Facts in brief are that the petitioner placed an order for supply of a medical machine valuing Rs.13,50,000/-.He paid the whole of sale price of on 12-5-09; the machine was supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner again ordered for supply of a machine 'Turset', its sale price of Rs.5, 70,000/-was also paid by the petitioner through bank which the respondent also received on 8-7-09 but despite payment of price, the respondent did not supply the machine within a period of 6 to 8 weeks as promised nor he responded positively to petitioner's repeated requests in this behalf. Petitioner also issued a legal notice to the respondent dated 8-12-09 but to no avail. Hence, this petitioner for recovery of suit amount of Rs.13, 00,000/-.
2. Petition was contested but the respondent by filing written statement; a miscellaneous application was also filed for dismissal of petitioner's claim.
3. Arguments heard and record/case law perused.
4. While supporting the preliminary objections, respondent's learned counsel contended that in this case, relationship of 'consume' and 'service provider' is not made out between the parties, this court has also got no jurisdiction as parties controversy is in fact with regard to recovery of amount for which, at best, a suit for recovery is should be filed before civil court and that petitioner's claim is also malafide and filed as a counter blast to respondent's suit for recovery pending in a civil court at Lahore, therefore, either petitioner's claim be dismissed or petition returned for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction.
5. On the contrary, petitioner's learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is very much a 'consumer' as defined by the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 and that payment of sale price of machine is not denied by the respondent, therefore, Petitioner's claim is maintainable before the Consumer Court; as regards case law cited in the instant application and pendency of civil case at Lahore, it was contended that none of these factors is fatal for the maintainability of main petition.
6 It is very much evident from the contents of petition that parties' controversy in fact relates to recovery of suit amount for which the petitioner should have approached the civil court after paying the maximum court fee; relationship of 'consumer' and 'service provider' is also not made out in this case, therefore, application in hand is accepted and the petition is returned for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction, if advised so.
After completion, file be consigned to record room.