In the Court of Mahmood Ahmed Shakir Jajja, Presiding Officer/ District & Sessions Judge, District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur
Mohammad Hashim Abdullah Vs Maktaba Islamia.
Case No. 2150/11
The version of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile ENMAC MQ-710 for Rs. 7,000/- being impressed by the advertisement in the newspaper regarding the recitation of Holy Quran with translation and operating of twice sims from Maktaba Islamia, Faisalabad on 15-10-2010 with one year warrantee; that charging of the mobile set became out of order; that he contacted telephonically to the respondent regarding defective mobile and he guided that the set be charged with computer cable; that when mobile set was charged with computer cable, it was seized; that petitioner sent the mobile for repairing to the respondent on 13-11-2010; that mobile was handed over to him after 3 months and 1 week; that when it was switched on, it became off after an SMS; that he has spent Rs. 700/- as delivery charges; that he has served legal notice to the respondent on 17-03-2011 but got no response; that he has claimed a new sealed pack mobile or Rs. 7700/-.
Contrary to it, the version of the respondent is that the petition has been filed after elapse of prescribed period of 30 days, hence, is time barred and is liable to be dismissed; that the petitioner neither served legal notice upon the respondent nor provided any proof in respect of its service; that the respondent is not manufacturer of the mobile ENMAC MQ-710 and therefore, is not responsible for any fault found in it; that the petitioner has filed a malafide and frivolous petition in the court just to harass and blackmail the respondent which merits to be dismissed.
After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, the court has observed that purchase of the Mobile for Rs.7000/- on 15-10-2010 has been admitted by the respondent. The respondent has raised only legal objections and has not contradicted the version of the complainant on facts. The receiving of the defective Mobile by the respondent has also not been denied. The legal objections raised by the respondent bout time barred petition is not supported by the record available on file. Whereas, the petitioner has got cause of action when he was refused by the respondent and become hopeless that the set will be repaired or replaced.
Whereas, other objections also do not effect the merits of the complaint. Whereas, the complainant has placed on record documents Mark-A to Mark-G i.e. 2 photo copy of advertisement made by the respondent in newspaper, copy of the warrantee card Mark-B, copy of receipt / warrantee card Mark-C, copy of legal notice Mark-D, copy of the receipt AD Mark-E, copy of letter by the complainant to the respondent Mark-F and copy of receipt of Mobile after payment of dues Mark-G.
All these documents are un-rebutted by the respondent. So, it is made out, without any shadow of doubt, that the complainant purchased Mobile from the respondent for Rs.7,000/-. He has incurred expenses of Rs.465/- on receipt of the repaired Mobile. The Mobile became out of order within the warrantee period of one year and it has not been working proper even after repair by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is bound to replace the Mobile to the complainant alongwith miscellaneous costs of Rs.700/-.
The complainant is also held entitled to recover the damages of Rs.50,000/– from the respondent as compensation for mental torture and agony faced by him due to the illegal and unwarranted attitude, behaviour and dealing of the respondent. The petition in hand is accordingly allowed in favour of the complainant and against he respondent. Notice be issued to the respondent for execution on 03-01-2012.
Contact With US
Mahmood Law Associates
Advocate High Court
Office Number 9,Mian Mansion, 4 Mozang Raod, Lahore
Mobile. 0321-4314001/ 0333-5769655