2. This case is at the stage of arguments as such I proceed to dispose off the complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs.
3. The grievance of the claimant as alleged in the complaint is to the effect that the photograph of some other was pasted on his ID card in year 2001; that he objected and not received defective card; that the mistake was not corrected up to year 2010; that the mistake was repeated in new card issued in year 2010; that Wattan card issued to the claimant being flood affectee for his support was cancelled due to the mistake in the CNIC; that the card has not been corrected despite direction of learned Sessions Judge Layyah; that the claimant has incurred expenses on the tokens and loss of Rs.50,000/- due to appointment of counsel and loss of the recovery of Rs.20,000/- out of Wattan card scheme and also loss of Mubarik card; that the claimant has suffered mental tension amounting to Rs.50,000/-; that the claimant is entitled to recover Rs.1,40,000/- from the defendant; that notice has not been responded by the defendant; that the claimant would suffer irreparable loss if the card is not corrected. He has requested for recovery of the claimed amount from the defendant through this court.
4. The complaint was filed only against Assistant Manager while the concerned authority being NADRA has been impleaded through its Chairman by filing of amended complaint in compliance with interim order of this court. Reliance has been placed by the representative of defendant No.1 on behalf of newly added defendant on the written statement of defendant No.1.
5. Defendant No.1 has contested the complaint by filing the written statement by objecting to the maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of this court on the grounds that the institution of NADRA is a body corporate u/s 30 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 which regulates and runs all its functions under said Ordinance but no way it may be treated as a commercial organization; that the petitioner has obtained two CNICs with different registration numbers in violation of NADRA ordinance 2000/ registration laws as well as concealment of facts; that he had obtained a CNIC No.32203-5331045-3 with his birth status as 1979 under manual application No.C2113746 which was duly attested in year 2002; that he used this CNIC for more than 07 years; that he also obtained another CNIC No.32203-9134436-1 with birth status as 01-01-1979 under online application form No.LY00312215 from NADRA office LAYYAH in accordance with his application form which was duly attested in the year 2010; that the petitioner has used this CNIC for more than 02 years; that the record of the petitioner can only be cleared after cancellation of one of his registration numbers on wrong particulars in accordance with NADRA DUP policy; that the petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.; that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the respondent and fulfill all due requirements which are necessary for redressal of his grievance; that copies of online images and DUP policy are attached with the written statement). It is requested that the petition may graciously be dismissed with costs under section 35-A C.P.C.
6. The documents of the claimant consist of copy of professional ID card of earned counsel of the claimant; original affidavit of the claimant; copy of CNIC of the claimant; copies of tokens; copy of online application form based on the order of learned Sessions Judge Layyah; copies of tow legal notices; copy of the order of learned Sessions Judge Layyah; original postal receipt.
7. The documents of the defendants consist of the copies of online images; copies of online data; copy of letter dated 06-03-2009 on the subject of Processing of DUP Cases?; copy of the Standard Operating Procedure For the Processing of Records Marked in DUP Status.
8. It is pertinent to note that although evidence is necessary to be recorded under S.30 of PCP Act 2005 for disposal of the complaints by the Consumer Courts but since the procedural laws known as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the Bankers? Books Evidence Act, 1891; special rules of evidence u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of the Consumer Courts, as such the propriety demands that the regular evidence should not be recorded in such cases where the points for determination are mostly based on the copies of the admitted documents available in the file of the complaint or admitted in the pleadings just like the present case.
9. It is pertinent to observe that the issuance of CNICs amounts to the manufacturing of PRODUCTS and the AUTHORITY providing the CNICs comes within the definition of the MANUFACTURER under S.2(h) as such the AUTHORITY is obliged to fulfill all the responsibilities of a MANUFACTURER of the product under S.4 to 12 & 18 to 22 being supplied by it in dual capacity of the MANUFACTURER along with responsibilities of the SERVICE PROVIDER under S.13 to 17 of PCP Act 2005.
10. it is therefore observed that the objection about not being commercial organization is misconceived because the normal fees as well as fast track charges are being charged by the defendants for various services. The responsibilities of the defendants are therefore dual as MANUFACTURERS as well as SERVICE PROVIDERS. The expectation of the public about better services of the NADRA is therefore genuine and enforceable under the law.
11. It is necessary to be observed that although it is provided in S.46 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 that "the provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being if force", but the fact remains that the Punjab Consumer Protection Act was promulgated in 2005 which was not in force at the time of the promulgation of NADRA Ordinance as such the said prohibition contained in NADRA Ordinance cannot be applied on Consumer Act because it is not only subsequent law but it is specifically provided in S.3 of PCP Act, 2005 that the law is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force, therefore I find that S.46 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 does not oust the plenary jurisdiction of this court because it should be kept in mind while interpreting the jurisdiction of this court that the procedure for redress of grievance provided in all the laws are to be followed in the forum provided under the said laws but the same grievance can also be redressed by this court on strength of S.3 read with S.36 of PCP Act, 2005. It is provided in the latter section that all agencies of the Government shall act in aid of the Consumer Court in the performance of its functions under this Act. The objection against competency is therefore rejected.
