' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---F.A.O. 291 of 2013 has arisen from an order dated 6-4-2013 whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the District Consumer Court Lahore dismissed appellant's objection petition.
2. Facts of the case are that on 23-7-2009 respondent No,1 booked one consignment for Toronto which was detained by the Canadian Custom -Authorities and for non-submission of requisite Form Y-50 duly filled in by the consignee for its inspection and clearance in his presence. The appellant allegedly contacted the consignee telephonically time and again but consignee deliberately avoided to appear and did not comply with the procedural requirement necessary for clearance of the consignment at Toronto. All efforts of the appellant in that regard ended in smoke with the result that after expiry of 60 days, the Canadian Custom Authorities treating said consignment as 'abandoned parcel' destroyed the same in accordance with rules applicable thereto.
3. Respondent No,1 filed a complaint against the appellant in the Consumer Court at Lahore. The appellant was served and he made appearance before the court through power of attorney on 1- 2-2011 and the case was got adjourned twice for filing written statement on his behalf. On the adjourned date viz. 9-3-2011 none appeared for the appellant and ex parte order was passed against him. On 31-3-2011 he moved an application in terms of section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was dismissed in default vide order dated 28-6-2011. Whereafter, on 23-7-2011 the appellant moved second application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which too was dismissed vide order dated 23-11-2011.
Third application in the series under section 14(6) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2009 was filed by the appellant on 28-11-2011, which was also dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the said Court vide order dated 17-3-2012. Said order was assailed by the appellant through F.A.O. No,195 of 2012 but the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this court by means of order dated 22- 11-2012 holding that the appellant was attempting to play hide and seek with the court and his conduct tends to flout the court proceedings. It was also held that ex parte order was passed on 9- 3-2011 followed by dismissal of two incompetent applications, therefore, time barred third application in the series being incompetent was rightly dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Consumer Court.
4. Subsequent to the dismissal of F.A.O. 195 of 2012, the respondent filed execution petition, which was objected to by the appellant both on factual as well as legal plane and the same was dismissed in terms of order impugned dated 6-4-2013.
5. Heard. Record perused. Admittedly the execution petition remained pending since 6-11-2011.
Number of notices and bailable warrants were issued or procuring the attendance of the appellant.
Claimant went from pillar to post to get implemented and enforced valid order of the Consumer Court. Conduct of the appellant throughout remained contumacious and deplorable. In terms of impugned order the objection raised by the appellant was repelled and rightly so because Special Tribunals have been constituted under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 and this being a special dispensation, C.P.C. Is inapplicable and instead of decree sheet, Memo of Costs is drafted.
Record shows that the amount mentioned in the memo of cost is in A addition to the amount granted in lieu of claim. Therefore, it was held and rightly so that appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs,94,264.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the crucial issue arising for determination in the current lis was adjudicated upon and the controversy stood resolved by the competent court of law having exclusive jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. There being no ambiguity and illegality in the order impugned, no case for interference or invalidation is made out. This F.A.O. Being palpably misconceived and devoid of merit cannot succeed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.