1. Mst. Fareeda Yaqoob, Petitioner had filed an application under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 against the Respondent where she had sought a claim/decree of Rs, 22,900/- as per following terms:- Price of Micro Oven: Rs, 8900/- Expenditure of Transportation: Rs, 3000/- Mental Torture: Rs, 5000/- Fee of Advocate: Rs, 5000/- Misc. Expenditure: Rs, 1000/- Briefly version of the petitioner as alleged in her is that she purchased one Micro Oven Mark 131-A of Dawlance Company in sum of Rs, 7,900/- from Amna Electronics owned by Shahzad respondent situated at Amin Bazar, Sargodha. Respondent had issued sale receipt alongwith guarantee Card.
2. Being house lady she had obtained sale receipt in the name of her father namely Muhammad Yaqoob. After one month glass plate of the Oven broken due to technical fault. Petitioner alongwith her father went to the shop of respondent and requested him to change glass plate of Oven in question as per guarantee. Initially the respondent tried to linger on the matter on one pretext or other but ultimately he had received Rs, 1000/- more inspite of that same was not mentioned in guarantee card. The respondent had received back Micro Oven with promise to return the same within two weeks. After two weeks petitioner again went to the shop of respondent to receive the Oven but respondent had asked to the petitioner that her claim had been sent to the company and matter was under process. The petitioner visited to the respondent's shop again and again but response of respondent was lukewarm and disrespectful. Petitioner also sent a legal notice on 16.12.2007 to the respondent which was also not responded to.
3. The respondent was summoned who appeared before this court and filed his written statement in which he specifically alleged that petitioner alongwith her husband namely MuhammadRamazan came to his shop and respondent had received Micro Oven for its repair inspite of that no guarantee was given to the petitioner about the glass plate of Oven, however, after repairing said Muhammad Ramazan (husband of the petitioner) had received the Oven in question subject to receipt. The respondent also produced delivery receipt of Micro Oven alongwith photocopy of Identity Card of said Muhammad Ramazan. At the request of learned Counsels for the parties, in the interest of justice, Muhammad Ramazan was summoned who appeared before the court. His statement was recorded in which he had stated that Mst. FareedaYaqoob, petitioner was his wife and she had obtained ex-parte divorced and contacted second marriage with one YousafSiddiqi.
4. He alongwith petitioner went to the shop of respondent for repairing of Micro Oven. After repairing he had received Micro Oven from the respondent. He had returned the dowry articles to the petitioner. He had verified his signature and thumb on the receipt Mark-A.
5. From the statement of Muhammad Ramazan (ex-husband of the petitioner), it is clear that he had received Micro Oven in question from the respondent. The petitioner has not specifically denied the factum of the delivery of Oven by the respondent to the said Muhammad Ramazan. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent was duty bound to delver the same to the petitioner as the petitioner had purchased Oven in question from the respondent, therefore, petitioner is entitled to receive the price of the Oven alongwith damages as claimed in her petition. I do not agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner because as per petitioner's own case she purchased Micro Oven but being house lady she had obtained sale receipt in the name of her father Muhammad Yaqoob. Observations cannot be ignored that keeping in view custom prevailing in society, the ladies do not prefer to disclose their names but to provide the names of their father/husbands etc. In such like matters. It is also not a matter of controversy that Micro Oven was handed over to the respondent for its repair at that time said Muhammad Ramazan was husband of the petitioner. The respondent had handed over the Micro Oven to the husband of the petitioner subject to receipt Mark-A in good faith. During the course of proceeding it was brought to the notice of this court that petitioner had obtained ex-parte decree for dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15.06.2007.
6. When she visited the shop of respondent the factum of said Oven delivery was came to her knowledge then she filed above petition/claim against the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the said fact had not mentioned in the petition by the petitioner and version of the petitioner was self contradictory as she had concealed the fact of delivery of Oven by the respondent to the Muhammad Ramazan (her ex-husband).
7. Under Section 13 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 " A provider of services shall be liable to a consumer for damages proximately caused by the provision of services that have caused damage". Section 15 further provides that "Where the consumer has not suffered any damages from the provision of service except lack of benfit, the service provider shall not be liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and costs".
8. In the matter in hand petitioner/consumer has not suffered any damages except this fact that respondent had handed over Oven to her husband subsequently petitioner had obtained Khula vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15.06.2007. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any malafide on the part of the respondent about the delivery of Oven to her husband. As petitioner is house lady and possibility can not be ruled out that respondent had handed over the Oven in question to said Muhammad Ramazan in good faith, therefore, the act of the respondent does not come within the domain of faulty and defective services, therefore, the petition/claim is hereby dismissed, however, she may file a suit for recovery of Oven against her ex-husband in ordinary court in accordance with law if so advised. File be consigned after due completion.