1. Brief facts discerning and deciphering this case are that the claimant Sayyed Taimoor Hassan is the Managing Director of H.A Industries (Pvt) Ltd, 10 km Jaranwala Road Faisalabad, and he has been authorized to enunciate and participate in the proceedings of this case by the Board of Directors through resolution dated 05.10.2009. The claimant's company H.A Industries (Pvt) Ltd, 10 km Jaranwala Road Faisalabad, purchased Generator on 28.01.2008, model No.C275DS(275)KVA from the defendants on lease in lieu of consideration amount of Rs.2450000/- and such purchased price was paid through Orix Leasing Company Faisalabad, where after the claimant started to use Generator from 19.03.2008. On the date when the generator was installed, the claimant made remarks on call report daily that the out look of the Generator was like local made and finishing was very rough. The Generator worked only 300 hours when LCD problem created therein which was reported to the defendants through fax on 27.05.2008. On this report the defendant's technician tried to set a right the Generator on 28.05.2008 and 03.06.2008, but the same could not be repaired to the claimant's satisfaction. On the claimant's protest, the defendants replaced the defective Generator with the new Generator 330 KVA on 22.06.2008, for which claimant paid further amount of Rs.500000/- to the defendants. This new Generator worked for only 361 hours and stopped its working on 18.08.2008. The matter was again reported to the defendants but the Generator could not be brought in working condition despite efforts of the defendant's technician on 10.10.2008 and 18.10.2008. Under such circumstances, the claimant has lodged this claim for recovery of an amount of Rs.12200000/- as price of the Generator, loss of production, mental tension, loss of business, purchase of spare parts and legal expenses u/s 25/28 of PCPA 2005, after delivery of legal notice to the defendants.
2. After submission of wakalatnama by the learned defendant's counsel on 11.06.2009, the defendants submitted the written statement on 09.07.2009 when the case was fixed for preliminary arguments. On 17.06.2009, none appeared for the defendants, hence, they were proceeded against ex-parte. On 03.07.2009, the defendants submitted petition for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 17.06.2009, on the ground that the none appearance of the defendants and their counsel on the said date was inadvertent and under circumstances beyond their reach. In the interest of justice, in order to cut shot the proceedings, such petition was accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- where after the defendants submitted the written statement and the case was fixed for preliminary arguments. Again, none appeared for the defendants on 26.08.2009, despite repeated calls since morning till the fag end hours of the court therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. The claimant concluded his ex-parte evidence on 09.09.2009, when the defendant's counsel submitted an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 26.08.2009, the written reply of which was submitted by the claimant on 18.09.2009, when the case was fixed for arguments on this application for 30.09.2009. On 30.09.2009, none was present for the defendants therefore, the said application for exparte proceedings of the defendants was dismissed for none prosecution. As the claimant's ex-parte evidence already stood recorded on 09.09.2009, therefore, the case was fixed for final arguments for today.
3. Heard the arguments, record perused.
4. In the ex-parte evidence Sayyed Taimoor Hassan the Managing Director of H.A Industries (Pvt)
Ltd, 10 km Jaranwala Road Faisalabad, has got recorded his statement as PW-1, through his affidavit as EX-PW1/1, whereas he has produced Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Mushtaq as PW2 and PW3, respectively, through their affidavits as EX-PW2/1 and EX-PW3/1. In his documentary evidence, the claimant has tendered resolution in fresh EX-P1, postal receipts EX-P2, Mianwali Cargo Services Booking receipt dated 01.03.2008 EX-P3, field services reports EX-P4 to EX-P12, visit call report daily EX-P13 to EX-P15, letter H.A Industries dated 30.03.2009 EX-P16, letter H.A Industries dated 24.01.2009 EX-P17, letter H.A Industries dated 28.10.2008 EX-P18, letter H.A Industries dated 04.06.2008 EX-P19, letter dated 27.05.2008 EX-P20, letter dated 31.12.2008,EX-P21, letter dated 15.01.2009 EX-P22, invoice H.A Industries as Mark "A", copy of Mianwali Cargo Services Booking receipt as Mark "B", Cummins Sales & Services Engine warranty coverage as Mark "C", copy of cheque dated 03.04.2009, as Mark "D", legal notice as Mark "E", legal notice as Mark "F", for repair receipt dated 18.10.2008, as Mark "G".
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the evidence as produced by the claimant in support of his version, the following points have been squeezed out with clarity: a. The claimant purchased the Generator from the defendants in lieu of consideration of Rs.2450000/- which proved to be defective therefore, it was replaced with new Generator of 330KAV on 22.06.2008, when the claimant also paid additional amount of Rs.500000/- to the defendants as his manifest from the statement of claimant PW1 with out any rebuttal; b. The new Generator of 330 KVA also stopped working after 361 hours and the same could not be set aright by the defendant's technicians despite their hectic efforts as is evident from the statement of the claimant corroborated by the PW2 and PW3, in this regard; c. There are several field service reports vide EX-P4 to EX-P12, showing that the Generator had become headache and the defendant's own technician requested many a times for replacement of this Generator. EX-P14 and EX-P15, are the visit/ call reports daily dated 29.10.2008 and 28.05.2008, respectively, showing that the Generator was not in working condition due to the faults mentioned therein. EX-P16 to EXP-22, are the documents showing the correspondence of the parties that the claimant's company was facing production loss of big value due to the faulty product of the defendants.
6. From the above said scenario, in the absence of evidence in rebuttal, it is crystal clear to my entire satisfaction that the product provided by the defendants to the claimant was defective, the "defect' in the "Act' having widest amplitude pertaining to product for the purpose of this statute as this definition is couched in the widest horizon of there being any fault, imperfection or short coming casting its net so wide so to bring it with its import any deviation from the requirements spelled out in the definition related to quality, or standard of product. Hence, the definition of "defect" is intended by the legislature to be cast in the widest terms and consequently has to be liberally construed as in this case.
7. For what has been discussed above, the claim stands accepted. Any how, the claimant/consumer has not produced any cogent evidence about damages allegedly suffered by him from defective product except loss of utility therefore, the manufacturer/defendants can not be held liable to any damages/compensation u/s 10 of PCPA 2005. Accordingly, the defendants shall now return to the claimant the actual price of the defective product of Rs.3000000/- and the actual cost of Rs.50000/- including lawyer's fee incurred by him on the legal proceedings u/s 31(g) ibid total amount of Rs.3050000/-. However, on receiving such decreetal amount, the claimant shall return the defective product to the defendants. Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days. The claim is disposed of accordingly. In case of non compliance of the order the matter shall be dealt with u/s 32(2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.