The complainant filed the instant complaint against the respondents stating that he was running a mobile shop where he used to sale mobile phone sets and Sims of different companies and about 6 months prior to filing of complaint respondent No.3 came to his shop and offered him to purchase non active Sims of Mibilink Jazz upon which he purchased some of the numbers including Jazz No. 0300-7400385. He further stated that after two months of the purchase one customer came to him and showed his interest to purchase above said number and asked him to get it activated and he called 789 but he told him that said number had been already activated.
After knowing this fact he visited Mobilink Head office near General Buss Stand G.T Road, Gujranwala on the next day and told the customer care officer who requested him for grant some time where after he was told by Mr. Noman respondent No.2 that the disputed number was issued from franchise in Faisalabad being a duplicate but he raised objection that how it could be possible while original Sim was sealed in his custody but no satisfactory answer was given. He further stated that after long efforts he met respondent No.1 and made a complaint regarding non professional attitude of the respondent No.2 but his grievances could not be redressed and due to conduct of respondents he suffered financial loss of Rs.100000/- and demanded Rs.200000/- as damages. On 07-07-09 he sent 2 legal notices through register letter AD to the respondents but no response was made by the respondent.
2. The respondents contested the complaint by filing written reply where in they raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, malafide, cause of action, limitations and special cost. On facts they denied the version of complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant appeared as PW1 and stated that he purchased the sim in February 2009 and in April 2009 he sold it to the customer but sim was not activated and he kept the sim with him and other sim was handed over to the customer. He also made the detailed statement by reiterating the same facts as mentioned in his complaint. He produced Jacket and sim as Exh. "PA", copy of postal receipts as Exh."PB"&"PC". He also produced copy of legal notices mark "A"&"B" in his support.
4. In cross examination he stated that he got the receipt of purchase of the sim but he destroyed it.
He also admitted that he was running the shop of purchasing and selling of mobile phone sets and sims of different mobiles companies.
5. On the other hand Zahid Khalil Regional Manager Sale & Operations appeared as RW1 who stated that the disputed sim was never sold to the complainant and he also did not provide any proof of purchasing the sim he denied the suggestion of the complainant regarding any financial loss and produced an authority letter as Exh. "RA" in his favour.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. From the careful perusal of the contents of complaint coupled with the statement of PW1 it is clear that complainant is running a shop of mobile sets and repairing centre alongwith selling of the sims which is indicated of fact that he is a commercial entity which does not come within the definition of consumer as laid down in section 2(c)(i) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
According to the definition a person who obtains any product for resale or for any commercial purpose excludes from the definition of consumer. Here admittedly the complainant is running the business of sale and purchase, therefore, he is not entitled to claim any relief as he does not fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer Court. Moreover, he did not produce the receipt of purchasing of sim as he himself stated that he destroyed it which also indicates that the fact that he intentionally withheld the material evidence and this presumption would go against him. according to the article 129 illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat order 1984 that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In addition to this his claim is hopelessly barred by time as according to him his grievances took place in April 2009 while he filed the complaint on 27-08-09.
8. The upshort of above discussion is that the complaint is not maintainable before this Court and resultantly is therefore, dismissed.