CLAIM FOR THE RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION/DAMAGES AND DELIVERY OF SHEHZORE.
The claimant Muhammad Afzal is a distributor of Unilever Pakistan. He got a vehicle Hyundai Shehzore booked on lease in his favour through Bank Al-Falah Limited College Road, Branch, Pakpattan. He paid up to date installments to the Bank. Lastely, the Bank/defendant No. 1 issued demand draft of 8,79,000/- in the name of the claimant for delivery of vehicle by Dewan Farooq Company, the defendants. The transaction was made for delivery of vehicle through Rana Aman, Chief Executive Hyundai Lylpur Road, Faisalabad. The Bank is receiving all installments in connection with the transaction but despite that, the vehicle was not delivered to the claimant till target dated i.e April 2010. The claimant issued notices to each defendant but no reply was given to him. Ultimately, he approached to this court for redressal of his grievances. He prayed that the defendant No.1 to 5 may be directed to deliver him the vehicle as per lease agreement in addition to financial loss of Rs. 6,56,400/- suffered by him. As an alternate relief, he requested to direct the defendants to return the price of vehicle alongwith mark up in addition to financial loss sustained by him.
2. All the five defendants were issued process to appear in the court and to submit their written statement regarding claim made by the claimant but none turned up on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 5 despite all efforts made. Thereafter, the said defendants No. 2 to 5 were proceeded against exparte. However, the defendant No. 1 filed the written statement and an application for rejection of claim.
3. The defendant No. 1 i.e Bank Al-Falah contested the claim by filing written statement. It also filed an application for rejection of claim at initial stage as the same was not competent against it.
Before further proceedings in the matter, the reply of the claimant regarding rejection of claim was received. Thereafter, the arguments delivered on behalf of learned counsel for the claimant and defendant No. 1 were heard.
4. Needless to mention that Bank Al-Falah Limited is a financial institution as defined in Section 2
(a) of Financial Institution (recovery of finance) ordinance 2001. The claimant had approached the defendant No. 1 for sanctioning of finance to obtain a vehicle Hyundai Shehzore on lease from the defendant No. 2 to 5. Thus, the claimant would be covered under the definition of customer as defined in Subsection (c) of the Section 2 of the financial institution recovery of Finance Ordinance 2001. It therefore can be said that parties i.e claimant and the defendant No. 1, have a relation-ship of customer and financial institution. According to the Section 7 of the Ordinance 2001, no court other than Banking Court has the jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the customer and financial institution. Otherwise also, as per contents of the claim, Bank had fully performed its obligations when it issued financial loan in the name of the claimant to the Dewan Motors for leasing out the vehicle Hyundai Shehzore. Since the parties have relation-ship of customer and financial institution and that the Bank had performed his part of agreement therefore, the claim made by the claimant to the extent of Bank Al-Falah was not maintainable before this Court.
Resultantly, the application of the Bank Al-Falah defendant No. 1 is accepted and claim of Muhammad Afzal is dismissed.
5. As per contents of the claim Rana Aman was acting as Chief Executive, Hyundai Lylpur Road, Faisalabad. The defendant No. 2 to 5 being concerned persons of Dewan Farooq Motors Company, were responsible to supply the leased vehicle to the claimant. The documents annexed with the claim i.e account statement, delivery letter of Shehzore dated 30-11-10, purchase order of the vehicle dated 13-1- 2010, pay order of Rs. 8,79,000/- issued by the bank on behalf of the claimant in the name of Messers Dewan Farooque motors limited, offer letter of finance facility issued by the bank dated 18-12-2009, acceptance of facility offered by the customer dated December 2009, provisional sale order form, different receipts issued by Masood Traders during the year 2010-11 supported and verified the assertion made by the claimant. No evidence was likely to come on record on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 5 because all of them have been proceeded against exparte after observing due formalities of law. The factum of issuance of legal notice also finds support from copy of the letter dated 08-06-11 available on record. Therefore, further evidence was not required to be recorded. The claim made by Muhammad Afzal stands proved on record. The claim is therefore accepted in terms that the defendant No. 2 to 5 would deliver leased vehicle Hyundai Shehzore to the claimant within a period of one month positively. Since defendants No. 2 to 5 failed to supply leased vehicle, the claimant had to suffer a financial loss which is proved on record through receipts issued by Masood Traders, therefore, claimant is also held entitled to be compensated by way of payment of Rs. 6,56,400/- (Six lac fifty six thousand four hundred rupees) by the defendants No. 2 to 5. All the said defendants No. 2 to 5 shall be jointly and severally liable not only to deliver the said vehicle but also to pay Rs. 6,56,400/ (Six lac fifty six thousand four hundred rupees) to the claimant. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send copy of the orders to the defendants No. 2 to 5 for information and compliance.
6. File be consigned after its due completion.