In the Court of Mehmood Ahmed Shakir Jajja, Presiding Officer/ District & Sessions Judge, District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur.
Zahoor Azam Vs Hussain Shah Ansari.
The version of the complainant is that he purchased a UPS set from the respondentat Rs. 7800/-on 23-03-2010; that price was paid in cash by him at the time of purchase;that the respondent issued a cash memo No.139 with a warranty of one year on the same memo; that UPS went out of order on 14-08-2010; that same fact was brought to the notice of the respondent who sent his electrician namely Mr. Shahid to check and repairthe UPS on 15-08-2010.
who declared it faulty; that on the advice of the respondent he handed over the UPS to Usman Electric Refrigeration Service and paid Rs.500/-as repair charges; that complainant’s father in law joined his family in the month of March who was patient of Hypertension; that his father in law was admitted in Sheikh Zaid Hospitaldue to defect of UPS;
that due to the failure of the UPS, his father in law would have lost his life but the UPS was not repaired in time due to the negligence of the respondent; that he issued a legal notice to the respondent on 28-08-2010 through his counsel; that he has suffered financial loss and damages and claimed Rs. 20,32,500/-as damages plus cost of the present proceeding as Rs.1500/.
Contrary to it,version of the respondent is that complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to move this petition which is liable to be dismissed; that neither the respondent is producer nor a seller; that no legal notice was served to respondent; that actually no loss has caused to the complainant or his legal heirs;
that complainant did neither produced the UPS nor complained its fault; that the Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in tort suits / complaints; that the emergency of old man did not concern to respondent’s business; that the complaint is time barred, hence liable to be dismissed.
From the evidence produced by the complainant, it is proved through evidence or admission by the respondent that he purchased UPS from the respondent for Rs.7800/-.He has also paid Rs.500/-for repair of the same.The father in law of the complainant was admitted in the hospital who was patient of Hypertension and legal notice issued by him remained un replied by the respondent.
It is clear from the receipt Mark-A that UPS was sold to the complainant under one year warranty whereas it became out of order after almost 5 months. The respondent neither paid the repair expenses nor replaced the UPS.Whereas, he was legally bound to repair the UPS or replace the same,if it was not repairable.
So, it is crystal clear that the respondent has provided faulty services to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint in hand is allowed in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.
The respondent is directed to replace the UPS with a new one. The complainant is also held entitled to damages and compensation of Rs.50,000/-including the fee of the counsel which well be recovered from the respondent in accordance with law.