COMPLAINT U/S 21/22 PCPA 2005 ABOUT CANCELLATION OF PLOT
2. The case is at the stage of the final arguments which have been heard today and the file has been perused by going through the evidence on the record as such I proceed to dispose of the complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs:-
3. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that his request made in January 2009 for cancellation of his two plots and refund with interest of the installments amounting to Rs.3,12,000/- paid by him to the defendant has been refused; that the said plots have been resold by the defendant; that the concerned colony has remained un-developed; that the colony was ill planned in the bed of hill torrents; that excess amount has been charged; that the colony is un- registered; that the claimant had paid the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and had been paying the installments w.e.f March 2008 to November 2008 @ Rs.10,000/- per month amounting to Rs.90,000/-; that the payment of Rs.22,000/- made by the claimant as advance payment of another commercial plot was also merged in the installments of the said plots on his request because he was unable to manage the installments of the said plot; that the claimant has become incapacitated and bed-ridden by loss of his left leg due to a road accident; that the defendant was asked to pay the amount with profit; that the defendant had promised to pay the desired amount within fifteen days; that there was no condition mentioned on the back of the receipts at the beginning but six conditions were included on the receipts afterwards without taking the claimant into confidence; that the claimant has taken hundreds of rounds to the office of the defendant for repeating the same request but in vain; that the claimant could not have got his surgical operation timely due to non payment; that the claimant is entitled to recover Rs.5,00,000/- as damages from the defendant in addition to the paid amount and interest w.e.f January 2009 as well as counsel fee amounting to Rs.40,000/- as well as litigation chares; that the defendant has refused to pay despite issuance of legal notice, hence this complaint for recovery of Rs.8,12,000/- with interest.
4. The version of the defendant through his written statement is to the effect that the disputed plots have not been sold to third person; that the notices were not to be sent for shortage of installments if the plots would have been cancelled; that the claimant had purchased the plots after seeing the same; that he was not allured to purchase the plots; that there are no hill torrents flowing at the site of the disputed colony; that the price of the plot for the shop was adjusted towards the payment of plots for residence after the accident of the claimant to accommodate him; that the facilities of water and electricity are available in the colony; that the construction of roads and sewerage is in process; that the organization of the defendant is registered; that the defendant is prepared to respond to any further need if so required.
5. In addition to the version contained in the written statement, the defendant has also raised the objection by filing the application dated 02-11-2010 to the effect that matter being based upon the terms and conditions of a written agreement is triable by the civil court with the request that the complaint should be dismissed.
6. In accordance with the requirement of S.30 PCP Act 2005, the parties were directed to produce their evidence through appointment of learned local commissioner (LLC) for recording the evidence subject to the payment of fees to be paid by the parties.
7. The evidence produced by the claimant consists of the statement of the claimant as PW-1; the statement of Nadeem Abbas witness as PW-2 in addition to the statement of one of the learned counsel for the claimant.
