MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- Through this single judgment I propose to decide both R.F.A. No. 44/2008 and R.F.A. No. 25/2008, which are the outcome of same impugned judgment/order.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Court on the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 4, whereby the complaint has been accepted in the following terms:- "In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition is accepted and it is directed that respondents Nos. 1 and 3 are liable for the return of the Rickshaw. As respondent No. 3 has arranged the purchase of Rickshaw and executed the Loan Agreement. Respondent No. 3 shall return the Rickshaw to respondent No. 1 and first instalment amounting to Rs. 16,000/- and Registration Fee amounting to Rs. 4500/- shall be refunded by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. The amount of repair of the Rickshaw of Rs. 2400/- shall also be returned to the petitioner. The Lawyer Fee is fixed at Rs. 10000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 5000/-. The petitioner is not entitled to any damages as he had failed to pay the remaining instalments. Total amount of Rs. 37,900/- shall be paid by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner within 10 days from the date of this order. The petitioner shall return the Rickshaw to respondent No, 3."
3. The case of the appellant is that the loan was extended on the application of respondent No. 1 for the purchase of 4-Stroke CNG Rickshaw on instalments according to the Government policy introduced to alleviate poverty and generate employment opportunities to the public and for that matter loan agreement was signed by the present respondent No. 1/complainant. According to the terms and conditions of this loan agreement, appellant has only provided the facility of loan to purchase 4-Stroke CNG Green. Rickshaw and terms and conditions have been specified. Apart from this, respondent No. 1 has also agreed about the authority letter and another letter delivery form and acceptance receipt.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to all these documents, the appellant could not be considered a party to purchase Rickshaw. According to the learned counsel for the appellant there were four different brands of Rickshaw manufactured by different companies and it was purchased according to his specific demand/choice and a delivery letter to this effect is very much clear which had been duly signed by the present respondent No. 1/complainant. Since the demanded Rickshaw has been delivered to the complainant by the said company with a specific reference in the delivery letter that the PISC will not be responsible for any defect in the said Rickshaw. So keeping in view these documents, the appellant cannot be burdened with any cost or held accountable for any defect found in the Rickshaw. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned District Consumer Court, - Lahore is illegal, without lawful authority and these aspects have not been considered by the learned District Consumer Court, is resulting into miscarriage of justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondent No. 1 never applied for Rickshaw of said company which had been delivered to the respondent No. 1/complainant. He further contends that from the very first day, the Rickshaw went out of order and due to such flawed/poor manufacturing standard of Rickshaw, he has suffered loss amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. He supported the order of the learned Trial Court/Consumer Court.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record of the case.
7. That the original application of the complainant/respondent No. 1 which was submitted to the present appellant for the purchase of Rickshaw on the loan basis is not available in the record: Since respondent No. 1/complainant has denied the mentioning of name of the company in the said application and claimed that the name of the Rickshaw Company has been manipulated by the appellant himself at the time of preparing the documents according to his choice, the Rickshaw was not delivered to him according to his choice. The contention of the respondent No. 1 cannot be considered unless the original application of the complainant/respondent No. 1 had been brought on the record.
8. In the light of foregoing discussion, the order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Court, Lahore is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Consumer Court, Lahore for summoning the original record of the complainant from the office of appellant No. 1 and then decide the same strictly in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Court, Lahore on 30.11.2011, who shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the order of this Court. .