1. Ghulzar Hussain S/o Muhammad Ashraf claimed that on 02-01-2008 he purchased one Goldamatic Deep well SA-4 Water pump for a consideration of Rs. 9500/- from the respondent's factory. Within three months of installation the water pump became out of order. The respondent was informed who received the water pump for repair but refused to deliver the same to the complainant. The respondent appeared in the court with the reply that complainant never purchased the water pump from the respondent as he has not annexed any receipt thereof with the complaint. It was pointed out by the respondent that complainant has brought a second hand, out of order, water pump in his factory for its repair. Complainant himself did not purchase the water pump from the respondent's factory and in order to avoid the payment of repair charges has filed this complaint.
2. In order to prove his case complainant himself appeared as PW2 and produced Naeem Iqbal as PW1 in the evidence. On the other hand respondent appeared himself as RW1 in the witness box.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Contention of respondent is that the water pump in question was never purchased by the complainant from his factory because he has not annexed or produced in evidence the sale receipt issued by the respondent. PW1 Naeem Iqbal is the neighborer of the respondent who stated that the said water pump was purchased by the complainant from the respondent in his presence Rs. 5000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 9500/- were paid in cash whereas the remaining amount was adjusted against the price of steel furniture purchased by the respondent from the PW. Complainant appearing as PW2 also supported averments of the complaint and corroborated the statement of the PW1 on this point. Respondent has admitted that water pump in question is the product of his company. In such situation onus to prove to whom the water pump in question was sold is shifted on the shoulder of respondent who had no record of the sale of water pump in question. Cases are decided on the probability of preponderance i.e who led the best evidence. In this case manufacturing of water pump by the respondent is not denied. In the light of the statement of PW1 the respondent should not hesitate to repair the water pump in question, therefore, complaint is allowed to the term that respondent is directed to hand over the water pump in question after its proper repair to the complainant within seven days of passing of this order without claming of any repair charges. However the parties are left to bear their own cost. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.