P L D 2020 Lahore 757 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Lahore, whereby damages amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- were granted in lieu of claim of the complainant/respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case, as delineated in the complaint, are that the respondent dispatched some documents to the Immigration Tribunal of UK where an appeal for Asylum was pending disposal, through TCS on payment of charges claimed by the appellants and receipt was also issued by the appellants. The said documents were not transmitted to destination on the pretext of shortage of payment of Rs.1156/-; as a result whereof immigration appeal was rejected; hence the complainant/ respondent suffered enormous loss as well as intense mental torture. The complainant filed the complaint and thereby claimed an amount of Rs.5,30,830/-.

3. The appellants resisted the said claim of the complainant by filing written statement on legal as well as factual grounds. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned Consumer Court awarded an amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages; hence this appeal.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the claim before the Consumer Court was not maintainable without issuing notice under subsection (3) of Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and this aspect of the case has not been adverted to by the learned Consumer Court while granting the impugned claim/ decree.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined record of the case with their able assistance.

6. Admittedly, the appellants received/booked the shipment after receiving the requisite charges and issued the receipt in this regard, left no justification to retain and not transmitting shipment to destination for any reason let alone deficiency of charges. It was enjoined upon the appellants to deliver the documents to the consignee which were necessary for decision of the appeal then pending adjudication before the Immigration Appellate Forum, within the stipulated time, which on account of sheer mismanagement and negligence of the appellants could not reach its destination and for that blatant negligence on the part of the appellants, the consignee of the shipment suffered tangible and irreparable loss in the shape of dismissal of his appeal. I am afraid that the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that damages petition before the Consumer Court, without issuing/sending notice as envisaged under subsection (3) of Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 was neither maintainable nor entertainable, is also not tenable. A petition before the Consumer Court cannot be dismissed as incompetent solely for the non-compliance of procedural formalities, in that, it lost its legal significance and cast to the wind when the matter before the Consumer Court has been dealt with after receiving the written reply and recording evidence of the parties. Significance of the notice is only, to my mind, to provide opportunity to manufacture or service provider to settle the dispute outside the Court which can even be availed on first appearance in Court, whereas in this case the appellants have hotly contested the matter in Court. Since the parties have been heard at length and no prejudice has been occasioned to the appellants for non-compliance of the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, this contention carries no force. Resultantly, the instant appeal having no merits stands dismissed. No order as to costs. SA/G-8/L Appeal dismissed.