1. The complainant has instituted the instant compliant against the respondent with the plea that on 01.7.2009, he purchased the disputed turbine from the respondent and as per agreement boring was also to be done by the respondent. There was guarantee of five years of turbine and fifteen years for boring. After one month of purchase, the disputed turbine became defective on which the complainant approached the respondent for rectification but in vain. Due to defect of disputed turbine the crops of cotton could not be watered, due to which the complainant faced loss of Rs.
2. 750,000/- . The complainant many times got rectified the disputed turbine through private mechanics but respondent did not listen to the complaint of the complainant. The complainant has demanded Rs. 750,000/- as loss of cotton, Rs. 5 lacs for physical and mantel torture, Rs.
3. 38535/- for rectification of disputed turbine and total he has demanded Rs. 1288535/-. The complainant sent legal notice to the respondent which is mark B, original receipt about purchase of disputed turbine is mark A, postal receipt is mark C while acknowledgement is mark D. The respondent appeared in the court and submitted his written reply in which he has denied allegations leveled by the complainant, however on 22.7.2010, the respondent went to fix the disputed turbine in vertical position along with change of defective parts including shafts. On 18.10.2010, the respondent stated in the court that he had rectified the disputed turbine as per settelment but the complainant has denied the same and stated that no rectification of turbine in dispute has been made by the respondent. The settelment faild and the complainant was directed to produce his evidence. In his evidence, complainant produced his affidavit EXP-1 in which he has stated that as per order of the court dated 22.7.2010, the respondent replaced the defective parts with old one due to which the turbine has again went out of order and he has faced loss of lacks of rupees. He has also spent amount many times for rectification of the turbine through private mechanics. During cross examination PW1 has stated that date fixed for visit of the respondent was 30.9.2010 but the respondent visited the spot on 04.10.2010. The turbine was again fixed after rectification on 16.10.2010, however the turbine in dispute did not work. PW1 has stated that he started turbine which worked for only fifteen minutes and after that he stopped it as it caught heat.
4. After that we did not turned on the turbine ever. He has stated it is incorrect to suggest that respondent has fixed the turbine and is working in good condition even at present. He has denied that he has filed the instant complaint just to get more money from the respondent. PW2 Mr. Faqeer Muhammad submits his affidavit EXP-2, in which he has stated the same as complainant.
5. During cross examination PW2 has stated that the court directed to respondent to visited on 01.10.2010 for rectification of the turbine in dispute but the respondent visit the spot on 04.10.2010. On 17.10.2010, he started the turbine which did not worke properly. From 17.10.2010 to up till today he had not started the turbine in dispute. He has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that respondent has rectified the turbine in dispute and that it is working properly. He has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that he is deposing falsely. Mr. Azher Baig appeared as PW3, he submitted his affidavit EXP-3. PW3 has stated the same as per statement of the complainant. During cross examination PW3 has stated that on 04.10.2010, the respondent took back the motor of the turbine which was again fixed on 16.10.2010 and he was present at that time. The turbine in dispute was fixed vertically but due to thrilling it did not worked vertically. The turbine in dispute worked for only three or four minutes and became heated. From 16.10.2010 to up till today the turbine in dispute has not been started. He has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that respondent has rectified the turbine in dispute which is working properly. Mr. Rashid Mehmood appeared as PW4 who has submitted his affidavit EXP-4. He has stated the same as per statement of the complainant. During cross examination PW4 has stated that he is electrician. On 16/17 October, 2010 he was present on the spot. The two mechanics of the respondent fixed the turbine. Turbine in dispute started and stoped within twenty or thirty seconds. On 17.10.2010 he started the turbine and stoped the same within one minute due to thrilling. He has denied the suggestion that the turbine in question is in working position. The respondent appeared as RW1 and in his affidavit, he has submitted his affidavit EXR-1.
6. As per contents of the EXR-1, the respondent has admitted that the complainant purchased the disputed turbine pump from him in consideration of Rs. 118000/-and including boring its amount is Rs. 318000/-. He has stated that he has rectified the turbine twice. As per contents of the EXR-1, the respondent rectified the turbine did it vertical and replaced top shafts Rs. 20000/-were spent by the respondent. On 17.10.2010, the turbine was again rectified which worked for twenty minutes.
