1. Dr. Nazar Muhammad Malik, petitioner, purchased a Generator 5 KV from Sheikh Amir, the respondent, for Rs, 52000/- on 26.03.2008.
2. It did not work properly so, Dr. Nazar Muhammad Malik contacted Sheikh Amir a number of times and he every time advised him to change Battery. Dr. Nazar Muhammad Malik changed Battery but the Generator is still in the same condition. He contacted Sheikh Amir for its replacement/change but Sheikh Amir did not bother. So, he has approached this court under The Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. Sheikh Amir was summoned. He contested the claim and clarified that the same is baseless.
3. Evidence of both the parties was recorded. Arguments of counsels of the parties heard.
4. Counsel of the petitioner submitted that Sheikh Amir gave verbal warrantee of one year about proper functioning of Generator and when the same does not work properly, he refused to meet the claim of petitioner. He prayed that Sheikh Amir, respondent, be directed to change the said Generator with the new one or refund its price. He further prayed that compensation be also allowed to petitioner.
5. Counsel of the respondent apposed these arguments and submitted that only 06 month warrantee was given to the petitioner for services, claim of petitioner for change/replacement of Generator is baseless. He is of the view that petitioner has failed to established conditions of warrantee as is laid down in Sales of Goods Ac. He prayed that this claim be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments and have gone through file carefully. Sale and purchase of Generator between the parties is admitted, So, relationship if seller and consumer is established between the parties. Respondent has admitted in his cross examination that whenever petitioner made complaint to him about non functioning of Generator, he sent his mechanic in his house; that Generator did not properly work because petitioner used it at heavy load than the recommended one. But this is not the claim of petitioner. His claim is that manufacturing of Generator is defective because it drains starting Battery in short time and he has to purchase 3 Batteries. This fact is proved by him as well as his witnesses. But respondent has failed to rebut this aspect of the case. Even if there is no express warrantee in writing, the disputed Generator should have worked for reasonable time. Since the Generator did not function for reasonable time so, it was necessary for the respondent to change the same. Therefore, claim of petitioner is accepted.
7. Respondent is directed to change the sold Generator with the new one. If he is not in position to change the same, he is directed to refund Rs, 52000/- to the petitioner and get back the defective Generator. He is further directed to pay Rs, 10000/- to petitioner as compensation.