1. Briefly, the claimant Hamid Ali has lodged this claim under section 25 of PCPA 2005, for recovery of gold ornaments weighed at 3 Tolas 1 Masha or its prevalent market value alongwith compensation on the ground that he purchased the golden ornaments of the above said weight from the defendant on 20.10.1996 but that it was found to be wrong gold about two months before institution of this claim. As the claim was filed within limitation therefore, found maintainable vide report of Registrar dated 27.05.09, the defendant was summoned to face trial, but none appeared for the defendant despite service in person hence, he was proceeded against ex-parte on 04.06.09.
In his ex-parte evidence, the claimant has got recorded his statement as PW-1, through his affidavit EX-PW1/1, and he also tendered the receipt of New Bismillah Jewelers dated 20.10.96, as EX-P1. After recording the claimant's ex-parte evidence on 19.06.09, notice was issued to the defendant, in the interest of justice, as a final resort as if he had to defend the case, might appear in person today in this court otherwise no excuse shall be available to him in this regard. Such notice was delivered at the given address of the defendant through registered cover envelop but the defendant has not dared to defend the suit.
2. Heard the arguments. Record perused.
3. From the recitals in the claim as well as facts readily available and ascertainable on recording the claimant's evidence, it is clear that the defendant is responsible for providing to consumer/claimant faulty and defective gold. The "defective" in the "Act in the PCPA 2005, having widest amplitude pertaining to goods for the purpose of this statue 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 within its import any deviation from the requirements spelled out there in related to quality, quantity, purity of goods. Hence, the definition of "defective" is intended by the legislature to be caste and consequency liberally to be construed, as in this case.
4. In most of the cases, due to shortage of time, the buyers are purchasing many ready made goods without actually assessing the quality and quantity. The cut throught competition between manufacturers and traders has led to the exploitation of the consumers. The claimant/consumer was astonished to note on disclosure very shortly before instituting this case that the golden bangles delivered to him in the year 1996 were prepared from the wrong gold, therefore, he requested the defendant to get back the same and to pay actual prevalent price but he refused.
Hence, there is no existing system of redress nor the regulatory system for individual claims, the claimant has knocked at the doors of their court as a final resort.
5. On perusal of the file it also transpires that the claimant/consumer approached the "Zargars Markazi Association Registered" for resolving his controversy with the defendant and after making query such Association arrived at a conclusion that the defendant has provided substandard gold bangles to the claimant/consumer with malafide.
6. From the above said set of affairs, it is safely concluded that the claimant/consumer has proved this case to the entire satisfaction of this court as the defendant has refused to join proceedings to contest the claim therefore, I have no hesitation to accept the claim. The claim is hereby accepted with the direction to the defendant to return the actual price of gold Rs. 18890/-, Rs. 20000/- as compensation and Rs. 10000/- as litigation expenses, total amount of Rs. 48890/- to the claimant within a period of 30 days, whereas, on such payment the claimant shall return defective bangles to the defendant, otherwise, the matter shall be dealt with under section 32 (2) of PCPA 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.