1. According to the precise facts embody in the complaint, on 13- 09-2008 complainant purchased 1.Kg Butter packed in two separate bags, in consideration of Rs.180/-. In token of sale of this butter, respondent issued a receipt to the complainant. On 13-09-2008 complainant invited, to his some close friends for fast (Aftari). He utilized the said butter and used in his cooking food. During this process complainant learnt that the said purchased butter is suffering adulteration and find out it that its use is against health. He complained to the respondent for the defective butter but he did not accede his request. He issued legal notice hence this complaint. He is entitled to Rs.500,000/- for mental torture alongwith price of the butter.
2. Respondent contested this complaint through filing his written reply. He admitted in his reply that he sells butter, cream, he observed all the hygienic principles while selling his articles. It is further averred in the reply that he never sold butter to the complainant nor issued receipt to him.
3. Complaint is false and has been filed just at the instance of his rival, for to give him mental torture.
4. After filing of the written reply complainant submitted one application for to deposit the purchase butter in the record of this office. On the application of the complainant sample of the butter was dispatched to the Laboratory "Government Public Analyst, 24-Cooper Road, Lahore" for determination regarding the standard of said butter. On the other hand, respondent by his own transmitted his butter in the office of the Government Public Analyst, 24-Cooper Road, Lahore for determination of Milk fat and Water present into the said butter. Both the reports conflict with each other, which are on the file. Report in favour of the complainant is Ex-P4, whereas report in favour of the respondent is Ex-RW1/4.
5. Arguments heard.
6. Record perused.
7. The pivotal question existed in between the parties that if the said alleged butter was purchased by the complainant from the respondent, or it was find sub-standard as mentioned in the report Ex-P4 relied by the complainant or the said butter was pure as per report relied by the complainant, which is ExRw1/4. The second question before the court is that if the said alleged butter was purchased by the complainant from the shop of the respondent or not. To answer these questions I am fully aware that FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2005 are quasi-judicial tribunal or authorities brought into the existence to render in expensive and speedy justice to consumer with some of the power of a civil court. A rational approach is to be made in interpreting provision of the act in the back ground of the scheme and the object of the act avoiding scrupulously all technicalities in the process of interpretation. It is fact that complainant himself alone turned up into the witness box as AW1. He retirated all the facts mentioned in the complaint and accused to the respondent that he sold sub-standard butter. In order to discharge the onus probandy, he submitted one application before the court for to deposit the used defective butter into the court and to refer the sample to the concerned Laboratory for its analysis. According to the Ex-P4, the said Laboratory in its report, mentioned as under:- "I am of the opinion that the same is a sample of ( ) which does not confirm to the standard of butter prescribed by the rules made under the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960.This sample is Milk fat below then the minimum required limit 80."
8. This is one version of the complainant on the other hand respondent by his own produced the report in his evidence which is EX-RW1/4 in which the result of analysis is that Butyro Refractive Value is 40.5 %, Milk fat 81.2% and Water 12.6%. In the opinion of the Laboratory the said butter confirmed to the standard of the butter prescribed by the West Pakistan Pure Food rules, 1965 framed under the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960. These two Laboratories reports conflict with each other. The first one is in the favour of the complainant and the rest of report leans in favour of the respondent.
9. The report submitted by the complainant is near to the truth as it was secured by the order of this court whereas, the report relied by the respondent was not forwarded by this court.
10. The main question before the court is, if the said butter was sold by the respondent to the complainant and the alleged receipt allegedly issued by the respondent which is Ex-PW1/2 was indeed issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant, at the time of sale of disputed butter.
11. I anxiously heard the arguments gone through the record. The first version of the complainant is that he purchased butter against receipt, which factum is mentioned in Para No.2 of the complaint.
12. Respondent while defending this complaint, submitting in his written reply in which Para No.2 he specifically denied that the alleged butter is not sold by him nor he issued receipt to the complainant which is ExPW1/2. Admittedly complainant claimed Rs.500,000/- as a mental torture alongwith the price of the milk and further he seeks relief for the punishment of the respondent as for to sale the sub-standard butter etc. This court needs a strong and cogent evidence for to grant the said relief in favour of the complainant. According to the written reply of the respondent submitted in the court, respondent from the very first day refused the said disputed butter and similarly he denied the receipt in his Para No.2 of the reply. In these circumstances when it was brought into the notice of the complainant that respondent has refused to sell the butter and issuance of the receipt, in this eventuality complainant must solicit one fresh application before the court, that said disputed receipt relying by the complainant, should be dispatched to the Finger Print Laboratory for the comparison of the signature allegedly marked on the Ex-PW1/2.
13. Complainant did not bother to give the application for the comparison of the signature nor he request to the court for to resolve this core issue through expert opinion. Therefore I judiciously feel that complainant fail to proof the receipt allegedly issued by respondent. In case the receipt is not proved the legal onus probandy is not discharged in accordance with in the frame of the law. In case the receipt allegedly issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant was requested to dispatch to the Finger Prints Burrow, then the report of said authentic Laboratory was definitely helpful to this court for the legal decision of this complaint. Single solitatry statement got recorded by the complainant without its corroboration is not sufficient for to convict the respondent or to allow him to pay Rs.500,000/-. The statement of the complainant is contradictory with the first pleading. Hence, complainant is dismissed. There is no other order as to cost. File be consigned to the record room after its compilation.