1. The version of the complainant is that a letter was dispatched through the respondent/ PDHS from Lahore on 03-05-2011on his address as Aamir Ameen 78-B, Model Town B, Bahawalpur. After two weeks, the letter was not received to the complainant. The same was found un delivered on 21-05- 2011 in the undelivered letters in the office of the respondent. The complainant has suffered mental torture and agony and financial loss by not receiving the said letter which was about the issuance of a cheque of Rs.10,000/- by the Benevolent Fund Board Lahore. The complainant has claimed damages of Rs.24,000/- On the other hand, the version of the respondent is that address of the complainant was not mentioned in detail and there was also not given telephone number on it. Therefore, the courier person could not trace out his house inspite of his repeated best efforts. The respondent has not committed any default in providing service to the complainant in time. The respondent has delivered another letter of the complainant at his house as there was mentioned his telephone number and his detailed address was located on phone.
2. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, I have observed that the complainant has produced original letter in question as Ex-P1, photo copy of the map of his house Mark-A. From the other side, the respondent has produced photo copy of the receipt Mark-R1, photo copy of trading conditions Mark-R2 and receipt No.117655 Mark-R3. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has received letter on 21-05-2011 in the office of the respondent as has been endorsed by the copy of delivery sheet Mark-R1. Although, in the trading conditions Mark-R2 at condition number 4 has been mentioned as " the sender is responsible for the correctness of the particulars and statements relating for the Cargo/ Courier which he inserts in the consignment note" but the address of the complainant is very much clear as house number has been given and the second letter has admittedly been delivered by the respondent courier on the same address. The complainant is a responsible officer being Deputy District Attorney and must be known to the neighbours and residents of the locality. The respondent has produced copy of the receipt No.117655 as Mark-R3 thereon, no dispute is between the parties. The complainant has produced original letter Ex-P1 which is also admitted by both the parties. The complainant further has produced copy of the map of his house Mark-A (2 pages) which denote that the house of the complainant is a big one and it cannot be said untraceable as being a small house. So, I am convinced in my mind that respondent has failed to provide service in time to the complainant. The letter Ex-P1 was about a cheque of Rs.10,000/- which has been delayed due to the fault on the part of the respondent. The complainant has suffered physical torture and mental agony due to the faulty service provided by the respondent. Therefore, he is held entitled to recover damages of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent and petition in hand is allowed in his favour and against the respondent. Notice of execution be issued for 16-07-2012.