1. PETITION UNDER PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2005 Briefly stated contention of the claimant vide his instant petition is that he got booked his Printer (T-30 EPSON) worth Rs.25000/- with respondent for Lahore from "Faisal Mover Cargo, Liaquat Pur" vide Builti No.1817.
2. That printer could not reach its destination. He visited the concerned office on 13,14, and 15/2/2013 but all the times he was not delivered his printer. Meanwhile he remained in contact with respondent telephonically at their mobile No.0315 8222639 and remained in contact with respondent?s staff members Madam and Asim etc. On 15.02.2013 at about 22:37:24 hrs he contacted Asif Ishaque Bhatti Manager Cargo Service at is cell Nos.0300-2237737 and 0321- 9470950. Asif Ishaque Bhatti assured that he will get traced the printer. SMS sent by Asif Ishaque Bhatti is saved with claimant is phone.
3. On 18.02.2013 said Manager again assured that his matter will be resolved very soon and a meeting is being held in this regard.
4. On 21.02.2013 he contacted the said Manager where he again assured that his matter will be resolved just within a day and then he asked to contact Noman Khawaja. When he contacted Khawaja Sahib, he gave him a number and assured that Printer will be delivered to him till next day.
5. Khawaja Sahib demanded a scanned copy which was provided at I.D of Khawaja Noman (nouman 764@hotmail) email-ID) (said SMS is also saved with claimant).
6. On 22.02.2013 when he visited the office of respondent at 3:00 P.M. He was told that he has not got booked any Printer from their office at Liaquat Pur and said office was at lease, so company was not responsible for their acts. Noman Khawaja and Asif Ishaque responded coldly. When they were asked to get arrange a meeting of claimant with owner of the Company or any Executive of the Company, they told that for what they were sitting?
7. In this way, respondent has committed criminal breach of trust and has provided Faulty Service and has caused severe mental torture and financial loss to the claimant.
8. Due legal notice was served on 25.02.2015 and 14.02.2013 through Leopard Courier Service which were never replied, hence the petition for recovery of Printer or it price which claimant has to incurred upon his visits from Liaquat Pur to Lahore and in different officers and as cost of litigation.
9. Respondent No.1 & 2 were duly served but they refused the service, so they were preceded against ex-parte.
10. Respondent No.3 contested the petition on legal and factual grounds submitting that respondent No.3 was ignorant of booking of the Printer by the claimant with Liaquat Pur Cargo because same was got booked prior to his joining service with Faisal Movers and it was made clear that neither claimant has ever contacted him nor has ever complained him regarding loss of his Printer.
11. It was maintained that petition so moved by the claimant is just to blackmail the respondent and to extort money and to damage the good repute of the firm.
12. It was maintained that he has mentioned number of Printer (T-60 EPSON) at some occasions and (T-30 EPSON) on some other occasions and infact actual price of the Printer (T-30 EPSON) is Rs.18,500/- which was wrongly mentioned to be Rs.25,000/-.
13. It was maintained that claimant was not a student rather he was a Journalist and was in the habit of blackmailing the people.
14. Service of any legal notice was denied and lastly prayer was made for dismissal of petition.
15. Claimant submitted his affidavit as his evidence alongwith booking receipt, purchase receipt, courier receipt, university certificate and shipment tracking receipt in shape of Exb.P1 to P4 and mark "A" respectively.
16. Respondent on the other hand has submitted affidavit or from Arsalan Rafique. At an application of claimant for summoning of "Call History", was accepted on ex-parte bases vide order of this Court dated 27.04.2015 but respondent were proceeded against ex-parte vide said order and the matter was fixed for 06.05.2015 for submission of "Call History" and for arguments with clarification that in case of non providing of Call History, adverse inference will be drawn. On 06.05.2015 parties were informed that tour programme of Rahim Yar Khan has been restored by the Court, so matter will be heard on 13.05.2015 at Rahim Yar Khan.
17. Today, file has been kept waiting till 2:00 P.M. But none turned up on behalf of the parties. The matter pertains to the year 2013 and a direction for disposal of oldest cases has been issued by Hon?Able Chief Justice Lahore High Court, Lahore, so keeping in view the above said direction and keeping in view of the order dated 27.04.2015 I opt to decide the matter on merit after going through the material available on record.
18. Careful perusal of documentary evidence so brought on record is sufficient to reveal that a Printer was duly got booked on 12.02.2013 from the office of Faisal Movers Cargo, Liaquat Pur and purchase receipt dated 19.10.2012 is also available on record. Courier receipt is also been placed on record and Exb.P5 is a certificate showing that claimant was a student and his "date sheet" for final examination has also been annexed with record. Shipment tracking record has also been placed on record dated 27.02.2013 as mark A?. There is absolutely no rebuttal on the part of respondent in this regard and the version so adopted Mr. Arsalan Rafique is quite immaterial to rebut the strong contention of claimant because if respondent Arsalan Rafique was not serving at the time of booking then it does not mean that Printer was not got booked with Faisal Movers Cargo, Liaquat Pur for Lahore by the claimant and assertion of Arsalan Rafique can?t negate the booking receipt and tracking record.
19. In the circumstances it goes without saying that respondent has provided Faulty Service, so they are liable to pay the costs.
20. As per receipt Exb.P2 price of Printer (T-60 EPSON) is Rs.18,500/- so the same is assessed as value of the lost article for the purpose of compensation and a further a sum of Rs.25,000/- is also assessed as compensation for mental torture which claimant has suffered due to "Faulty Service" of respondent and as cost of litigation. File be consigned.