1. The case is at the stage of ex-parte arguments which have been heard and I have perused the file of the present case in the light of ex-parte arguments as such I proceed to dispose off the complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs.
2. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that he has been charged with excess fare while traveling by the bus of the defendant bearing number 7478 MLC on ticket No. 4862 on 27-04-2011 from Jampur to D.G.Khan on payment of Rs.70/- as fare while the rate fixed by the government was 70 paisa per kilometer; that the over loading was also done by the defendant during the journey of the claimant and he was maltreated and threatened of dire consequences; that notice under S.28 (1) PCP Act 2005 has been issued. The claimant has requested for strict legal action against the defendant for providing faulty services and charging excess fare and over loading and misconduct with passenger along with recovery of Rs.50,000/- as damages and litigation charges.
3. The case was being contested by the defendant previously on the basis of the written statement by which the alleged journey of claimant by the bus of the defendant was denied along with denial of charging excess fare and over loading with the request for the complaint to be rejected.
4. The claimant was directed to prove his version by production of ex-parte evidence with reference to Rule 14 of PCP Rules 2009.
5. The ex-parte evidence of the claimant consists of original affidavit of claimant as Ex.P-1; affidavit of Mureed Hussain PW as Ex.P-2; original postal receipt as Ex.P-3; original fare ticket No.6222 as Ex.P- 4; original fare ticket No.4362 as Ex.P5; original blank form of permit as Ex.P-6; copy of legal notice as Mark P.1; original 12 tickets pasted on one sheet of paper as Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-17.
6. 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. 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.
7. It is pertinent to note that the grant of damages is curtailed even under the Contract Act, 1872 being the law of the land in which it is provided in S.73 to 75 that the damages should be proportionate to the loss and not excessive by mentioning that such compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. It is an embargo placed by the general law of contracts upon the powers of the courts about grant of damages.
8. It is also observed that further embargo on the quantum of damages to be awarded by the consumers courts has been placed by the law provided in S. 4, 10, 13 & 15 of PCP Act by declaring that the manufacturer or service provider shall be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by anticipated use of the product or provision of services that have caused damage but he shall not be liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs in such cases where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the provision of service except lack of benefit or loss of utility.
9. I have observed from a perusal of the file in the light of the ex-parte arguments that there is no material on the record in the court to determine the distance between Jampur and D.G.Khan and the same has not been mentioned either in the complaint or in the affidavits of the claimant therefore I find that the allegation about charging of excess fare is not proved on the record.
10. As far as the allegation about over loading and maltreatment of the claimant is concerned, since the defendant has twice absented himself from the proceedings of the present case after being allowed to contest the case during his first disappearance as such I find that he has nothing the contest about over loading and maltreatment therefore the claimant is entitled to the recovery of the damages at reasonable rate which is hereby fixed at Rs.10,000/- so as to entitle the claimant to recover the said amount as damages.
11. It is clarified that if the defendants would apply for cancellation of this order by filing the application for setting aside ex-parte order, for taking the benefit of ex-parte nature of the order then the whole claim would be deemed to have been restored including the part of claim which is not being granted presently, while the possibility for the grant of the remaining relief would be considered on its own merits alongwith possibility of the refusal to grant even the relief being granted in these ex-parte proceedings during the fresh proceedings either after recording the evidence or in summary manner whichever method would be acceptable to the parties for proceeding further with the present case during fresh round of litigation, but not otherwise in accordance with law. The right of the defendants is however reserved with reference to Rule 14 of PCP Rules 2009 to move the application for cancellation / modification to be filed within one month failing which the right for seeking cancellation / modification would be deemed to have been forfeited in accordance with law.
12. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted in ex-parte manner to the extent of the recovery of Rs.10,000/- as damages by the claimant from the defendant while the remaining relief is withheld.
13. 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 or if the application for cancellation of this order is not filed in the given period.
14. The 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 the costs to be incurred for and during the application for implementation would be liable to be recovered from him.
15. A copy of this order is directed to be made 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.
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.