1. Briefly, Claimant Mr. Shahid Sultan purchased a Nokia Mobile No.1650 "Hungry Made" from the defendant's shop No.P-952 Katchary Bazar, Faisalabad for consideration Rs. 4,300/- on 11.11.2008.
However the said Mobile was found to be defective as its battery timing was not up to the mark. On checking of the Mobile by the expert, it was disclosed to the clamant that it was China made Mobile. On 03.12.2008, the claimant along with Bilal Ahmad and Tanveer Ahmad went to the defendant's shop and requested the defendants to replace the Mobile with Hungary made product. But the defendants refused to replace the Mobile rather gave abuses to him. In such circumstance the claimant has lodged this application for recovery of an amount of Rs 24300/- as actual price of the Mobile, Rs. 4,300/- counsel fee Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 10,000/-
2. The defendants were properly served on summons for 19.12.2008 but non appeared for them on said date. Therefore they were proceeded ex-parte. On the same date, the claimant produced exparte evidence wherein he got recorded his statement as P.W.1 through his affidavit Ex.P.W-1/1 and Muhammad Tanveer Riaz was Produced as P.W-2 through his affidavit as P.W-2/1.
3. On 20.01.2009, the defendants submitted an application for setting-aside ex-parte proceeding against them, when the case was fixed for final arguments, on the ground that they appeared in the court on 19.12.2008 in late hours, took the next date from the court and went away that therefore their non appearance on the said date was inadvertent. The claimant has opposed the said application by filing his written reply. From the contents of this application it is crystal clear that the defendants were well aware about the date 19.12.2008 fixed for their appearance in the court. No sufficient cause has been disclosed in the application for setting side ex-parte proceedings against the defendant as their non appearance on the said crucial date was advertant. The said application is hereby dismissed. From the evidence as produced by the claimant, it appears to my satisfaction that the defendants have provided defective product to the claimant. As there is no evidence in rebuttal, therefore the claimant is held entitled for the recovery of Rs. 43,00/- as price of the Mobile on return of the defective mobile to the defendants and Rs. 5000/- as fee of the Counsel plus Rs. 5000/-as legal expenses total amount Rs. 9300/-. The defendants shall pay above said amount to the claimant within a period of 30 days otherwise they 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 completion.