1. PETITION UNDER PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2005 Contention of authority/claimant through the instant petition is that respondent is not mentioning the date of manufacturing and date of expiry upon his product "Bio Amla Shampoo" so he is violating section 11 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
2. Due notice as required u/s 23(4) has been issued in the name of respondent No.2. Ijaz Ahmed Virk advocate High Court appeared before authority on 30.11.2013 and moved an application for impleadment of Zaka Ud Din with Mst. Khalida Parveen, madin road, Palwasha Taxi Stand, Mengora Sawat, adopting version that they are necessary and proper party to be heard because ADSJ Multan has issued an injunction order against them asking them not to sell the product in the market. Notices were served by the authority to respondent No.3 but they did not turn up rather report was received that they have refused the service, hence, the petition that the product is injurious to human life, so they be bound to mention the date of manufacturing and date of expiry upon their product and they be burdened with heavy cost; any other appropriate relief may also be granted.
3. Due legal notices were served to respondents at which respondent No.1 & 2 appeared in the Court and submitted their written statement but none turned up on behalf of respondent No.3 despite issuance of substituted service, so he was proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Contention of the respondent No.1 & 2 vide their written statement was that respondent No.1 was Area Sales Manager of FORVIL Cosmetics and respondent No.2 is their distributor and they were selling the product since long but no complaint, what-so-ever has ever been received from any quarter. As for as the date of manufacturing and date of expiry upon the product is concerned; so many cases are pending in between respondent No.1 & 2 with respondent No.3 in different Courts of law and Courts has issued injunctive orders against respondent No.3 and infact it is respondent No.3 who is supplying of the product without mentioning the date of manufacturing and expiry upon the alleged product.
5. It was maintained that no notice has ever been issued by authority to respondent No.1 & 2 because it was a respondent No.1 & 2 who has asked the authority to implead respondent No.3 and authority has assured that at appearance of respondent No.3, notice will issued to respondent No.1 & 2 again, but no such notice was issued subsequently.
6. It was maintained that question of any collusion between the respondent No.1 & 2 with respondent No.3 does not arises.
7. Lastly prayer was made for dismissal of the petition to the extent of respondent No.1 & 2.
8. Arguments of Zeenat Mazhar Assistant Director (Legal) on behalf of authority and that of Ijaz Ahmed Virk Learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 has been heard, record perused.
9. Learned counsel for respondent has annexed a verdict of Hon'able Singh High Court, Karachi in suit No.1106/2010 alongwith copy of their petition moved in Hon'able High Court with all Annexures, they had also submitted copy of a suit for declaration and grant of permanent injunction instituted in the Court of D&SJ Multan with their application moved under order XXXIX Rule I & II with order sheet of the Court with order dated 29.03.2013.
10. During course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent has submitted two rappers; one issued by them and the other issued by respondent No.3, showing that their rapper contains the date of manufacturing and date of expiry, whereas the rapper of respondent No.3 does not bears the said dates. They further produced copy of report submitted u/s 173 Cr. PC in case FIR 25/14 dated 26.03.2014 lodged by Sales Officer Bio Amla Shampoo against Ch. Muhammad Ilyas. None of the parties has submitted their affidavits in support of their pro and contra versions.
11. Arguments of Zeenat Mazhar Assistant Director (Legal) on behalf of authority and that of Ijaz Ahmed Virk Learned Counsel on behalf of respondent has been heard, record perused.
12. From perusal of record it is found that contention of respondent No.1 & 2 was that their suit for dissolution of Partnership is pending before Hon'able High Court Sindh, Karachi in between "FORVIL Cosmetics" and respondent No.3 for dissolution of their Partner but now they have started their business separately and that infact respondent No.3 is not mentioning the date of manufacturing and date of expiry upon their product and there is no fault on the part of respondent No.1 & 2.
13. Contention of Zeenat Mazhar on the other hand is that infact respondent No.1 & 2 are in collusion with respondent No.3, so heavy penalty be imposed upon them to teach them lesson and to save the "public at large" from adverse effect of the product.
14. I have considered the facts and circumstances with due care and caution and gone through the entire record with valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties and found that manufacturing company "FORVIL" is a manufacturer who is dealing their business through respondent No.1 & 2.
15. Authority has recovered the product from the market which was not having tag regarding the date of manufacturing and expiry. Respondent No.1 & 2 being Sales Area Manager and distributor at Bahawalpur, were responsible for this faulty product.
16. It is observed that "FORVIL" has not yet instituted any case against respondent No.3, who allegedly was infringing their trade mark after dissolution of Partnership, so it means that fault lies on the part of respondent No.1 & 2 or the company for providing such faulty product in the market and they can't shift the responsibility upon the shoulder of respondent No.3.
17. It is worth mentioning that respondent No.3 has been impleaded at the request of respondent No.1 & 2 and it was not impleaded by the authority himself at its on accord, so it has been established that respondent No.1 & 2 were responsible for providing defective product and for that matter, they were to be penalized. In the circumstances, authority is hereby directed to confiscate such products which was not bearing the date of manufacturing and expiry and authority is asked to destroy the same as provided u/s 31(i) of PCPA,2005. A fine of Rs.50,000/- is imposed upon respondent No.1 & 2 for their fault in providing defective product in the market and not checking the respondent No.3 for infringement of their trade mark. The fine amount shall be deposited in the Treasury of Government of Punjab.
18. File be consigned.