1. As per contention of the petitioner, the respondents agreed on 10.8.2010 to prepare two loader trolies and two new Chang Chee 100 CC motor bikes in consideration of Rs. 148000/-. The petitioner paid Rs. 20000/- in advance on the same day. On 28.9.2010, the petitioner paid Rs. 28000/- and on 15.9.2010, he paid Rs. 65000/- to the respondents and in this way he has paid Rs. 113000/- to the respondents. On 21.10.2010, respondents handed over only one troly to the petitioner in consideration of Rs. 29000/-. The remaining troly and two motor bikes have not been provided to the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 84000/-along with commercial losses and mantel torture of Rs. 500000/- . The respondents appeared in the court and filed their written replies. Respondent No.1 Mirza Saleem Ahmed has put whole burdened on respondent No.2 Hafiz Salheen while respondent Hafiz Sahleen has plea that Mirza Saleem Ahmed is responsible to pay back the amount to the petitioner.
2. Arguments heard, record perused.
3. Notice sent by the petitioner to the respondents is mark A, postal receipt is mark B, receipts are mark C, mark D, mark E and mark F.
4. The plea of the petitioner is that notices sent by the petitioner to the respondents was received back undelivered due to refusal of respondents. Mark C shows that two trolies along with two motor bikes were to be handed over to the petitioner by the respondents in consideration of Rs. 148000/-.
5. Price of the one troly is Rs. 29000/- while the price of the one motor bike is Rs. 45000/-. As per mark C, the petitioner paid Rs. 20000/- to the respondent Hafiz Salheen. As per mark D, the respondent received Rs. 50000/- through cheque and Rs. 15000/- through chit of Al-Makkah Paint Multan. In this way as per mark D, respondent Hafiz Salheen received Rs. 65000/- from the petitioner. As per mark E, respondent Hafiz Salheen received Rs. 28000/- through chit of Sherazi Paint. According to mark F, the total amount paid by the petitioner is Rs. 113000/- and he has received troly of the amount of Rs. 29000/- and in this way Rs. 84000/- is due towards the respondents. Mark F has been signed by the respondent Mirza Saleem Ahmed. From the above said documents it is proved that the petitioner sent legal notice to the respondents who refused to receive the same and was delivered unreceived to the petitioner. Mark F fully shows that the petitioner paid Rs. 113000/- to the respondents out of which he received one traly of Rs. 29000/- and in this way the respondents have not handed over two motor bikes along with one troly to the petitioner nor they have paid the remaining amount of Rs. 84000/- to the petitioner. In these circumstances the petition in hand is hereby accepted with costs and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 84000/- to the petitioner.
6. They are also burdened with compensation of Rs. 20000/- which will be paid to the petitioner within thirty days. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.