1. The complainant filed the instant complaint against the respondents that on 26-07-09, 12-08-09 and 24-10-09 he parked his car in the parking area near Rescue 1122, G.T Road, Gujranwala where respondent No.1&2 used to charge fraudulently Rs.20 instead of Rs.10 which was prescribed rate by authority, local Govt. as Exh."PA". On 18-08-09 he sent a legal notice to the contractor asking him for remedies. On receipt of legal notice contractor contacted him through his neighbor but he refused to accept his request. On 24-10-09 he again visited parking area but nothing has changed and said illegal practice was going on with the connivance of the concerned authorities. He demanded the relief of displaying the official rate on the ticket, writing of actual name of the contractor, his telephone number and name of parking area, displaying of rate on board on the entrance of parking area and damages Rs.50000/- for causing mental agony and also other suitable remedies to him.
2. The respondent No.1 was proceeded exparte. The respondent No.2 contested the complaint by submitted written reply where he raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, malafide, cause of action, limitations. On facts that he denied the over charging and the averment of complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. Similarly respondents No.3 contested the complaint by submitted his written reply where he also denied the averment of complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. Likewise respondents No.4 contested the complaint by submitted his written reply where he also denied the averment of complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint
3. Subsequently respondent No.2 disappeared from the Court, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against him and he again applied for setting aside exparte proceeding which was set aside subject to payment of costs but again neither he disappeared from the Court nor he paid the costs, therefore, he again exparte proceedings were initiated against him.
4. The complainant examined Muhammad Imran as PW1 and complainant himself appeared as PW2. PW1 stated that 8 months ago the contractor demanded Rs.30 for parking but he protest upon which he agreed to receive Rs.20 as parking fee which was illegal. He was cross examined by ADA he denied suggestions of ADA. PW2 the complainant, reiterated the same facts as mentioned in his complaint which was also cross examined at length by the ADA but nothing could be brought in favour of the respondents. He produced copy of legal notice as Exh. "PA" , receipt of parking fee mark "A","B"&"C" in his support.
5. On the other hand Umar Dildar District Taxation Officer, City District Govt., Gujranwala appeared as RW1 stated that he did not receive any complaint against the contractor and ADA closed evidence.
6. I have heard parties and gone through the record.
7. The main grievances of complainant against the respondent No.1&2 contactors who used to receive the excess parking fee from the public instead prescription parking fee fixed by the Govt. and respondent No.1&2 did not border to appear in the Court despite of availing different opportunities to appear in the Court, so in view of corroborative oral as well as documentary evidence of complainant, I hold that I have to believe the version of complainant as he is respectable citizen of Pakistan and enjoying the status in the society, therefore, he is entitled to get the relief from the Court, especially in these circumstances when there is no rebuttal from the respondent No.1&2, therefore, the complaint is partially accepted in the following terms that:-
1. The respondent No.1&2 would be liable pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as legal expenses of proceedings.
2. The respondent No.1&2 would also be liable pay Rs.10000 to the complainant as compensation for mental torture and agony for providing of defective services.
3. The respondent No.1&2 would also be liable to pay Rs.10000/- as a fine which shall be deposited in the state treasury for providing of defective services.
4. The respondent No.3 is directed to deduct the decretal amount and fine from the security of contractor/respondent No.1&2.
5. The respondent No.3&4 are directed to direct the contractor to display the official rate on the ticket, print actual name of the contractor, his telephone number and name of parking area and display the Govt. rate of parking fee on the board on the entrance of parking area at conspicuous place under intimation to this Court.
The respondents would be liable to pay all above payments, within 30 days of announcement of this judgment without fail.