony, due to such defective and faulty services of the defendants they have brought this claim against the Director and Project Manager the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of respectively the said center in Computer Excellence, claiming damages/compensation cost of the case and miscellaneous expenditure.
2. The defendants have vehemently apposed the above said claim by filing their statement of defence, interalia, on the ground that the Diploma Course was for a period of one year from September 2007 to September 2008, that the claimant did not deposit fee for the last semester that therefore, not only that the claim may be dismissed but also that the claimants may be imposed fine under section 35 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005.
3. As this intricate matter, involving mixed questions of law and facts, needed evidence, hence, the parties were required to produce their evidence in support of their respective versions. In support of their claim, Yasir Shabbir, claimant got recorded his statement as PW-whereas, counsel for claimant Irfan-ul-Haq relied upon the statement of the said Yasir Shabbir PW-1, and tendered in evidence college result cards dated 30.06.07, 30.09.07 and 22.09.07, respectively, as EX-P1 to EX-P3, copy of application EX-P4, legal notice dated 09.06.2007, EX-P5, fee receipts EX-P6/1to 3, college card of Irfan-ul-Haq EX-P7, fee receipts of Irfan-ul-Haq EX-P8/1 to result card of Irfan-ul-Haq claimant EX-P9 to EX-P11, receipt legal notice EX-P12, application dated 07.06.2007, of Irfan-ul-Haq EX-P13, during cross examination of Yasir Shabbir PW-1, his signatures have been testified as EX- D1/1, whereas, receipts EX-D2 and EX-D4, have also been produced EX-D5, the application for concession in fee has also been adduced. Similarly Irfan-ul-Haq claimant has produced admission form EX-D7, during his cross examination.
4. In rebuttal, Mubashar Hassan Director "Center In Computer Excellence" (defendant No.1) has got recorded his statement through his affidavit as EX-DW1/1. In his documentary evidence, the defendant No.1, has tendered the documents EX-D1 to EX-D11, attendant registered as Mark "A", master card as Mark "B", date sheet Mark "C", warning letter as Mark "D".
5. After conclusion of evidence of the parties, I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have scrutinized carefully and in estimably.
6. Prior to reach a safe conclusion in this case, it would be conducive for the sake of justice to have a glance on the evidence as produced by the parties in support of their respective versions critical appreciation of such evidence is rendered as under.
7. Admittedly, the claimants got admission in the "Center Inn Computer Excellence" Government Science College Saman Abad Faisalabad. However, the parties are at variance about the period of the computer course as the claimants have stated that they were admitted in the computer course class in the month of March 2007, which period expired in four semesters of three months each in March 2008. Whereas the defendants have taken the stand in this regard that the computer course was to start in September 2007, and that the fourth semester was to expire in September 2008. In this regard the claimants have produced the result cards EX-P1 to Ex-P3, and EX-P9 to EX-P11, of three semesters under the sign and stamp of the Director showing that the first semester ended on 30.06.2007, whereas the third semester period expired on 22.10.2007, transpiring that the claimants got admission in the said computer course in March 2007. It is very strange to note that the authenticity of these documents have not been challenged during cross examination of claimants and Mubashar Hassan Director DW-1, is also mum about the same as he has not uttered a single word in rebuttal of these pivotal documents. However, the defendant's counsel has got produced the admission form as EX-D1, during cross examination Yasir Shabbir PW-1, showing the date of admission as 10.09.2007. I have carefully scrutinized this document with the help of learned counsel for the parties but have found myself unable to believe the same as, on the one hand, most of the entries in it are blank, the applicant's slip required to be handed over to the claimant is still intact and during cross examination the claimant PW-1, has stated that the date under the signature of the Director is fabricated after thought and manipulated to cover the period of admission as alleged by the defendants.
8. Leaving aside all other circumstances, it is up to my entire satisfaction that the so called institution of computer programming could not even ascertain the period/duration of the semesters so as to let the claimants wander in futility. The claimant have given reminders to the Director Center In Computer Excellence to redress their grievances but in vain. The defendants have produced the date sheet as Mark "C", of fourth semester the subjects of which are quite different from the brochure EX-D6. It is very astonishing to note that the defendant No.1, is the Director of Center In Computer Excellence but his educational qualification is matriculate. How can non technical man provide technical education of sophisticated nature to the student, is beyond imagination?
9. From the above said facts and circumstances, critical appreciation of evidence on record it is crystal clear that' a. The period of semester started from March 2007, and the fourth semester was to be conducted in March 2008, as has been gleaned from the result cards issued by the Director himself under his signature and seal but the computer center is insisting that the examination of fourth semester was to be conducted in September 2008, which is unimaginable as if the fourth semester was to end on the said date how was it possible that the institution itself issued three result cards of the first three semesters ending in October 2007?; b. The record of computer Center In Excellence has haphazardly been maintained as so many irregularities have been found even in the admission forms of the claimants kept in the record of the center; c. The claimants have moved the application to the Director of the computer course to issue them the result cards and certificates which was received by the Director himself vide EX-P4. If fourth semester examination was yet to be conducted why the Director received this application from the claimants?; d. The Director of "Center In Computer Excellence" does not appear to have qualified in technical field as he is matriculate without any diploma course from any recognized institution therefore, it would be remote chance that the students in the "Computer Center In Excellence" course would be able get any technical education up to the standard as there is only one teaching staff serving in the computer center; e. The defendant's evidence is not up to the required standard in rebuttal of the cogent, coherent evidence as produced by the defendants;
10. The up shot of whole the above discussion is that the services of the defendants of "Center In Computer Excellence" are faulty and defective, as the word "defective" has to be liberally construed in the widest horizon of these being any fault, imperfection or short coming, casting its net so wide so to bring in its import every deviation from the requirements spelt out in the definition therefore, the claim stands proved as against the defendants. However, while awarding compensation, the court must endeavor to get at that sum of money which will put the party, who was injured or who has suffered wrong, in the same position as he would have, if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is getting his compensation or reparation. Accordingly the claimants shall get back the amounts deposited by them i.e Rs. 10000/-, of Yasir Shabbir and of Irfan-ul-Haq plus further amount of Rs. 10000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- legal expenses from the defendants in equal shares. The defendants shall pay the above said total amount of Rs. 25000/- to the claimants within the 30 days otherwise the matter shall be dealt with under section 32 (2) of the