COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICES
2. The court is on tour at Layyah. I was on leave on previously fixed dates i.e., 27-03-2012 & 31-03- 2012 and this date was fixed by the Secretary of this court by entry in the weekly cause list of pending cases.
3. The case is at the stage of the arguments. I have heard the arguments and perused the file. I proceed to dispose off the complaint in the light of the discussion in the following paragraphs.
4. Briefly stated the grievance of the claimant is to the effect that his name is not included in the list for issuance of Wattan Card phase II/ Mubarik Card relating to the financial help although he got the financial help in the previous phase of Wattan Card being one of the affectees of flood water; that he has voiced his grievance through applications to the defendants without any redress; that he has also issued legal notices to the defendants. He has requested for direction about providing financial assistance in 2nd phase of the scheme by issuance of Wattan Card/ Mubarik Card. The complaint is supported by the affidavit, postal receipt, copy of legal notice.
5. Defendants No.1 & 3 have contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement submitted by the representative of the Assistant Commissioner in which they have contended that a survey team comprising of Revenue Officer, Patwari Halqa concerned, Lumberdar or Imam Masjid, Head Master of the school and a volunteer from the youth counsel was constituted to conduct the survey of houses which were completely damaged by the flood waters and that the last date for completion and its subsequent submission to the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) was 31-12-2010 and that the flood affectees were also given two weeks to file an appeal against the survey before Assistant Commissioners concerned and that after the appeal period lapsed the survey list was submitted to the P.D.M.A., and that afterwards Punjab Rural Support Program (P.R.S.P.) also verified the survey list as third party validation; that now the second phase of WATTAN CARDS namely CITIZEN'S DAMAGE COMPENSATION PROGRAMME (CDCP) has been launched by the Government to compensate only those flood affectees whose houses were completely washed away by the flood waters and requested that the petition may be dismissed being devoid of force.
6. They have referred the copy of order dated 20-02-2012 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge Layyah about disposal of the petition of another person namely Allah Bakhsh to the effect that the petition u/s 22-A/B was disposed off by the direction that the petitioner may seek his remedy at the proper forum'.
7. The representative of NADRA has contested the complaint by filing the written statement to the effect that the cards were issued on the basis of the notification of DCO by verification; that the name of the claimant was not in the list; that complaint should be dismissed. A portion of the list has been annexed with the written statement and also copies of computer record according to which the DRC is shown to have disapproved the case of the claimant.
8. Defendant No.4 being Patwari has denied the house of the claimant in the flood area in his report and relied on the written statements of other defendants.
9. 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.
10. As far as the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, it is observed since the law provides for the filing of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner as mentioned in the written statement of defendants No.1 & 3 as such this court has no jurisdiction because I am conscious of the ruling of Honourable High Court reported as 1988 CLC 1718 in Para 22 to the effect that; "It is settled law that once the Legislature has made any special law for a particular purpose prescribing a forum or a Tribunal for decision of any dispute the Courts should not encourage deviation from such course."
11. I have observed that the version of the claimant is to the effect that he could not file appeal against the disapproval of his name because he was not informed about the said order. It is therefore observed that the remedy of the claimant lies in the filing of the representation before P.D.M.A., and this court has no jurisdiction to interfere. Present complaint is therefore liable to be returned for filing with the said authority.
12. It is contended on behalf of the claimant that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court is not barred because it is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law u/s 3 of PCP Act, 2005. I have observed that jurisdiction of this court is NOT barred in such cases where the claimant is within the definition of the 'CONSUMER' as mentioned in S.2 ( c ) of PCP Act, 2005 according to which it is necessary to 'BUY' or 'OBTAIN ON LEASE' any product for a 'CONSIDERATION' and includes any 'USER' of such product or hires any 'SERVICES' for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services; but does not include a person who obtains any product for resale or for any commercial purpose. The present claimant cannot be considered a consumer under said definition therefore I find that this court has no jurisdiction in the present dispute. The contention is therefore rejected.
13. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is disposed off by way of return for filing before Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA).
14. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
15. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is not 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.
16. 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.