1. Brief facts of the case mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner Nadeem Mushtaq purchased a Nokia Mobile Set Model 2330 C IMEI No.351949037135640 from the shop of respondent No. 1 with a consideration of Rs. 5450/- against a receipt No. 2271 dated 13.7.2009. After nine months period a problem in SMS started on which the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 who referred him to Nokia Care Shop Chen One Tower Multan where the mobile set in question was kept for four days and after that the same was returned with the remarks that the defect cannot be resolved.
2. The petitioner sent legal notice but the respondents did not care for it. Hence the instant petition.
3. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 1 and 2 are jointly responsible to replace the mobile set in question as they have not rectified the defect which has appeared in the mobile set. A warranty of one year has also been given to the petitioner at the time of purchase of the mobile in question which expires on August 2010. The original warranty card is Mark A, receipt is Mark B while receipt of registered post for legal notice is Mark C. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. 3 On perusal of written reply of respondent No. 1 it is found that the respondent No. 1 has admitted that respondent No. 2 is responsible for any fault appearing in the mobile set in question. It is to be noted that respondent No. 1 is the dealer under respondent No. 2 and in this way both are jointly responsible for the defect appearing in the mobile set in question. It is also to be noted that respondent No. 2 has been initiated against ex-parte and ex-parte order has not been challenged by respondent No. 2 through any application. Warranty card Mark A fully shows that the claim of the petitioner is within the warranty period which expires on August 2010. The respondents are jointly responsible to replace the mobile set in question or to rectify the defect which has appeared in the mobile set but their refusal brought a cause of action to the complainant. The receipt Mark B shows that the mobile in question was purchased from the respondent No. 1 while Mark A shows that warranty has been given by respondent No. 2. Mark C is receipt of registered post through which the petitioner sent legal notice to the respondents. It is very much clear that the defect has appeared within the warranty time in the mobile set and as per warranty both respondents are liable to replace the mobile set in question with a new one. Therefore the complaint in hand is hereby accepted with costs and the respondents are jointly directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new one of the same quality within 30 days.
5. The petitioner approached the respondents time and again and became rolling stone between the respondents due to which he suffered mental torture. Therefore respondents are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner/-. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.