Brief facts of the case titled above are that complainant purchased electric articles i.e. Philips Tube lights, Philips bulb and Sogo starter from the defendant on 01.4.2009 but the defendant charged excessive instead of the actual rates. He also mentioned in the complainant that price list was not displayed at the shop and that due to excessive rates complainant suffered mental torture and also financial loss. He prays for claim of Rs. 50,000/- from the defendant.
2 Defendant submitted written statement denying averments of the complaint. He also raised as many as 6 preliminary objections contending that the case is based on mala fide intention and has been concocted against the defendant due to previous grudge of complainant's counsel.
1. Complainant produced evidence in support of his claim as under: PW1 Muhammad Waqas Anwer (Complainant) appeared on 27.6.2009 and made statement on oath that he purchased two Philips Tube rod of 40 watt each for a consideration of Rs. 190/e and two Philips bulbs of 60 watt each for a consideration of Rs. 50/- and two Sogo starter for a consideration of Rs. 30/- making payment at the spot. He added that he subsequently obtained quotations from three other shops and found that rate of Philips tube mentioned in the quotations was Rs. 70 to 75 and the rate of Philips bulb was only Rs. 17/- and rate of Sogo starter was only Rs. 5/- . He states further that he served legal notice to the defendant through postal service on 04.4.2009 . He maintained that he suffered mental and physical agony therefore he obtained medical treatment from Dr. Jamil Uddin and then from Dr. Naeem Ul Islam besides educational damage. Complainant tendered in evidence postal receipt EXP2, registered envelop EXP3, quotations EXP4, EXP5, EXP6 besides medical bills EXP7, EXP8, EXP9, EXP10, EXP11,EXP12. Complainant's counsel Sheikh Muhammad Arshad Advocate closed evidence of the complainant vide statement dated 27.6.2009.
2. Defendant produced evidence as under: DW1 Muhammad Saleem Akhtar (defendant) appeared on 04.7.2009 and made statement on oath contending that he was running Usman Electric Store for a period about 35 years. He states that complainant never visited his shop and nor he purchased any article from his shop. He added that complainant's counsel was inimical towards him who concocted this frivolous complaint in order to pressurize him. DW2 Muhammad Raffi stated on oath that defendant Saleem Akhtar was known to him since long. He frequently visits the shop of the defendant and often purchases articles from the defendant's shop and that the defendant never charges excessive rates. Syed Sajjad Haider Naqvi Advocate learned counsel for the defendant tendered Mark A, Mark B and Mark C and closed evidence of the defendant vide his statement dated 04.7.2009.
3. Arguments so addressed by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered, record has been perused.
4. It was argued by learned counsel for the complainant is that complainant has successfully proved his case for grant of compensation and that defendant be directed to pay compensation prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant argued that complaint is not maintainable, same has been filed with mala fide intention.
5. Arguments so addressed have been considered, record has been perused.
6. Precise contention of the complainant is that complainant purchased electricity items i.e. Philips Tube rod, Philips bulb and Sogo starter from the defendant shop on 01.4.2009 but the defendant charged excessive rates from him as such the complainant sustained mental torture as well as financial loss and that the price list was not displayed at the shop.
7. It is significant to mention here that under Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 a relief can be claimed by a consumer feeling aggrieved of a defective product, faulty service or in case the manufacturer or the provider of service commit violation of any provision of this Act. Admittedly in this case the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the product. At the most he has virtually claimed that the defendant has violated the provisions of Section 18 by saying that the defendant did not display the price list at his shop. The assertion so made in the complaint was obviously to be proved through evidence, but the complainant did not utter a single word regarding the alleged violation when he appeared in the witness box and made statement on oath as PW1 on 27.6.2009. No other evidence in support of this claim has been produced by the complainant. Thus complainant has failed to discharge the onus.
8. Moreover the complainant although deposed that he sustained mental and physical torture and remained under treatment of Dr. Jamil Uddin and then Dr. Naeem Ul Islam but nothing is available in evidence to show that the alleged mental torture was due to alleged violation.
9. In the light of above discussion I hold that the complaint is devoid of force. Same stands dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.
Announced: