1. Earlier this case was decided as ex-parte in favour of claimant vide a judgment dated 30.11.2013.
However, on an application submitted by defendant said ex-parte judgment was set-aside vide an order dated 20.12.2012.
2. 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 this Court for preliminary hearing it was found that defendant No. 2 was not a 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.
3. 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.
3. 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. Written statement was submitted by defendant where preliminary objections about maintainability of claim, cause of action, suppression of facts, estoppel, false claim, locus standi and jurisdiction were taken. On facts contents of claim were denied to some extent.
5. In fact today case was fixed for claimant's evidence but learned counsel for defendant contends that it will be a futile exercise to proceed further in this claim on the reason that claim is hit by principles of estoppel. He further argues that claimant had disassociated from and withdrawn the services of defendant before any final action had to be taken hence there was and is no question of defective or faulty services.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimant maintains that no doubt that claimant had discontinued services of rival side but it was on the desire of defendant and none else who misguided his client hence no question of estoppel arises and claim will remain on the basis of defective and faulty services.
7. Arguments heard.
8. Admittedly shipment was got booked at USA by Mr. Dreven which was in the name of Mr. Muhammad Younas Qureshi/claimant. This proposition is not under dispute that every shipment received from or sent to abroad is subject clearance by custom authorities which is an independent agency established under the law. In this case it is also not denied by claimant that he received a letter dated 12.03.2013 from defendant where he was informed that shipment had arrived at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore. Through same letter claimant was asked to give his option for clearance of shipment from custom authority either himself or through agent of defendant. In response to said letter claimant had handed over relevant documents to defendant for clearance of parcel.
9. Here starts the turning point which claimant did not disclose. Claimant himself wrote a letter to Deputy Collector Custom on 05.07.2012, which was as under: - To, The Deputy Collector Custom AFU, Lahore.
Subject: Cancellation of Good declaration (GD) Air bill No. 798114425193 Dear Sir, It is respectfully submitted that GD file in connection with A/C subject is lying in your good office.
The same is requested to be cancelled as I desire to settle the case through my own efforts please.
Thanking You.
(Muhammad Younas Qureshi)
House No. 113-A (31/2) Lane Dated: 5th July 2012 No. 7 Harley Street, Rawalpindi.
10. What happened that subsequent to above letter one Ashraf & Company, Custom Clearing, and Forwarding & Shipping Services who was engaged by defendant also made a request for cancellation of goods delivery vide letter reference dated 24.05.2012. This request was regretted by custom authority with certain observations.
11. Now question before this Court is that whether claimant had written a letter to custom authority as mentioned earlier and for this answer is in affirmative. Reason being that this letter was placed on file by claimant himself and that during course of arguments learned counsel for claimant had admitted its genuineness. However, he had taken an exception that this letter was written on the asking of defendant who in fact had cheated claimant. With the assistance of learned counsel for claimant when contents of claim were examined, even by way of imaginations no such plea was found or born out at all. Therefore, at this stage to raise this defense about letter to custom authority is an after thought story which is not supported form any corner.
12. Once claimant through letter in question had decided to settle the issue through his own efforts and asked for cancellation of goods delivery, he was estopped by his words. The result, therefore, was that services which defendant had to provide were discontinued and when it was so then there remained no responsibility of defendant for further actions. Defendant was bound to ensure delivery of shipment subject to its clearance by custom authority. If said agency did not clear consignment, it was not a part of services for defendant being services provider. As it was legal compulsion which had disabled the defendant to deliver parcel in question to claimant so no question arises for faulty or defective services. Had this responsibility of clearance of shipment from custom authority remained at the shoulder of defendant and for that he could not perform what he had to do then question of imperfect services could be raised by claimant.
13. In view of above to record evidence in this case will amount to abuse of process of law and wastage of time of this Court. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. No order as to costs. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion.