KARACHI: A consumer court has issued bailable warrants for the arrest of a shopkeeper and the CEO of a private company manufacturing home appliances for failing to comply with its earlier order, which had directed them to either provide a new branded refrigerator or pay the equivalent amount to a plaintiff.
The direction was issued to the SHO of Civil Lines police station by Judicial Magistrate (Central) Asadullah Memon after both defendants — the shop owner and the CEO of Dawlance — failed to comply with the earlier order passed in February.
The court directed the SHO to execute the bailable warrants, issued against surety bonds of Rs10,000 each, by arresting the defendants and producing them before the court on May 7.
In Feb, the consumer court had directed both the defendants to either provide a new branded refrigerator or pay its equivalent amount to plaintiff Ali Raza as well as to pay 20,000 each as compensation and counsel fees within 30 days.
The plaintiff had moved the court against the defendants under the Sindh Consumer Protection Act 2014 and stated that he had purchased a glass door refrigerator with an inverter technology manufactured by the private company (Dawnlance) in 2021 with 12 years of warranty from an electronic shop (Imran Electronics) in Gulberg.
He added that in 2024, the refrigerator broke down. He said he first approached the shopkeeper and then to the manufacturing company to get the problem resolved.
The plaintiff claimed that the company’s technician visited his home and after perusal of the warranty card stated that warranty of the inverter/circuit had expired as the company provides warranty for one year only; therefore, the technician demanded Rs9,000 for the replacement of the inverter charges and further demanded Rs900 for visit charges.
He argued that the respondents “failed to discharge their duty, they severally and jointly failed to replace the said refrigerator’s fault, knowing the same was under warranty.”
The court noted that the shopkeeper did not appear despite having knowledge of the pendency of the claim; therefore, his right to advance arguments was closed.
Meanwhile, the private company, through its representative, contested the claim, arguing that it was neither maintainable nor had the plaintiff approached the court with clean hands.
The company submitted that the refrigerator delivered to the plaintiff was in proper working condition and had admittedly been used for more than two years. It further stated that the inverter carried only a one-year warranty, which had already expired.
It added that after the technician’s visit, the plaintiff was informed that the inverter could be replaced subject to payment of Rs9,000, but the plaintiff refused. Therefore, there was no malpractice on its part and alleged that the plaintiff had attempted to secure an unwarranted replacement free of cost, contrary to company policy.
In its verdict, however, the court observed that during the evidence, the plaintiff produced documents, including the warranty card, and noted that “prima facie, nothing has come on record to suggest that there was/is only a one-year warranty for the inverter attached with the compressor.”
It further noted that during cross-examination, the company’s representative admitted that “there is a 12-year warranty of the compressor, whereas the remaining parts carry a warranty of one year.”
The court held that “such admission fully supports the case of the complainant,” as the inverter was admittedly attached to the compressor and had become defective. Since it fell within the 12-year warranty, the company was under an obligation to replace the inverter with a new one as guaranteed.
Published in Dawn, April 25th, 2026
