Brief facts of the case are that complainant's vendor Muhammad Ehsan purchased a Honda Civic car from respondent No.1 through sale certificate dated 21-11-08. (Model, Engine and Chasis No. Of car being 1 VTEC PROSMATER, R18A1-3992701 and NFBFD16308 R112711 respectively). After purchase of car from Muhammad Ehsan when the petitioner started using it the same proved a problem for him causing financial loss to the petitioner instead of giving any comfort. The suit car had also some unknown defects in its construction and composition as it was made of substandard material. When complainant contacted the respondent company and demanded for removal of defects complained of, they did nothing so much so they even failed to provide any satisfactory information about the alleged defects. As the respondents were habitually ---, they did not respond positively to petitioner's legal notice thereby causing him mental agony, frustration as well as financial loss. As alleged the acts and omissions of respondents amounted to deficiency in service, defective product and unfaired trade practice as defined by the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 the petitioner demanded from respondents to compensate his loss law suffered of account of mental agony and physical discomfort but the respondents paid no heed nor the respondents positively even to the legal notice sent by the petitioner through register post.
Hence, this petition for replacement of suit car as well as payment of damages to the petitioner.
2. Petition was contested by the respondents on the objections that the same is not maintainable nor the petitioner is entitled to any relief under provision of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 as neither the product (suit car) is defective nor they have violated any provision of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. Respondents further objected that neither the petition disclose any cause of action nor has this court territorial jurisdiction instead the petition is triable by the Consumer Court at Lahore and also that no defect worthy --- has been pointed out by petitioner in the suit car, no legal notice was also served on respondents have required by u/s 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 with the afore mentioned objections respondents prayed for disposal of petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of parties' evidence and record would reveal that the petitioner has succeeded to make out his claim to the extent of receiving damages for causing mental agony and physical discomfort to him, as firstly, neither manufacturing nor sale of suit car is denied by the respondents except to the extent that they had actually sold the car to one Muhammad Ehsan s/o Muhammad Aslam and not the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not their consumer and as such, he is not competent to file this petition but the contention is not shared by the court as under the provisions of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 (PCPA), definition of 'consumer' includes user of a product as the present petitioner is as admittedly the suit vehicle is in the possession of petitioner moreover, DW/1 also admitted that they had made the offer for removal of any defect in the vehicle treating the petitioner as owner of car; secondly, it is also admitted by the respondents and their witness, Imran Haider Rathore that in February 2008, they came to know about the alleged defects in the car through their dealer; he further admitted that before filing this claim, the petitioner had contacted them on telephone; thirdly, the respondents also offered to the petitioner, in writing, to check his car for removal of any defect in it but the petitioner refused saying that he is not prepared for that as he had already suffered humiliation at their hands; fourthly, respondents also did not deny that the petitioner repeatedly visited them as well as established telephonic contact with them; all this goes to show that despite being aware about the alleged defects / complaints about the suit car, respondents failed to redress petitioner's grievance with the result that he had to file this claim for replacement of suit vehicle with brand new one, award of compensation / damages for the inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss suffered by the petitioner as well as pay the litigation charges besides grant of any other relief as deemed appropriate by the court.
5. It is in the evidence of parties that the petitioner did not get the suit car checked by respondent's mechanics for removal of alleged defects, therefore, replacement of car would a relief too harsh for the respondents. They are however directed to compensate the petitioner for causing him physical discomfort and mental agony. As regards quantum of such compensation / damages, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- would suffice keeping into consideration the facts / circumstances of the case as also status of parties. As regards award of litigation expenses, the same cannot be allowed as the respondents has offered to petitioner for removal of any defect in the car, free of any charges, but the petitioner refused the offer. Therefore, petitioner's remaining claim is hereby dismissed. After due completion, file be consigned to record room.