1. Briefly, the claimant Dr Ijaz Barkat purchased Atlantis Pure Water packed Dispenser worth Rs.
8500/- from the defendants on 25.11.08, and the said purchase price stands paid. After receiving the price, the defendant's delivered a packed Dispenser to the claimant on 25.11.2008, with the agreement form and purchased receipt. However, when the packed Dispenser was opened in the Punjab Medical Center of the claimant, so as to operate it, the claimant was astonished to observe rust on its various sides making its look as "previously used" and "out of order". The claimant requested the defendants to replace the defective product with the new one but they refused hence, the claimant served legal notices on them on 02.02.2009 and 09.03.2009, but in vain, hence, he has lodged this claim as a final resort for replacement of old, rough, used, non functioning and useless product with better quality Dispenser alongwith further prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs. 59500/- as compensation under section 25 of PCPA 2005.
2. The defendants vehemently opposed the above said claim by filing their statement of defence, interalia, on the grounds that claim is time barred, that the claimant is defaulter of the defendants of Rs. 3615/- hence, he is with unclean hands and that the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of this court.
3. Heard the argument. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, Dr Ijaz Barkat purchased the Atlantis Pure Water Dispenser from the defendants for consideration Rs. 8500/-. Dr Ijaz Barkat has produced the sale receipt No. 4666 dated 25.11.2008, issued under the signature of the authorized dealer of Atlantis Water Faisalabad. The claimant has also placed before me the original Dispenser agreement form with the signature of Manager Sales under it but the customer's signature space is blank for which the claimant has put forth his explanation that as the Dispenser was found to be defective on opening it that, therefore, he refused to sign the said agreement. The claimant has also produced the Dispenser in court on his own so as to make observation by this court. The Registrar of this court was directed to examine the Dispenser to report about its general out-look. The Registrar of this court has submitted the report accordingly showing that the product is rusty on having a glance on it. It is very astonishing to note that the product has been purchased recently about six months ago but has become rusty with out its use.
5. The relationship of consumer and the manufacturer exists in between the parties as shown from the pleadings of the parties. As there is no warranty/guarantee of the product therefore the period of limitation may be extended for one year from the date of purchase hence, the claim is deemed to be within limitation under the second provise of section 28(4) of PCPA 2005.
6. While defining "defect" in the Act, the clearing intent of the legislature was to give the widest amplitude to it pertaining to goods for the purpose of this statute. This definition does not seem to confine the word defective within any narrow or technical limitations as it is deliberately coached in the widest horizon of there being any fault, imperfection or short coming casting its net so wide so to bring within its import any deviation from the requirement spelt out in the definition related to the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of goods, hence, such definition is to be cast in the widest terms and has to be liberally construed. With this context, it is made clear that as the consumers in these days have suffered due to callous attitude of the manufacturer in public sector agencies for rampant faulty products, therefore, they have also been made answerable to the Consumer Court after coming into force the consumer protection Act 2005, despite that they may have their own elaborate redressal system incorporated into their working.
7. From the recitals in the pleadings of the parties as well as facts readily available and ascertainable without recording of evidence, it is clear to my entire satisfaction that the defendants are responsible for providing the consumer/claimant faulty and defective Atlantis Pure Water Dispenser. Therefore, I have no hesitation to accept the claim. The claim is hereby accepted.
The defendants are therefore, directed to replace the defective product with new product of same description with shall be free from any defect and they shall also pay an amount of Rs. 10000/- to the claimant as law fee and expenses incurred in legal proceedings. This order shall be complied within a period of 30 days otherwise the matter shall be dealt under section 32 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.