Faulty service: Petitioner wins over €200,000 suit

Money he intended to send to his son in Spain was sent to someone else

LAHORE: A consumer court on Friday ordered the Western Union Ravi Exchange manager to pay 200,749.86 euros to a petitioner for transferring money he had intended to send to his son in Spain to someone else and failing to complete his other transaction.

He was also told to pay Rs50,000 in damages to the petitioner, Saeed Ahmad.

Ahmed had submitted that the first transaction (of Rs241,694.16) was made on April 30, 2010 and the second transaction (of Rs242,635.72) on May 2, 2010. The money had to be sent to his son Malik Waqas Saeed, who was based in Finland but was visiting Valencia, Spain, for a business deal. On May 12, 2010, his son had visited a branch of the company in Valencia to collect the money. “His request was declined and he was told that the MTCN code he had provided were not traceable to any transaction,” the petitioner said.

The petition said that the company had later contacted Ahmed and returned the amount of the second transaction on July 23, 2010, stating that it was not claimed by anyone. When asked about the first transaction, the company had told the petitioner that it was received by a Nigerian national. When the petitioner told the company about its mistake and requested it to return the amount, his request was declined.

The petitioner had requested the court to direct the company to return the amount of the first transaction with interest payable from the day of the transaction; interest on the second transaction payable from the day of the transaction; Rs20,000,000 for loss of business; Rs60,000 for air travel expenses incurred by his son to make the return trip to Valencia; and Rs33,000 for hotel expenses incurred by his son during his stay in Valencia; and Rs20,000,000 for mental agony caused to him and his son.

During hearings, the counsel for the petitioner had stated that a unique code number was generated for every transaction by the company. He had said that besides those involved in the transaction the code was known only to the employees of the company. He had added that without knowledge of the code number it was not possible for someone else to claim the amount sent by the petitioner to his son. The company’s rules also required its staff to hand over cash only to people who could verify details like sender’s name, country of origin of the transaction, expected amount and a test question (if applicable), he had said.

The counsel had dismissed an objection by the defendant that it did not entertain requests for transfer of money to be used for business purposes. He had said if there was such a provision his client should have been informed about it when he approached the company for the transaction.

The defendant’s counsel had contended that the alleged transaction took place in Valencia, Spain, so the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the plea. He had requested that the plea be declared time barred as the transaction took place on April 30,2010, but a legal notice was sent and a complaint filed after a year in 2011.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge issued a verdict on Friday and directed the money exchange company to pay 200,000 euros (convertible in Pakistani currency according to the exchange rate on the day of the payment) to the complainant and reimburse him for 264.75 euros (spent by his son on hotel stay in Valencia); 485.11 euros (spent by his son on air travel between Helsinki, Finland, to Valencia, Spain); and Rs50,000 in damages.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 29^th, 2015.