' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J. --- This first appeal under Section 33 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 is directed against the order dated 26.05.2012 passed by the learned Judge, District Consumer Court, Faisalabad whereby respondent's claim was accepted and the appellant No, 1/Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Services Limited was ordered to pay Rs, 9,06,879/- as price of lost articles and Rs, 50,000/- as compensation/damages and Rs, 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent No, 1.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that respondent No, 1 filed a complaint under Section 25 of the Act ibid before the District Consumer Court, Faisalabad on 20.9.2011 asserting that on 22.8.2011 he travelled in the appellant's bus No, 9805, Seat No, 21 vide ticket No, 90847 from Karachi to Faisalabad and had handed over his luggage to the staff of the appellants at Karachi terminal vide Tag No, 265556; that the next morning i,e, 23.8.2011 he reached Faisalabad but his luggage was missing whereupon he registered a complaint in the office of the appellant No, 2 at Faisalabad who ensured the respondent to deliver his luggage at his residence; that on 25.8.2011 at 8:30 p.m. He again reached the office of appellant No, 2 where he was told that his luggage was not traceable; that consequently he got registered complaint No, 51419; that respondent's missing luggage bag contained valuable articles worth Rs, 9,06,879/- as detailed in the list attached with the complaint.
He also sought for damages to the tune of Rs, 10,00,000/- for mental and physical torture besides expenses of litigation. The complaint was resisted by the appellants before the learned District Consumer Court with the contentions that the respondent completed his journey safely on 23.8.2011 without any complaint of loss of luggage; that the complaint was for the first time lodged on 25.8.2011 after three days of travelling with ma/a fide intention without mentioning the details of the lost luggage: that as per terms and conditions in case of loss of luggage from the luggage compartment the appellant's Company is bound to compensate passengers in terms of weight instead of value of the lost articles.
3. Parties led their pro and contra evidence in support of their respective pleas. Learned Consumer Court after recording parties' evidence passed the impugned order dated 26.5.2012, hence this appeal.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order is against law and facts, based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and material available on the record and liable to set aside.
5. It is resisted by the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 with the contentions that the impugned order passed by the learned Consumer Court is based on salutary appreciation of evidence produced by the parties and does not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence; that there is no jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order therefore the appeal lodged by the appellants merits dismissal.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Record transpires that the respondent No, 1 himself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and also produced in evidence his affidavit (Exh.P.1), legal notice (Exh.P.2), four receipts Exh.P.3 to Exh.P.6, ticket (Exh.P.7), detail of articles (Exh.P.8), complaint slips (Exh.P.9 and Exh.P.10), Ticket of Qatar Airways (Exh.P.11) and two log boarding cards (Exh.P.12 and Exh.P.13).
8. Careful appraisal of the respondent's ocular and documentary account mentioned above makes it crystal clear that there is nothing on the record to substantiate respondent's plea that on completion of the journey he had made any complaint to appellant No, 2 on 23.8.2011. It is evident on the record that complaint to appellant No, 2 was made by the respondent for the first time on 25.8.2011 after three days of travelling. Even the complaint slip (Exh.P.10) does not contain any details of the alleged lost articles. Respondent's own produced document Exh.P.9 reveals that during the journey he had made a complaint on 22.8.2011 to the Hostess showing his dissatisfaction with regard to the quality of the service. It therefore transpires that even at the time of conclusion of the journey the respondent had the facility to make a complaint on 23.8.2011 with regard to the alleged loss of luggaged which he did not opt. There is nothing on the record to substantiate the appellant No, 2 had promised the respondent to search out his lost luggage or to deliver the same at his residence. Besides it is pertinent to mention that ticket (Ex.P.7) issued by the Company in the name of the respondent contained 13 terms and conditions, wherefrom relevant conditions Nos. 3 and 7 are reproduced which read below:--- "3. Luggage upto 30 kgs is allowed on one ticket. Extra luggage shall be charged.
7. Company is not responsible for any loss/damage to the hand luggage. If the luggage is lost from luggage compartment it will be compensated in terms of weight instead of value as per company policy."
' The above-quoted term and condition No,. 3 categorically-transpires that the luggage upto 30 kgs was allowed on one ticket and extra luggage shall be charged. There is nothing on the record to show that respondent's luggage was more than 30 kgs or he had paid any extra charges. The above quoted condition No, 7 also makes it crystal clear that the appellant Company was not responsible for any loss/damage to the hand-luggage and if the luggage was lost from the luggage compartment it, will be compensated in terms of weight instead of value as per Company's policy.
9. Careful reading of the impugned order dated 26.05.2012 transpires that to resolve the controversy the appellants had offered and shown willingness to pay compensation to the respondent for the loss of luggage upto 30 kgs which was not acceded to by the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellants even today has reiterated the said offer but the respondent in attendance did not accept the same.
10. Crux of the above discussion is that the respondent has not been able to bring any reliable ocular or documentary account to substantiate his claim. Learned District Consumer Court therefore erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order which based on surmises and conjectures in sheer disregard to the documentary material available on the record. The impugned order dated 26.5.2012 suffers from grave misreading and non-reading of evidence, factual and legal infirmity and being untenable is liable to set aside.
11. For the above reasons, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 26.05.2012 is set aside and the respondent's complaint under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 is dismissed. FAO allowed.