1. Ex-parte arguments heard. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner hired services of the respondent for installation of tracking system in his car Corolla 2.D registration no. IDN. 7676 the respondent at the time of booking ensured the petitioner that if the petitioner engaged the services of the respondent for the protection of his vehicle in all the manners i.e. the system will protect the vehicle from thefting/ snatching etc. That the petitioner paid a handsome amount of Rs. 56000/- to the respondent and engaged Nation vide tracking system services of the respondent. It is further admitted that not only charges were paid to the respondent but the petitioner also went to pay annual charges to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 56000/- regularly. That on 22-8-08 vehicle of the petitioner was stolen in morning at 6:19 am according to the tracking data of the respondent and when the petitioner woke up at 11:00 am he found his car missing and he immediately informed the respondent about the missing of his car and the respondent informed the petitioner that his car is standing at Jamal Garhi in Mardan. The petitioner informed them that the vehicle was stolen, therefore, system be pleased off through immobilization the vehicle. The respondent instead of doing the needful but directed the petitioner to bring the FIR and let the Akhtar Ali Badar V/s Chief Executive Star Technology etc. vehicle move further from Mardan to Khoat road Bara Bazar which is about 100 KM away from Mardan. That the respondent demanded more information from petitioner for recovery of repossession of the vehicle upon which the petitioner handed over Cheque to the respondent which was never enchased by the respondent. That the petitioner was informed that a rescue team of the respondent has gone to Peshawar khoat road for repossession of the vehicle According to the petitioner the respondent remained cheating the petitioner. Hence claim in hand has been filed. Written statement was filed by the respondent. On 23-11-10 no one turned up on behalf of the respondent. Hence he was proceeded ex-parte. Remaining evidence of the petitioner was recorded and petitioner's evidence was closed. Perusal of the evidence shows that Ex-P/1 is petitioner's affidavit, Ex-P/2 annual services fee invoice of Rs. 13920/-, others bills for paying tracking system are also attached, Ex-P/3 is legal notice, Ex-P/4 is reply to legal notice, similarly Ex- P/5 is reminder of the legal notice dated 18-12 09, copy of FIR Mark P/A and affidavit of PW-2 is Ex- P/6.
2. 2 In order to decide the matter in hand objection raised in Ex-P/4 reply to the legal notice are very material in which providing of the tracking system is not denied and only it is stated that claim of the petitioner is not basing upon facts. The relevant clause of the agreement between the petitioner and company is that company shall not incur any liability in case of the theft of the motor vehicle despite it being protected by the service Akhtar Ali Badar V/s Chief Executive Star Technology etc. contemplated herein even if such a theft is caused by any failure of the equipment of the negligence etc. 3 By concluding such type of para in the agreement the respondent cannot exonerate themselves from the liability because such type of equipment is used mainly to save the car from and when such purpose is not available there is no use of paying high price of the tracking system and moreover continuously paying heavy fee to the respondent.
3. 4 In my view, the respondents are fully liable, therefore, claim in hand is decided in the way that respondent shall pay the cost of car Rs. 9,50,000/-, installation fee of tracking system Rs. 56,000/-, annual charges Rs.56,000/-and Rs. 30,000/- as mental torture. Thus total claim is decreed to the extent of Rs. 10,92,000/-whereas remaining claim of the petitioner is hereby dismissed being on the higher side with no order as to cost.
4. After completion file be consigned to record room.