1. PETITION UNDER PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2005 Briefly stated contention of the claimant vide his instant petition is that he sent some documents through OCS for Lahore on 02.06.2014 vide slip No.0103323 according to DOM CN No.79917.
2. Respondent received charges in the tune of Rs.480/- and claimant was assured that parcel will be delivered at the given address on 04.06.2014.
3. Claimant has told to the respondent that there was some sweet also packed in the parcel so kindly deliver the same well in time otherwise it may spoil.
4. Above said parcel was not delivered at the stipulated period time and date. Addressee informed the claimant that parcel has not yet been received at which claimant visited the office of respondent so many times but they always misbehaved. Respondent was asked to come on 07.06.2014 and when he contacted the office he was returned the parcel in torn condition from which sweet was missing.
5. Respondent were complained but they misbehaved and pushed him out of their office.
6. Due legal grievance notice was served which was not replied, hence the petition. Respondent contested the petition submitting that Muhammad Asad claimant visited their office asking them that 3 K.g. "dry sweet" was to be sent to Lahore through our service but he was told that courier company did not send the sweet. Claimant insisted that it was "denied" one, so it may be sent at which parcel was got booked with a cost Rs.480/-.
7. On 04.06.2014, claimant telephonically complained that parcel was not received at the given address at which "Lahore Operation Office" was contacted and they told that sweet has melt due to which the remaining articles has also been damaged. Claimant was summoned and informed that the sweet sent by him has spoiled and is not deliverable.
8. Lahore office was asked to send back the parcel and the same was sent which was handed over to the claimant but he refused and misbehaved.
9. It was clarified that claimant has misbehaved with Miss Saira Waheed but now she has died since 22.07.2014.
10. Claimant was asked that it was his on fault because he has got booked "wet sweet" which was not "courier able" and the same was sent at his insistence. He was asked that he if wants to get back the price of 3 K.g. Sweet they are ready to make him payment in the tune of Rs.1200/- with charges of parcel in the tune of Rs.480/- which they had received for courier but claimant was adamant to get "damages" in the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- so in the circumstances petition so moved by the claimant is based upon mala-fides so is not proceedable, merits dismissal. Both parties led their pro and contra affidavits in support of their respective version as their evidence.
11. Arguments of Ch. Irfan Aziz learned counsel on behalf of claimant and that of Wali Raza Manager OCS has been heard, record perused.
12. Contention of Ch. Irfan Aziz learned counsel was that respondent has never denied the booking of the parcel and the receipt so issued by the respondent available on record is sufficient to reveals that sweet was sent in the said parcel. Learned counsel has placed on record the photocopy of the petition which he had sent to D.G. Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore which could not reach its destination.
13. The contention of learned counsel for claimant was he has moved the petition to D.G. Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore, which was sent through courier service to his relative name Muhammad Ammir, resident of FC-1, Flate Wahdat Colony, near Graveyard, Lahore with the request the this petition be delivered in the office of D.G. Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore on next day, which the last date but courier company did not serve the parcel to the addressee rather it was sent back to Rahim Yar Khan with assertion that sweet was decomposed and spoiled the documents so it could not be delivered. It means that courier company has admitted sending of sweet to Lahore. It was maintained that the version so adopted by the respondent that the sweet has been sent to D.G. Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore as a "bribe" was absolutely a mistaken idea rather a foolish idea and respondent were liable to be burdened with heavy cost because they have leveled false and fabricated allegation against the claimant.
14. It was maintained that as per receipt issued by the respondent it is clearly mentioned that sweet had been sent in the parcel then the question that it melted that's why, it was sent back is absolutely mistaken idea.
15. Lastly prayer was made for award of heavy compensation because courier company has caused irreparable loss to the claimant due to their Faulty Service.
16. On the other hand contention of Wali Raza Manager OCS is that claimant Muhammad Asad visited their office at Rahim Yar Khan on 07.06.2014 with assertion that he was to send 3 K.g. Dry sweet to Lahore as "bribe" to "Secretary Health" for his transfer and due to its non delivery, a great loss has been caused to him, now he claims Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.
17. Respondents are ever ready to pay him back the price of 3 K.g. Sweet or even they are ready to return his paid price of his parcel and further submitted that if claimant wants delivery of sweet from Lahore from some "superior sweet shop" they are ready to purchase the same and deliver the same at the address at which courier was addressed, but claimant insists to receive damages in the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- with his paid amount which being so exorbitant, respondents were not in a position to pay the same.
18. It was maintained that at the time of booking it was clarified to the claimant that sweet cannot be sent through courier but claimant stressed that he use to send "dry sweets" in the past and stressed that it was "dried sweet", so infact fault lies on the part of claimant who sent "wet sweet" which melt during journey.
19. Lastly prayer was made that petition has been moved just as a blackmailing tactics, so it may kindly be dismissed with special costs.
20. I have heard the lengthy arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record with valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties and found that factum of sending of sweet through Courier Company of the respondent is an admitted fact. Question arises that when sweet has been booked through courier Company then company was bound to deliver the parcel at the given address and it was not supposed to return the parcel from Lahore to Rahim Yar Khan.
21. Once the respondent has admitted the factum of booking of the parcel then fault lies on their part, in the circumstances it is a proved case of "Faulty Service" on the part of OCS Courier Service, so in the circumstances petition stands accepted and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is hereby assessed as compensation for monitory loss of parcel and as cost of litigation with further direction to the respondent to return the paid price of the parcel in the tune of Rs.480/-. File be consigned.