1. The claimant Khalid Mehmood Choudhary has lodged this claim under section 25 of PCPA 2005, for providence to him new LMG machine as per warranty besides the compensation/damages due to the defendant's faulty/defective service for the reason that they provided him a defective Roland Cutting Plotter GX-24 machine for consideration Rs.145000/- as the machine became out of order and started bad/rough cutting of the reflector tap, soon after its purchase by the claimant, despite that the machine was under warranty that the defendants refused to provide new LMG (part of the machine) hence, the claimant issued legal notice to the defendant under section 28(1) of PCPA 2005, but in vain.
2. The defendants have vehemently contested the above said claim by filing their written statement, interalia, 0n the ground that the claimant is not the consumer within the definition of section 2(c) of the Act ibid, that the contract was performed at Lahore, the consideration was paid there that, hence, only the court at Lahore has jurisdiction to sit in the judgment upon the matter, that the claimant kept the machine in dusty environment and high temperature against the stipulation of the warranty resulting in revocation of the warranty agreement but, however, the defendants offered the claimant to make the claim of the price of LMG and it would be forwarded to the manufacturer.
3. As this complicated matter, involving mixed questions of law and facts, needed evidence, therefore, the parties were required to adduce their evidence in support of their respective versions.
In this regard, the claimant, Khalid Mehmood Ch. Got recorded his statement as PW-1, through his affidavit EXPW1/1, whereas he has tendered in his documentary evidence Invoice dated 31.07.2008, receipt dated 30.07.2007, EX-P2, receipt dated 27.07.2007 EX-P3, work order No. SA 2005 dated 02.08.2007 EX-P4, copy of legal notice dated 03.07.2008 as Mark "A", receipts TCS as Mark "B" and "C", TCS envelop as Mark "D", legal notice against defendant No.2 as Mark "E", and receipt as Mark "F". In rebuttal, the defendant No. 1 Fareed-ud-Din appeared as DW1, as his own witness through his sworn affidavit EX-DW1/1, Waseem But has also be produced as DW2, through his affidavit EX- DW2/1. In their documentary evidence, the defendants have adduced the venal Tap EX-D1, work orders EX-D2 to D5.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and scanned the documentary evidence on record with utmost caution and care.
5. From the evidence on record as produced by both the sides, it transpired that the claimant purchased Rolland Cutting Plotter GX 24 Machine from the defendant No. 1 against the consideration of Rs. 145000/-, that after payment of all the dues by the claimant, the defendant No.1 issued invoice of the machine with one year "warranty" for all mechanical parts from the date of installation. It is also evident from record that the machine became out of order after its installation, in the claimant's shop as it started bad/rough cutting of the reflector Tap with in the warranty period. The defendants tried to remove the defect through their engineers and once against the machine was shifted to the office of the defendant No. 1 at Lahore on 20.05.2008, but old LMG was fitted in the machine pretending that the company was not issuing new LMG. In cross examination Farid-ul-Din DW1, admitted that the warranty of the machine was unconditional. When subjected to further cross examination, the said Fareed-ud-Din told that when the claimant brought the machine to him on 19.05.2008, on his own request for replacement of the defective parts with the new one, he fitted the old parts in it and did not replace the same as it was headache of the company. From the statements of the parties, it has also been squeezed out that the machine has been fitted in a glass cabin.
6. From the recitals in the pleadings of the parties as well as facts readily available and sustainable, after careful scrutiny of evidence, it is clear to my entire satisfaction that the defendants are responsible in providing to the consumer/claimant faulty and defective machine, the "defects" in the "Act" having widest amplitude pertaining to goods for the purpose of this statute as this definition is coached in the widest horizon of there being any fault, imperfection or short coming casting its net so wide so to bring it with in its import any deviation from the requirements spelt out in the definition related to quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of goods.
Therefore, the definition of "defect" is intended by the legislature to be cast in the widest terms and, consequently, has to be liberally construed. Keeping in view such definition of "defect" in the product provided by the defendant to the claimant, it is crystal clear that the defendants provided the product to the claimant having fault, imperfection and short coming in its working disclosed during the warranty period which was unconditional.
7. The contentions as raised by the defendants in their statement of defence and also pointed out by their learned counsel during his arguments are not sustainable as the claimant is "consumer" because he has purchased and used the product for the purpose of liveli-hood as a "self employed person", therefore, the explanation in section 2 of the "Act" provides canopy to him, as the payment of the machine has partly been made at Faisalabad therefore, cause of action has also arisen at Faisalabad as the defendant No.2 is also running a branch office at Faisalabad, hence, this court has jurisdiction under section 27 of the "Act" and finally, the defendants, may not avoid the responsibility on the ground that the "defect" in the machine accrued due to contributory negligence of the claimant because of dusty environment and high temperature of the atmosphere at his shop. Hence, on the one hand, the warranty was unconditional and, on the other hand, the atmosphere of the shop of the claimant, where the machine was installed has been proved to be congenial, the above said points of contest of the defendants are hereby repelled.
8. The upshot of the whole discussion is that I have reached irrefutable conclusion that the claimant has proved his case therefore, the claim is hereby accepted with the observation that the courts have been slow to allow compensation for nervous shocks unless they are coupled with physical injury to the claimant but in this case there in no medically recognized psychiatric illness or medical disorder hence, no liability for emotional distress or grief. Hence, the defendants are directed to provide new LMG as per warranty besides payment of Rs. 7000/- to the claimant as legal expenses and Rs. 3000/- as expenditure for shifting the machine from Faisalabad to Lahore total Rs. 10000/-. The order shall be complied within the 30 days period otherwise the defendants shall be dealt with under section 32 (2) of the PCPA 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.