1. PETITION UNDER PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2005 Briefly states contention of the claimant vide his instant petition is that he is internet SED consultant. He purchased a Laptop from respondent on 12.02.2012 with a cost of Rs.30,000/-.
2. Respondent assured that claimant may get the Laptop checked for 2/3 days and in case of any problem respondent will be responsible. After two days claimant complained regarding batteries at which another Laptop was handed over to him but it also hanged. Matter was again brought into the notice of respondent who promised to replace the same within 2/3 days but afterward he refused.
3. Due legal notice was issued which was never replied.
4. So, now claimant claims Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for business loss which he suffered due to defective Laptop and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental torture and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. Respondent contested the petition of legal and factual grounds submitting that facts has been concealed and infact the second hand Laptop was purchased; regarding which there was no guarantee or warrantee, let claimant was asked to get the unit checked and after his full satisfaction being computer expert, he purchased the same.
6. It was maintained that after receiving the complaint of claimant, the Laptop was replaced with another Laptop, which claimant himself admits in his petition, so now question of any further replacement does not arise nor it was ever agreed in between the parties at the time of transaction.
7. Respondent claims Rs.3,00,000/- as special cost for filling this false and frivolous petition with prayer for dismissal of the petition.
8. Both the parties led their affidavits as their pro and contra evidence while claimant has placed on record original purchase receipt.
9. Arguments of Muhammad Ali Kashif learned advocate on behalf of claimant and that of Malik Muhammad Ajmal learned counsel on behalf of respondent has been heard, record perused, with valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, it has become clear that it was a matter of second hand Laptop, purchased by the claimant which has not been specifically mentioned in clear words in the body of petition, so it amount to concealment of facts.
10. It is hard fact that Consumer Court entertains the claims regarding new articles and not regarding used or second hand articles.
11. In this case second hand Laptop which was previously purchased on 12.02.2012 by the claimant has already been replaced by another one according to the choice of the claimant, so question of further replacement does not arise.
12. Section 20 of PCPA, 2005 pertains to return and refund policy but that is always in case for new articles and not regarding used one.
13. The nutshell of my above discussion, the petition is totally misconceived, so stands dismissed.
14. File be consigned.