8. Documentary evidence produced by the claimant consists of the office copy of the legal notice as Ex.P-A; postal receipt as Ex.P-B; receipts about payment of installments as Ex.P-C to Ex.P-K; installment card as Ex.P-L; advertisement chart as Ex.P-M; Details of Bill about medicines as Ex.P-N; four cash memos as Ex.P-O to Ex.P-R; Receipt for Advance dated 15-03 2010 as Ex.P-S; two cash memos of Lucky Stores as Ex.P-T & Ex.P-U; five laboratory reports of Ihsan Mumtaz Hospital as Ex.P-V to Ex.P-Z; Receipt for Advance dated 16-03-2010 as Ex.P-AA; cash memo dated 15-03-2010 as Ex.P- AB; cash receipt dated 15-12-2008 as Ex.P-AC; cash receipt dated 13-12-2008 as Ex.P-AD; slip dated 13-12-2008 as Ex.P-AE; cash receipt dated 12 12-2008 as Ex.P-AF; duplicate of cash receipt dated 12-12-2008 as Ex.P-AG; Receipt for Advance dated 24-04-2010 as Ex.P-AH; cash memo dated 24- 04-2010 as Ex.P-AI; surgical unit list dated 12-12-2008 as Ex.P-AJ; Details of Bill dated 26-04-2010 as Ex.P-AK; medicine prescription dated 03-03-2010 as Ex.P-AL; medicine prescription dated 26-03- 2010 as Ex.P AM; multiple test report dated 12-12-2008 as Ex.P-AN; medicine prescription with cutting of date i.e 12-2-2008 as Ex.AO; medicine prescription dated 09-02-2009 as Ex.P-AP; medicine prescription dated 09-10-2009 as Ex.P-AQ; medicine prescription dated 12-10-2009 as Ex.P-AR; discharge report dated 17-03-2010 as Ex.P-AS; microbiology report dated 15-03-2010 as Ex.P-AT; bio-chemistry report dated 15-03 2010 as Ex.P-AU; blood glucose report with coagulation profile dated 15-03-2010 as Ex.P-AV; blood report with bio chemistry dated 10-03-2010 as Ex.P-AW; serology report dated 12 -09 -2009 as Ex.P-AX; microbiology report dated 14-01-2009 as Ex.P-AY; urine etc report dated 10 -03 -2010 as Ex.P-AZ; haematology report dated 10-11-2009 as Ex.P-BA; serology report dated 10 -11 -2009 as Ex.P-BB; blood report dated 31-10-2009 as Ex.P-BC; haematology report as Ex.P-BD; medicine prescription dated 11-09-2009 as Ex.P-BE; blood report dated 02-03-2010 as Ex.P-BF; medicine prescription dated 11-07-2010 as Ex.P-BG; blood report dated 15-02-2010 as Ex.P-BH; urine etc report dated 19-04-2010 as Ex.P-BI; blood etc report dated 20-04-2010 as Ex.P-BJ; blood glucose report dated 24-04-2010 as Ex.P-BK; urine etc report dated 11- 07-2010 as Ex.P-BL; copy of discharge summary dated 15-12-2008 as Mark-PA; joint copy of cash receipts Mark-PB; copy of medicine prescription as Mark-PC; copy of certificate date 12-12-2008 as Mark-PD; copy of discharge summary dated 15-12-2008 as Mark-PE.
9. Oral evidence of the defendant consists of the statement of the defendant as DW 1 in addition to the statement of learned counsel for the defendant.
10. Documentary evidence of the defendant consists of the copy of sale deed as Mark-D.A; copy of sale deed page 2 as Mark D.B.
11. It is being pointed out that the relevant law governing the rules for the housing colonies is PUNJAB PRIVATE HOUSING SCHEMES AND LAND SUB-DIVISION RULES 2010? published in of PLD Punjab Statutes Volume LXII 2010.
12. I am of also the view that since the PROCEDURE ON RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT is provided in S.30 of PCP Act, 2005; as such if the intention of the legislature was to implement all the provisions provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, then it should not have been specified in S.30 (3) that the consumer court shall have the same powers as are vested in civil court while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act XX of 1908), in respect of the matters narrated in Clauses (a) to (e) of the PCP Act, 2005.
13. The matters incorporated in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub section (3) of S.30 of PCP Act, 2005 about which the powers given by the Code of Civil Procedure are to be exercised by the consumer court relate to: the summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witness and examining him on oath; the discovery and production of any document or other material object which may be produced as evidence; the receiving of evidence on affidavits; issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and any other matter which may be prescribed.
14. Obvious meanings of last portion of quoted law in clause (e) relating to "any other matter which may be prescribed" is to the effect that the list contained in clauses (a) to (d) is not exhaustive and any other matter may be prescribed in any provision of the same law on which the powers under the Code can be exercised by the consumer court. My humble interpretation of the said clause is to the effect that other principles and powers contained in the said Code can also be used beneficially under the said clause by the consumer court to resolve the matter under the established procedure instead of remaining in the darkness and to avoid the failure of justice due to the absence of prescribed procedure in the consumer law and consumer rules but the technicalities should not be allowed to hinder the path of justice in the said process.
