CLAIM U/S 4&13 OF THE PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2005.
1. The claimant Noor Samand filed a claim U/s 4& 13 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 against the defendants i,e Millat Tractors Lahore and Sahiwal Tractor House Sahiwal.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the claimant is a cultivator by profession. On 30-06-2009 he purchased a tractor MF-240 Engine No. 586603 Chasis No. 40466-619 Model 2009 from the defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 4,69,000/-. On the same day, the possession of the tractor was handed over to him. Allegedly, spare parts i.e tool set, top link and screw driver etc were not provided to the claimant with the tractor. The warranty of the tractor was one year or 1200 hours. During warranty period, show, mobile filter body, connection plate speedo meter went out of order. The claimant filed warranty claim No. 93941 on 10-10-09.
He also paid expenses of Rs. 1500/- regarding repair /replacement of aforementioned parts. During third free service, control valve hydraulic, hydraulic pump were also found defective. The claimant alleged that despite filing claim, his grievances were not settled. According to him, he had to suffer a great loss. He claimed that he was entitled to return claimed items alongwith damages of Rs.
2,00,000/-.
3. On 03-10-11, Mian Mehmood Rashid Advocate signed Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant No. 1 which was previously filed by defendant No. 2.
4. The defendants denied the allegations leveled by the claimant.
According to them, grievances of the claimant were settled at right time. According to them, the claim was false and had been filed just to humiliate and blackmail them.
5. The parties were directed to produce their evidence in support of their respective version. The claimant examined Mehar Manzoor Pw-1. He himself appeared as Pw-2. He also placed on record sale receipt Ex-P1 receipt regarding issuance of 06 filters Ex-P2, legal notice Ex-P3, postal receipt Ex- P4 &P5. At later stage, the claimant also relied upon Mark A to D.
6. Muhammad Rafique appeared on behalf of the defendants as Dw-1.
The defendants also relied upon the receipt Ex-P1 and P2 and receipt gate pass already furnished by the claimant.
7. Mehar Manzoor Pw-1 and Noor Samand Pw-2 both reiterated facts incorporated in the claim.
Mehar Manzoor Pw-1 admitted in his cross examination that he had signed receipt Ex-P1 when tractor was received by the claimant who had also put his thumb impression. However, other suggestion put by defendants were denied by him. Noor Samand claimant admitted thumb impression on receipt Ex-P1. He also admitted that he had also embossed thumb mark at gate pass at the time of receiving of tractor. He further admitted to have received 06 filters together at the time of free service.
8. Muhammad Rafique Dw-1 denied that there was no fault on the part of the defendants.
According to him all claims filed by the claimant were settled and that expenses of Rs. 1500/- were never received by the defendants. During his cross examination he admitted that entire work of tractor of the claimant was attended by "Mistry Saeed" who was incharge of the workshop.
Significantly, the said Saeed Incharge of the workshop was never produced in the court to rebut the claim of the claimant.
9. The grievances of the claimant, as per claimant, were that tool set alongwith other things like top link, screw driver were not furnished by the defendants at the time of delivery of the tractor and that defective products like show, mobile filter, connection plate and speedo meter were not repaired or replaced and that at the time of third service, control valve hydraulic and hydraulic pump which had been damaged, were not repaired despite filing of claim.
10. It can be assessed from the contents of the claim that the claimant bifurcated his claim in three parts. Starting from the date when he purchased tractor on 30-06-09. There is no denial of the fact that the tractor was sold by the defendants to the claimant. However to settle the dispute between the parties and to arrive at just and fair conclusion, the contents of legal notice Ex-P3 cannot be ignored. In the said notice Ex-P3, the claimant expressed his grievances regarding damage to show, mobile filter body, hydraulic pump, speedo meter, connection plate and nothing else. Thus, the claimant through claim filed before this Court cannot claim anything beyond the aforementioned articles. Out of the said articles, the claimant admittedly had received 06 filters together through receipt Ex-P2. So far as Show, Hydraulic Pump, Speedo meter and connection plate speedo meter were concerned, the claimant filed his claim which was attended by incharge workshop Saeed. It was a fact to be noted that the said Saeed was not produced to rebut the claim. The defendants, due to some un-known reasons have failed to produce him in the court. It was apparent from claim Mark A to D that the claimant had approached the defendants for redressal of his grievances. The defendants submitted that all grievances of the claimant were set at rest but sufficient evidence was not produced by them. On controversial points recorded above, Saeed, incharge workshop could bring some material on record but unfortunately, he has not been examined/produced. Consequently, the claim filed by Noor Samand claimant regarding defective items i.e. Show, hydraulic pump, speedo meter and connection plate speedo meter would have to be paid a significance. So far as damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- were concerned, claimant has not produced any solid and confidence inspiring evidence on record. Mere assertion or claim regarding damages that too of huge amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- may not be accepted. The claimant has failed to bring any thing on record that due to non-replacement of spare parts, his standing crops, process of sowing seeds or leveling of ground had to suffer causing special damages.
Consequently, the claim regarding damages was liable to be turned down.
11. In view of my findings and reasons recorded above, the claim is accepted in terms that the claimant shall take his tractor to the workshop of the defendants within 10 days from this order and defendants would be bound to replace its Show, Hydraulic pump, Speedo meter and Connection Plate Speedo Meter within 03 days. The defendants are also burdened with minimum law charges(since fee certificate is not filed) to the tune of Rs. 5,0,00/- regarding litigation initiated on behalf of the claimant due to defective services and manufacturing faults in some parts of the tractor in question.