. By filling this claim under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act), Malik Shahbaz Haider has asserted that he is an advocate by profession; he is using services of defendants who is a Mobile Company; there was a registered SIM No. 0300- 9807255 in the name of claimant; on 09.01.2013 father of claimant had died and for this when claimant tried to inform his nears and dears about, he found services of cell as suspended; on 10.01.2013 it was also a day fixed for Rasm-e-Qull and even on this day services remained inoperative; claimant made complaint to defendants but of no consequence, however, it was 11.01.2013 at 12:30 noon when services were restored; due to this reason which amounted to defective services on part of defendants claimant could not contact his relatives and friends etc. and even persons who wanted to condole the claimant were unsuccessful to contact him in this regard; mobile phone of claimant clarified the position that last outgoing call before suspension of services was on 09.01.2013 at 01:36 pm and first call after restoration of services was on 11.01.2013 at 02:29 pm; similarly last incoming call before suspension of services was on 09.01.2013 at 08:31 pm and first incoming call after availability of services was on 11.01.2013 at 02:31 pm; same status was about messages; claimant sent legal notices to defendants but those were not responded.
Following prayer has been made by claimant in his claim: - I. The defendants may kindly be issued direction to do not block the mobile service of petitioner/claimant in future without any reasons.
II. The defendants may kindly be issued direction to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (ten millions) to petitioner/claimant for causing inconvenience and mental torture.
III. The defendants may very kindly be punished under Section 32 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
2. Vide an order dated 27.02.2013 defendants were summoned through TCS for 04.03.2013. Despite service none of defendants came forward. On 06.03.2013 in the interest of justice this Court again issued processes through TCS and process server of this Court and even at this occasion in spite of service no one had turned up from defendants' side hence vide an order dated 11.03.2013 both were proceeded ex-parte.
3. I have heard ex-parte arguments of claimant.
4. It is needless to observe that Rule 14 (5) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Rules, 2009 authorizes this Court to decide a claim ex-parte if defendant fails to appear on the day of hearing.
5. Contents of claim which have been referred earlier are supported by an affidavit and there is no rebuttal to these contents from defendants' side. Similarly, copies of legal notices sent to defendants are also part of judicial file and postal receipts are showing their dispatch on 02.02.2013. A certificate for deduction of tax issued by defendants is too on record which confirms that SIM in question is registered in the name of claimant.
6. To establish that claimant's father had died on 09.01.2013, copy of death certificate issued by Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi is supporting his claim. Copy of ticket number 5019 further strengths the story of claimant that on 30.01.2013 he went to defendants' office at Rawalpindi for lodging his grievance.
7. Conduct of defendants is also relevant that what to say about reply to legal notices sent by claimant, they did not bother to make compliance of orders of this Court for their appearance on issuance of processes two times and despite service.
8. Claimant hired the services of defendants against consideration and payment of charges time to time. In these circumstances, relationship of "Consumer and Services Provider" between parties is established.
9. In view of above, there is no hurdle before this Court to hold that defendants were liable for defective services due to which reason claimant definitely suffered agony and inconvenience because on that crucial day his father had died and he could not use the services which was immediately need at that particular time.
10. Whatever has been discussed above, in the light of that this claim is accepted ex-parte against defendant No. 2 who is Head Office whereas, defendant No.1 is only a Franchise. Coming to question of relief, I find it a fit case for compensation, keeping in view facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier. However for this there must be a balance and compensation should be reasonable. Direction for not blocking services cannot be issued because these service are subject to payment of charges time to time and similarly I do not find any reason to invoke section 32 which provides penalties by sending a person behind the bars.
11. Therefore, in terms of Section 31 of the Act, this Court issues an order to defendant No. 2 and direct it to pay an amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/- (one lac) to claimant as compensation because of defective and faulty services. Compensation shall be paid within a period of one month from today.
12. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to defendant No. 2 through post by Registrar of this Court.