15. A glance on the SECTIONS of CPC shows that the principles of law are laid down regarding SUMMONS TO DEFENDANTS in S.27; SERVICE OF SUMMONS WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDES IN ANOTHER PROVINCE in S.28; SERVICE OF FOREIGN SUMMONS in S.29; POWER TO ORDER DISCOVERY AND THE LIKE in S.30; SUMMONS TO WITNESSES in S.31; PENALTY TO DEFAULT in S.32; POWER OF COURT TO ISSUE COMMISSIONS in S.75; COMMISSION TO ANOTHER COURT in S.76; LETTER OF REQUEST in S.77; COMMISSIONS ISSUED BY FOREIGN COURTS in S.78; SUITS BY OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT in S.79; EXEMPTION FROM ARREST AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE in S.81; WHEN ALIENS MAY SUE in S.83; SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS in S.94; REVIEW in S.114; UNAUTHORISED PERSONS NOT TO ADDRESS COURT in S.119; EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN WOMEN FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE in S.132; EXEMPTION OF OTHER PERSONS in S.133; ARREST OTHER THAN IN EXECUTION OF DECREE in S.134; EXEMPTION FROM ARREST UNDER CIVIL PROCESS in S.135; EXEMPTION OF MEMBERS OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES FROM ARREST AND DETENTION UNDER CIVIL PROCESS in S.135-A; PROCEDURE WHERE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED OR PROPERTY TO BE ATTACHED IS OUTSIDE DISTRICT in S.136; POWER OF HIGH COURT TO REQUIRE EVIDENCE TO BE RECORDED IN ENGLISH in S.138; OATH ON AFFIDAVIT BY WHOM TO BE ADMINISTERED in S.139; MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS in S.141; ORDER AND NOTICES TO BE IN WRITING in S.142; POSTAGE in S.143; ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY OF SURETY in S.145; SAVING OF INHERENT POWERS OF COURT in S.151.
16. A glance on the ORDERS of CPC shows that some are completely applicable while some can be applied only to the extent of certain RULES. The complete ORDERS which are applicable are enumerated as complete O.V(5) about ISSUE AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS; complete O.IX(9) about APPEARANCE OF PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCE OF NON APPEARANCE; complete O.X(10) about EXAMINATION OF PARTIES BY THE COURT; complete O.XI(11) about DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION; complete O.XII(12) about ADMISSIONS; complete O.XIII(13) about PRODUCTION, IMPOUNDING AND RETURN OF DOCUMENTS; complete O.XVI(16) about SUMMONING AND ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES; complete O.XVII(17) about ADJOURNMENT; complete O.XVIII(18) about HEARING OF THE SUIT AND EXAMINAION OF WITNESSES; complete O.XIX(19) about AFFIDAVITS; complete O.XXVI(26) about COMMISSIONS; complete O.O.XXVII(27) about SUITS BY OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC OFFICERS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY; complete O.XXVIII(28) about SUITS BY OR AGAINST MILITARY OR NAVAL MEN OR AIRMEN; complete O.XXIX(29) about SUITS BY OR AGAINST CORPORATIONS; complete O.XXX(30) about SUITS BY OR AGAINST FIRMS AND PERSONS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN NAMES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN: complete O.XXXII(32) about SUITS BY OR AGAINST MINORS AND PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND; complete O.XXXVIII(38) about ARREST AND ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT; complete O.XLVIII(38) about MISCELLANEOUS.
17. Scattered provisions of CPC applicable to the consumer court are to be found in O.VI(6),R.2 about PLEADINGS TO STATE MATERIAL FACTS AND NOT EVIDENCE; O.VII(7),R.14 about PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SUES; R.15 about STATEMENT IN CASE OF DOCUMENTS NOT IN PLAINTIFF'S POSSESSION OR POWER; R.17 about PRODUCTION OF SHOP BOOK; R.18 about INADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT NOT PRODUCED WHEN PLAINT FILED; R.22 about PROCEDURE WHEN PARTY NOT FOUND AT THE PLACE OF ADDRESS; R.25 about SERVICE BY OTHER MODES; O.VIII(8),R.1 about WRITTEN STATEMENT; O.XIV(14),R.4 about COURT MAY EXAMINE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS BEFORE FRAMING ISSUES; O.XV(15),R.4 about FAILURE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE.
18. Definition of CONSUMER? is provided in section 2 (c) (i) of PCP Act 2005 which is being reproduced here under for the facility of reference:- "(c) "Consumer" means a person or entity who-
(i) buys or obtains on lease any product for a consideration and includes any user of such product but does not include a person who obtains any product for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) Hires any services for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services: Explanation:-For the purpose of sub-clause "Commercial purpose" does not include use by any consumer of products bought and used by him only for the purpose of his livelihood as a self- employed person.
19. Definition of SERVICES" is provided in section 2 (k) of PCP Act 2005 which is being reproduced here under for the facility of reference:- "(k) "Services" includes the provision of any kind of facilities or advice or assistance such as provision of medical, legal or engineering service but does not include-
(i) The rendering of any service under a contract of personal service;
(ii) The rendering of non-professional services like astrology or palmistry; or
(iii) A service, the essence of which is to deliver judgment by a court of law or arbitrator;".
