1. Vide this order I am going to decide ex-parte order. The complainant filed this claim under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 whereby complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.
2. 1,32,400/- on the basis of defectiveness of the Battery, loss of the dignity and cost for legal services.
3. 2 The main agony is narrated by Ch. Muhammad Ali in his Affidavit Ex-P/1 according to him on 15- 3-10 he purchased a AGS car Battery bearing serial NO. 3838066 under code number 01.03.OC for his Car No. LEB-08-8542 for a consideration of Rs. 2400/- from the shop of respondent No. 1 with one year warranty. That soon after its fitting, the Battery started creating trouble on which the petitioner contacted Muhammad Shafique on 17-3-10 whereupon Muhammad Shafique thoroughly checked the Battery and declared that there was a manufacturing fault in the said Battery. The complainant/petitioner made demand for replacement of the Battery. The respondent intentionally made lame excuses on one or the other pretext upon which legal notice was issued to both the respondents whereupon both the respondents again made promise for making compensation and redressing the grievance but lateron they resile from their promise. Hence cause of action arose to the petitioner 3 Abid Ali PW-2 has submitted Affidavit Ex-P/7 in which the deposition has been made on the same lines.
4. Ch. Muhammad Ali V/s Muhammad Shafique etc. 4 It is worth averred to note that PW-1 Muhammad Ali has tendered in evidence purchase receipt Ex-P/2, warranty card Ex-P/3, legal notice Ex-P/4, its dispatch receipts Ex-P/5, 6.
5. 5 Before entering into the merit of the case I want to bring the conduct of the respondent on the file that on 9-6-10 respondent No. 2 made his presence in the Court and filed Authority letter and the case was fixed for filing of written statement by respondent No. 2. Similarly, respondent No. 1 also appeared in the Court on 02-07-10 and adjournments were made on the requests of the respondents for filing of written statement. On 20-8-10 respondents were proceeded ex-parte which shows malafide of the respondent.
6. 6 Another crucial point before me is the point of limitation. As the complainant purchased the dispute Battery on 15-3-10, he made contact with Muhammad Shafique on 17-3-10 and sent legal notice on 1-4-10 which is Ex-P/4. The complainant has moved application U/s 5 of the Limitation for condonation of delay alongwith complaint. According to him delay has been caused due to hostile attitude of the respondent. It is also averred that delay took place due to the sickness of the complainant. The plea of the complaint plausible one because hostile attitude of the respondent is apparent from the facts discussed supra. Therefore, delay in filing complaint is condoned.
7. 7 I have perused the documents on the file, purchase receipt dated 15.3.10 Ex P/2 which is in the name of Muhammad Ali which is issued for an amount of Rs. 2400/- Ex-P/3 is warranty card which provide warranty for the period of six months, legal notice Ex-P/4. Statements of PWs seem to be un shattered, of course, Battery was purchased and its working was not up to the mark. Therefore, in my view, the complainant is entitled to receive full Ch. Muhammad Ali V/s Muhammad Shafique etc. price of the Battery i.e. Rs. 2400/- However, damages claimed by the petitioner are on the higher side and keeping into circumstances and facts the complainant is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental torture . In this way, the complaint is accepted to the extent of total Rs. 12,400/-. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
8. After completion file be consigned to record room.