1. By way of this order objections about maintainability of claim and jurisdiction of this Court are being decided.
2. Version of claimant is that he was desirous of purchasing a plot in Bahria Town for which he approached defendant, who had shown him/claimant a plot No. 50, street No. 3 in Bahria Town, Rawalpindi and posed himself to be an attorney of original owner; after negotiation an amount of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- (one crore and fifty one lac) was settled as sale consideration which was ultimately paid; besides sale amount defendant also received as commission RS. 6,00,000/- (six lac); in October 2012 claimant came to know through original owner named Malik Zubair Ahmad that defendant had paid him only Rs. 101,00,000/- (one crore and one lac) hence he played fraud with claimant which was because of defective and faulty services; due to this claimant had suffered inconvenience, mental torture, damages to health and wastage of time etc; on 04.02.2013 legal notice was served to defendant but of no avail. Prayed has been made for issuance of direction to defendant to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lac) to claimant which he received by way of fraud and also to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one crore) on account of damages besides Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) as fee for counsel.
3. Defendant filed his written statement where he had taken objections of maintainability of claim, locus-standi and jurisdiction of this Court etc. On fact his version was that he had received amount of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- from claimant after transferring the plot in his/claimant's name. He further stated that he/defendant did not work as a dealer but got transferred the plot as an attorney of actual owner.
4. Learned counsel for defendant contends that defendant was not a services provider who as an attorney on behalf of original owner got transferred plot in the name of claimant after receiving sale price, hence there exists no relation between parties as of 'Consumer' and 'Services Provider'; although defendant was acting as an attorney which was not in black and white but said authority in his favour has not been challenged till today by original owner. His ultimate contention is that claim is not maintainable and in view of non existence of relationship of Consumer and Services Provider this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimant maintains that defendant was a property dealer and in the same capacity he had shown plot in question to claimant which means that he had provided the services; when it is so then it is a case of not only defective or faulty services but also of unfair practices on the part of defendant; controversy can be decided after recording of evidence of both sides. He is finally of the view that claim is maintainable and this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
6. Arguments heard.
7. Admitted facts are that plot was purchased by claimant for Rs. 1,51,00,000/- and this transaction became final on 03.08.2011 when property was transferred in the name of claimant. During course of arguments learned counsel for claimant has also produced before me an affidavit on plane paper by Malik Zubair earlier owner of plot where he had stated that he made settlement with defendant for Rs. 101,00,000/- and only this amount was paid to him and that he never executed any power of attorney oral or in black and white in favour of defendant. Mr. Malik on the strength of this document maintains that fraud has been played.
8. I am unable to understand that how defendant can be stated as a 'Services Provider' because on judicial file there is a copy of agreement of sale between claimant and defendant as attorney of original owner where all terms and conditions are written and this agreement was signed by both sides. No doubt, that there was no express power of attorney in favour of defendant by owner but fact remains that agreement to sale is still in existence and admitted by both sides. Malik Zubair Ahmad till today has not challenged this agreement of sale even to the extent posing by defendant as attorney of him/Malik Zubair. Even he did not come forward in his independent capacity to claim that defendant was a 'Services Provider' and not a dealer.
9. Learned counsel for claimant admits that at the time of transfer of property in the name of his client, Malik Zubair was also present before concerned authority of Bahria Town. I cannot believe that at that point of time parties did not discuss about transaction in particular with regard to sale consideration which was a huge amount. It is also not believable that since October-2012 claimant and Malik Zubair had no contact with each other.
10. This fact is also not under dispute that before filing the claim defendant had instituted a suit for damages and permanent injunction against claimant and others where it was alleged that after passing long time claimant started harassing and blackmailing to defendant for achieving their nefarious designs and to extort money. Said suit is still pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction. It appears that as a counter blast claim in hand has been filed before this Court after about more than four months of institution of civil suit. After civil suit and before coming to this Court claimant also got registered FIR No. 39, dated 13.01.2013 under sections 420/506 PPC at Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi against defendant on same allegations.
11. What I find is that after a considerable time claimant and earlier owner Malik Zubair had joined hands with each other just to extort money from defendant because circumstances and documents are establishing the fact that defendant acted as an attorney and not as a dealer.
12. In view of above, I finally conclude and declare that defendant never acted as a 'Services Provider so there arises no question of existence of relationship between parties as of 'Consumer and Services Provider'. When it is so, than claim is not maintainable and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Therefore, claim is hereby returned to claimant with the observations that he may approach the Court of competent jurisdiction if so advised. No order as to the costs. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion.
13. It is clarified that observations made in this order to the extent of playing or non-playing of fraud by defendant are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice case of either of the parties if pending in any other Court.