20. It is necessary to be pointed out that the rights of the consumers have been limited by providing the restrictions on the grant of damages/compensation by Ss.10 & 15 while liability of the defendants is limited by Ss.4 & 13. It is therefore proper to take an overview of the relevant provisions in the said perspective.
21. It is provided u/s 4 of PCP Act 2005 relating to the "LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS" that:- "The manufacturer of a product shall be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by a characteristic of the product that renders the product defective when such damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product by a consumer".
22. It is provided u/s 10 of PCP Act 2005 relating to the "RESTRICTION ON GRANT OF DAMAGES" that:- "Where the consumer has not suffered any damage from the product except the loss of utility, the manufacturer shall not be liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part there of and the costs".
23. It is provided u/s 13 of PCP Act 2005 relating to the "LIABILITY FOR FAULTY OR DEFECTIVE SERVICES" that:- "A provider of services shall be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by the provision of services that have caused damage".
24. It is provided u/s 15 of PCP Act 2005 relating to the "RESTRICTION ON GRANT OF DAMAGES" that:- "Where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the provision of service except lack of benefit, the service provider shall not be liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part there of and the costs".
25. To comprehend the concept about restrictions on grant of damages properly, it is necessary to ponder about Ss.4 & 10 jointly when the case is about defective products and Ss.13 & 15 jointly when the case is about faulty or defective services.
26. As far as the prayer about the recovery of the damages is concerned, it is hereby observed that: the 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.
27. 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.
28. Since there is no explanation in the present claim about any other damages except the loss of utility & lack of benefit as such I find that the damages/compensation u/s 13, 21, 22 are even otherwise not admissible in the given circumstances. The prayer for recovery of interest and damages is therefore refused.
29. As far as the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, I am of the view that jurisdiction is not barred because the claimant cannot be ousted from the consumer court on account of any such previous agreement the conditions of which are harsh and not acceptable to him as provided u/s 12 & 17 of PCP Act 2005 by providing that:- "The liability shall not be limited or excluded by the terms of any contract or by any notice".
30. As far as the question of bait advertisement is concerned, it is observed that keeping the colony undeveloped after advertisement about the proposed developments comes under the definition of "BAIT AVERTISEMENT" which is prohibited u/s 22 of PCP Act 2005 and the same amounts to a liability the infringement of which is an offence inviting the penalty of conviction and sentence u/s 32(1) of PCP Act 2005.
31. It is provided u/s 32(1) of PCP Act 2005 relating to the "PENALITIES" that:- "(1) Where a manufacturer fails to perform or in any way infringes the liabilities provided in sections 4 to 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 to 22, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to hundred thousand rupees or with both in addition to damages or compensation as may be determined by the court".
32. It is provided u/s 32(2) of PCP Act 2005 relating to the "PENALITIES" that:- "(2) Where a defendant or the claimant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the consumer court, such defendant or the claimant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a tem not less than one month which may extend to three years, or with fine not less than five thousand rupees which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both".
33. As far as the penalties u/s 32 of PCP Act 2005 about conviction and sentence are concerned, the same cannot be imposed in the present case because the claimant has not come to the court for implementing the facilities mentioned in the advertisement and his case is to the effect that his payments should be refunded to him on medical ground.
34. One of the possible objections which could have been raised by the defendant is about issuance of legal notice. It is observed that the relevant law is laid down in S.28 (3) of PCP Act (Act II of 2005) which is reproduced as under:- "(3) No claim shall be entertained by a Consumer Court unless the consumer or the Authority has given notice under sub section (1) and provides proof that the notice was duly delivered but the manufacturer or service provider has not responded thereto."
35. I am of the view that issuance of legal notice has been established by providing office copy of legal notice and original postal receipt as such the onus has been diverted towards the defendant to prove that he had taken the notices seriously but since the notice has not been denied in the written statement or in the oral statement of the defendant as such there is no need to summon the postman to prove the delivery of the said notice. The notice is presumed to be issued on the basis of postal receipt about sending the postal envelope. It is therefore treated as substantial compliance of mandatory provision of S.28 (2) of PCP Act (Act II of 2005).
36. Another possible objection to be raised by the defendant is the period of limitation. It is observed that the complaint can be filed within one year of arising of cause of action u/s 28 of PCP Act (Act II of 2005) because it is clarified in last proviso of said section that "if no period is specified one year from the date of purchase of the products or providing of services".
37. In the present case, the cause of action is presumed to have arisen due to failure to respond after issuance of legal notice. The grievance has been voiced by the claimant on the basis of legal notice dated 14-06-2010. The complaint filed on 27-07-2010 is therefore within period of limitation of one year.