7. During cross examination, the respondent admitted that disputed turbine was sold out by him to the complainant and also same was fitted by his employs. After two or three months of the sale of the turbine, the complainant made complaint with him, the shafts of the pully was broken at that time and the same was rectified by him. He has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that he did not visit the spot after sale of the disputed turbine. On 17.10.2010, he visited the spot and turbine in dispute worked for twenty or twenty five minutes.
8. He has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that after start of the turbine, he switched off the same due to heat. The disputed turbine has been rectified as vertical on his own expenses. RW1 has stated that he sent Mr. Altaf Hussain for repairing of the turbine. He has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the disputed turbine has been manufactured with defective martial. Mr. Altaf Hussain appeared as RW2, he submits his affidavit EXR-2 in which he has stated the same as per statement of the respondent. RW2 sated during cross examination that he is working with the respondent as turbine mechanics. The first complaint about disputed turbine was made after eight months of its first installation. The turbine was rectified about two months ago. The disputed turbine was made vertical. He has stated that it is not in his knowledge that the turbine in dispute is not working nowadays. RW3 Mr. Irshad Hussain submits his affidavit EXR-3 in which he has stated the same as per statement of the respondent. During cross examination RW3 has stated that RW2 did the turbine vertical when it was brought by him. On next day when he visited the spot with RW1, turbine in dispute was started which worked for twenty five minutes. He has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that he is deposing falsely. On completion of the evidence of the parties, learned counsel for the parties argued the case.
9. Arguments heard, record perused.
10. The main plea of the complainant is that he purchased turbine from the respondent with heaving guarantee of five years but just after one month of purchase of the turbine, it went out of order, although respondent admitted to rectify the turbine but the turbine is not working. Leaned counsel for the respondent argued that the complainant has failed to prove his case as he has not stated in his affidavit as per his version in the compliant. I have gone through the record and found that mark A is receipt through which the complainant purchased turbine from the respondent. Total amount written in mark A is Rs. 318000/- which includes boring expenses, however respondent has himself admitted in his affidavit EXR-1, the price of turbine is Rs. 118000/- and total amount along boring is Rs. 318000/ .The respondent has produced receipt mark RA, according to which the respondent rectified the turbine and expenses of Rs. 20000/- were spent by the respondent. Mark B and mark C prove that legal notice was sent to the respondent. From the statement of respondent RW1 is fully proved that complainant purchased the turbine from the respondent and statement of the respondent during cross examination itself shows that turbine in dispute became defective many times. The respondent attempted many times to rectify the same. Mark A clearly proves that guarantee of the turbine pump is for fiver years. The turbine was purchased on 01.7.2009 and the instant complaint has been instituted on 09.6.2010, which means the complaint has been filed in the court within guarantee time. In these circumstances when the respondent has admitted that the turbine in dispute was purchased from him by the complainant and it became defective while he attempted many times to rectify the same, complaint in hand is hereby accepted with costs.
11. Complainant has not given separate amount of turbine, however in the light of statement of RW1, the price of the turbine is fixed Rs. 118000/- The respondent is directed to retune the amount of turbine of Rs. 118000/- to the complainant and take back his turbine. Complainant has demanded Rs. 38535/- but no documentary proof has been submitted about it. The complainant has demanded Rs. 750000/- for loss of cotton crops but in this regard he has not produced any documentary evidence. The complainant has demanded Rs. 5 lacs for physical and mental torture.
12. Evidence produced by the parties clearly shows that the complainant went to the respondent to make complaint many times and the respondent remove the turbine many times from the spot and refixed the same many times. In this way the complainant has naturally faced physical and mental torture. Therefore the respondent will pay Rs. 50000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental and physical tension. Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed his fee certificate with the complaint. Therefore the respondent is directed to pay counsel fee to the complainant. The respondent is direct to comply with this order of the court within thirty days. File be consigned to record room after its due completion. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.