1. Originally this claim was filed against M/S FedEx/Gerry's International (Defendant No. 1) and Deputy Collector Custom (Defendant No. 2). When case was placed before me for preliminary hearing I did not find defendant No. 2 as necessary or proper party hence by order of this Court its' name was deleted from memo of parties. So for the purpose of this judgment defendant shall mean only M/S FedEx/Gerry's International Islamabad.
2. By filing this claim under section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act) Claimant has asserted that one Mr. Dreven from United State of America had hired the services of M/S FedEx/Gerry's International against a consideration for delivery of a packet to claimant which was containing 10 mobile phones; it was through invoice number 7981 1442 5193; claimant was beneficiary of this transaction so relations of consumer and services provider had existed between parties; parcel had to be delivered to claimant at Rawalpindi; when parcel was not received to claimant for a considerable time he approached M/S FedEx/Gerry's International's office/defendant at Islamabad but it failed to furnish any explanation in this regard; what defendant stated that custom authorities had detained said parcel; subsequently claimant received a letter from defendant about arrival of shipment at Allama Iqbal International Air Port Lahore; claimant was asked about the option of clearing of parcel from custom through his agent or by defendant; claimant than provided all documents to defendant for clearance; despite this after some time claimant was informed by defendant that his parcel was forfeited by custom authorities; claimant repeatedly asked about order of confiscation but defendant did not provide any copy thereof; on account of non delivery of shipment within stipulated time and non provision of confiscation order to claimant by defendant he suffered a lot; said conduct of defendant amounts to unfair practice and faulty services; claimant has suffered lot of agonies, financial loss and harassm ent due to defective and faulty services of defendant; claimant served a legal notice to defendant in terms of section 28 of the Act but no reply was given.
03. In his prayer clause, claimant has setup his claim as under: - {{TABLE}} 1 Mental torture & in-convenience Rs.1000,000/- (Ten lac)
2 Lawyer's fee Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand)
TOTAL Rs. 10,20,000/- He has also prayed for issuance of direction to defendant to supply copy of confiscation order to claimant besides punishing under section 32 of the Act {{TABLE}}
4. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte as it had refused to accept the service.
5. Rule 14 (5) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Rules, 2009 permits this Court to decide a claim ex-parte on the basis of documents available on record if defendant fails to appear on the date fixed.
6. Claim of claimant has been verified on solemn affirmation as required by Rule 13, for which there is no rebuttal.
7. Perusal of documents shows that FedEx is a courier company and providing services around the world for transmission of shipments from one place to other. In this backdrop FedEx is service provider as contemplated under section 2 (k) of the Act.
8. Defendant is one of the offices of FedEx at Islamabad. As FedEx is also running its business at Islamabad for provision of services so under section 27 of the Act claimant has an absolute right to file the claim in this Court because services had to be provided at Rawalpindi.
9. Receipt clearly indicates that parcel was to be delivered to claimant at Rawalpindi having the address of said destination. Claimant in clear words was a beneficiary of the services provided by defendant. Therefore in terms of section 2 (c) (ii) of the Act Claimant is a Consumer.
10. It was the duty of defendant to ensure the delivery of parcel to claimant at the given address. If defendant is of the view that custom authorities had forfeited mobile phones, it was under obligation to provide relevant documents in this regard so claimant could be in a position to avail remedy under the law. Even than questions is there that if parcel was for Rawalpindi why it reached to Lahore. On these reasons I have no hesitation to say that defendant is responsible for defective and faulty services which caused also monitory damage to claimant.
11. Whatever has been discussed above in the light of that this claim is accepted. I, therefore, in pursuance to section 31 of the Act, issue an order to defendant directing it to take following actions within a period of fifteen days from today: -
1. To provide the claimant copy of confiscation orders, if any, passed by custom authorities.
2. To pay Rs. 200,000/- (two lac) to claimant as damages for causing in-convenience and mental agony to him.
3. To pay Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) to claimant on account of lawyer's fee.
12. File after due completion shall be consigned to record room.