38. It is further observed that the notion of learned counsel for the defendant about 30 days as period of limitation is misconceived because said limitation is to be implemented in the cases relating to the expiry of the period of guarantee and warranty while the period of limitation in all other cases is one year.
39. Since there is no question of guarantee or warranty involved in the present case as such I find that the period of limitation is one year from the arising of the cause of action which arose by the accident of the claimant on 12-12-2008 and since the claimant is shown to have been under treatment and discharged from the hospital during his latest treatment on 17-03-2010 according to the discharge report Ex.P-AS and since the cause of action is to be continued during the medical treatment of the claimant as shown by the medical documents produced in the evidence, as such the complaint filed on 27-07-2010 is within the period of limitation.
40. As far as the application for dismissal filed by the defendant is concerned, I find that S.2 (k) of PCP Act 2005 is clear enough to hold that the implementation of the contract of providing services relating to the developing of housing colony and providing of the plot of land in such colony is not prohibited by law whereas the contracts relating to the services mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii) cannot be implemented by the consumer court.
41. It is therefore found that when the contract of sale is entered into by the parties on the basis of the offer of the defendant to provide some services towards the execution of the contract then the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the consumer court without ousting plenary jurisdiction of the civil court.
42. I find that the contract being relied upon by the parties does not fall within prohibitory clauses
(i) to (iii) of S.2 (k) of PCP Act 2005 as such the same is one of such contracts which is capable of implementation either through the civil court or by the consumer court. The complaint is therefore maintainable in this court. The application filed by the defendant for seeking dismissal of the complaint on the said ground is therefore liable to rejection.
43. As far as the main contention of the claimant is concerned about recovery of the actual amount paid by the claimant, I have observed during the course of arguments by admission of the defendant that he remained ready for the return of the payments made by the claimant by installments while the claimant had been insisting upon the repayment of the amount as a whole which was paid by installments as such I find that since the claimant has admitted in his statement that he had not paid the installments for the purpose of return and that he had not paid the installments for earning the interest and that he had not booked the plots for purpose of cancellation of the plots as such he is bound to accept the repayment by installments in the same sequence in which the payments were made.
44. The defendant is therefore liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as advance installment in the first month and then to pay the monthly installments of Rs.10,000/- per month in the subsequent months.
45. It is clarified that the defendant is not liable to pay the interest or damages or counsel fee or litigation charges as claimed by the claimant because the delay in the return of the original amount has been caused due to the insistence of the claimant for the repayment of the whole amount whereas the matter could have been settled earlier if the claimant would have agreed to take the repayment by installments. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed to the extent of the request about the recovery of the interest & damages & counsel fee & litigation charges.
46. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the application filed by the claimant about dismissal of the complaint is hereby rejected however the complaint is hereby dismissed to the extent of the request about recovery of interest & damages & counsel fee & litigation charges; while the complaint is being accepted to the extent of the recovery of Rs.3,12,000/- as refund of the payments made by the claimant and the defendant is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as advance installment in the first month and then to pay the monthly installments of Rs.10,000/- per month in the subsequent months to the claimant under intimation to this court failing which the claimant would be entitled to recover the same from the defendant through this court.
47. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
48. Claimant is entitled to get the order implemented by filing the application for implementation with reference to S.31, 32 & 36 of PCP Act, 2005, if so required with the warning to the defendant that further expenses to be incurred by the claimant on the prosecution of the application for implementation would also be liable to be paid by the defendant.
49. Stringent action would be liable to be taken u/s 32(2) read with S.36 of PCP Act, 2005 for implementation of this order through arrest, detention, attachment & auction after the period fixed for appeal.
50. Defendant would be liable to suffer simple imprisonment up to 3 years with fine up-to Rs.20,000/- and liability of recovery of fine as arrears of Land Revenue in default of the payment of fine, concurrently with attachment and auction of their official belongings as well as personal property u/s 32 of PCP Act 2005 read with S.36 of PCP Act 2005, in case of deliberate delay in compliance with this order.
51. The amount of fine if recovered would be liable to be credited in the Government Treasury under the relevant head of account.
52. This order would not become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is preferred within period of 30 days under S.33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
53. A copy of this order would be available for publishing on the internet to the website of Punjab Consumer Protection Council Secretariat, 135-J, Model Town, Lahore for public disclosure and easy access of information to the consumers relating to the products and services in accordance with Rule 25 of PCP Rules 2009.
54. The file of this complaint is to be consigned to the record room 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.