June 25, 2007	Monday	Jamadi-us-Sani 09, 1428

LAHORE, June 24: The District Consumer Court, Lahore, has handed down its first conviction to a trader of Abid Market dealing in home appliances.

Respondent Tariq and Company had supplied a substandard cooking range to complainant Husnain Yousaf as its top glass cover ‘burst’ soon after it was put into operation.

The respondent will refund Rs12,500, the price of the cooking range, to the plaintiff, besides paying him an extra amount of Rs10,000, says the judgment passed by consumer court presiding officer Syed Maruf Ahmad Ali.

The plaintiff had sought Rs55,500 as replacement and damages — Rs12,500 price of the unit, Rs15,000 fee of the lawyer and Rs50,000 for the agony he had to suffer as a result of the incident. The respondent was proceeded against ex-parte as he did not turn up after the first appearance.

Meanwhile, Rana Rasheed Mahmood, a banker, has moved court for replacement of a split AC and payment of Rs500,000 as compensation for the mental torture and stress he and his family had to go through during the May heat.

The petitioner purchased a Haier company split AC unit from M/s Madina Electronics in Abid Market on May 2, but it did not provide the cooling it was meant for when it was put into operation on May 5.

A representative of the authorised installer, M/s Freeze Ways, visited his house on May 14 after repeated requests and detected that its ‘outdoor motor’ was faulty.

The motor was replaced with the new one received from Haier’s Gulberg office after two days and the AC started functioning. The problem recurred the next day and the petitioner demanded replacement of the entire unit. The request was declined and the petitioner was asked to approach the dealer (Madina Electronics) for the replacement of the defective unit.

The dealer also refused the request and asked him to talk to the manufacturing company and their installer. The Haier customer service sent its technician on May 21 who detected gas leak as the main problem.

The technician phoned the installer, asking them to repair and refill gas in the compressor. Later, the service centre told the petitioner that the company’s own technician would do the needful. The man, after strong persuasion, agreed to come on May 23, exhausting the petitioner to the extent that he issued a notice to the company through their website and demanded replacement of the entire unit for he was not ready to accept a repaired AC when he had paid his hard-earned money for a new one or face legal proceedings in the consumer court.

The petitioner, seeing no response from the respondent, issued a reminder on May 29. —Amjad Mahmood