12. The procedure laid down in S.18 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 provides for issuance of the notice in writing calling upon to show cause why the order should not be made for cancellation, impounding, confiscation of card. It is also provided that such order may be made only if there is reason to believe about the defects mentioned in sub clause number (a) to (d). It is also provided in S. 18 sub-section (3) that any person in respect of whose card an order under sub-section (1) has been made may, within thirty days of the order, appeal to the Federal Government against the order and the decision of the Federal Government in appeal shall be final. It is further provided in sub-section (3) that no order on such appeal shall be passed unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard. It is necessary to be observed that subsection (1) requires the order in writing under the seal of the Authority or an officer authorized by it in this behalf for the said purpose.
13. In accordance with the perusal of S.18 of the law of NADRA, I find that plenary jurisdiction of this court can be validly invoked due to violation of mandatory nature of S.18 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 and that the pasting of incorrect photograph can therefore be validly included in the definition of faulty/defective services so as to treat the claimant as the consumer as defined in Section 2(c) read with Section 2(k) of PCP Act, 2005.
14. As far as the prayer about the recovery of the damages is concerned, it is hereby observed, that return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs is provided in the law where the consumer has suffered the loss of utility or lack of benefit only while the manufacturer or service provider is also liable for the damages where the consumer has suffered any damage from the defective product u/s 10 & faulty service u/s 15; that the manufacturer or service provider is liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by the defective product u/s 4 & faulty service u/s 13; that the liability of the manufacturer or service provider is not limited or excluded by the terms of any contract or notice about the defective product u/s 12 & faulty service u/s 17; that the disclosure of the details has been made essential about the product and service where the nature of the same is such that it is material to the decision of the consumer to enter into the contract with reference to the product u/s 11 & service u/s 16; that the standard for the provision of services is determined as such which a consumer could reasonably expect to obtain in Pakistan at the time of the provision of the service u/s 14; that the court is authorized to direct the defendant to pay reasonable compensation for any loss suffered due to negligence of the defendant u/s 31(e); that to award damages where appropriate u/s 31(f); that to award costs including lawyer's fees incurred on the legal proceedings u/s 31(g) of PCP Act, 2005.
15. It is settled law that the manufacturer or service provider is not liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs, specifically where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the product or provision of service except lack of utility/benefit.
16. It is observed that the actual grievance of the claimant is to the effect that the amended card has not been issued to him even after filling up modified data under the said order. The claimant is therefore not entitled to recover any damages or compensation etc. in the given circumstances.
17. As far as the ordinary costs are concerned, it is observed that since the defendants have to act on the basis of the computerized data as such they are not to be blamed for delay in the matter and they are entitled to be exempted from the burden of the payment of costs. The defendants are therefore not liable to pay the proximate charges or litigation charges as provided in S.13 & 31 of PCP Act, 2005. Even otherwise, umbrella of indemnity has been provided to the employees of NADRA u/s 40 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000; "for anything which is in good faith done or purporting or intended to be done under this Ordinance or any rule". The word used in S.40 is ANYTHING'. The definition of the term THING' is so vast that there is no ambiguity of the functions of the employees of NADRA for providing the umbrella of immunity from any suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding because it is provided in S.2(s) that "unless there is ANYTHING repugnant in the subject or context:-" (s) "THING" or "THINGS" and includes all animate or inanimate things, plants, animals, objects, substances, items, concepts, ideas, laws, customs, qualities, signs, symbols, circumstances, affairs, events, acts, deeds, works, transactions, documents, pieces of movable or immovable property, tangible or intangible, rights, privileges, duties, entities, living or non-living beings other than a human being and anything that can be possessed, or owned, or explained, whether known or un-known."
18. For what has been discussed above, the complaint is partly accepted by direction to expedite the issuance of modified card to the claimant in accordance with the direction of learned Sessions Judge Layyah while the complaint is dismissed to the remaining extent of the recovery of compensation, damages, litigation charges, counsel fee etc.
19. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
20. A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the Assistant Manager being defendant No.1 for onward transmission to defendant No.2 if necessary and for implementation under intimation to this court at the earliest, through the Messenger of this court at the responsibility of the copy clerk.
21. The claimant is entitled to get the order implemented by filing the application for implementation, if so required.
22. This order would not become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is not preferred before Honourable High Court U/S 33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable Lahore High Court.
23. The file of this complaint is to be consigned to the record room of this court duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.