1. By way of this single judgment above mentioned both claims one filed by Mr. Kashif Hameed and other by Mr. Muhammad Faisal Amanat (hereinafter to be called claimants) against Skyways Bus Service (hereinafter to be called defendant) are being decided together as common question of law i.e. about jurisdiction of this court is involved.
2. Admittedly, both claimants on 16.11.2012 got services of defendant for travelling from Rawalpindi to Faisalabad against seats Nos. 23 and 24; each of them was having a Lap Top besides other luggage; Coach stopped at rest area of motorway on Sayyal Moar; Claimants went for refreshments and to answer call of nature; when after eight or ten minutes they again boarded on coach and checked their laptops, those were missing.
3. Claimants were of the view that there were security cameras inside the coach which could be helpful to trace culprits but on checking those were found defective.
4. Written statements were filed by defendant in both claims where question of jurisdiction of this Court was raised. It is worth mentioning that at the time of preliminary hearing both claims were admitted subject to question of maintainability to be decided after hearing rival side.
5. Learned counsel for defendant contends that about hand luggage there was no responsibility of defendant in case of their misplacement as question of safety was exclusively with claimants hence no question arises for defective services. He also argues that there was no express agreement between two sides with regard to services of security cameras as part of travelling services, therefore, even if cameras were not functional, even then claimants cannot ask for any relief on said cause of action.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for claimants maintains that it was the duty of defendant to ensure safe travelling of passengers from one terminal to other and these services were also including safe transportation of luggage from one place to other; even safety of luggage in hand was responsibility of services provider because laptops were committed to theft when those were inside luggage box of passenger portion; security cameras were out of order and being part of services when those were not working, it was defective and faulty services, hence this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon both claims.
7. Arguments heard.
8. In this case what was the standard of services by defendant that was not regulated by any specific law. When it was so then under section 14 (2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 the standard had to be that which at the time of provision of services, a consumer could reasonably expect to obtain.
9. While travelling in a coach or even through airline if custody of some luggage is handed over to a services provider for that it becomes an absolute duty of that agency to ensure its safe delivery to a passenger on arrival to his/her destination. In the case in hand as there was no express standard in view of section 14 (1) of the Act hence it is an example where a passenger can reasonably expect to obtain such standard of services at relevant time. Other situation is about luggage in hand for which services provider has no control or custody at all because it is never handed over to it. So under this state of affairs sole responsibility for care shall remain of a passenger. Therefore, this was the duty of claimants to be careful and vigilant with regard to their hand luggage when coach had stopped at rest area. Security cameras although were there but those were not part of services which could have persuaded claimants to hire services of defendant. To be non-operational of security cameras could be a serious negligence on the part of defendant but it did not amount defective and faulty services.
10. In view of above when question of defective services does not arise, it is held that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon both claims hence both are returned to claimants with observations that they may approach Court of competent jurisdiction if so advised besides registration of criminal case against defendants staff if they feel their involvement in theft of their laptops. Both files shall be consigned to record room after their due completion.