1. The plea of the petitioner is that he purchased 6.Kg Sugar in consideration of amount of Rs. 390/-.
2. On use the petitioner and his family felt some stomach problems and found that the sugar bags contained mud, sand and small stone etc. The petitioner made complaint to the respondent for return of all the above said sugar bags but the respondent refused to do so. The petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent. The petitioner has prayed for grant of actual damages Rs. 390/-, for mental torture Rs. 125,000/- for physical inconvenience Rs. 350,000/- and lawyer fee Rs. 25,000/-.
3. On 11.1.2011 the disputed sugar bags was produced in the court which was sent for analyses to the Public Analyst Laboratory Multan whose report was received on 18.1.2011. The chemical analyst report is mark A, receipt issued by the respondent for purchase of disputed bags of the sugar is mark B. The respondents appeared in the court and submitted their written replies in which they have denied the allegation leveled by the complainant.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the analyst report it is very much clear that disputed bags contained dirty sugar with positive report of sand particles. He prayed for acceptance of the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that this court lacks jurisdiction to hearing this complaint. He has argued that the sugar sold out by the respondents was up to the mark and this complaint has been filed just to blackmail to the respondent. He has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant purchased three bags of sugar from the respondent. Public Analyst report mark A shows that the disputed bags of sugar contain dirty sugar with positive result of grit or sand particles sucrose is more than 95% and according to the opinion of the Public Analyst, sample of the sugar was fond substandard. Receipt mark B shows that the disputed bags of sugar was purchased from the respondent. This shows that the sugar sold out by the respondent is of substandard which is injurious to the public at large and in this way faulty product has been sold out by the respondent. Therefore compliant in hand is hereby accepted with cost. The respondent will pay the actual damages of Rs. 390/- to the petitioner. Respondent will also pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant for fee paid to the lawyer.
7. The DCO Multan is directed to arrange for removal of substandard sugar from the respondent Utility Store within one week and submit his report in the court accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the DCO Multan for compliance of the order of this court. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.