Ameer Khan Vs Nadeem Abbas Baloch

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Criminal Appeal No.61-D/2025 with Cr. Misc. No.309-D/2025

Ameer Khan Vs.

Nadeem Abbas Baloch

For Appellant: Muhmmad Usman Ali Advocate For respondent: Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai Advocate.

Date of hearing 18.09.2025

JUDGMENT

INAM ULLAH KHAN, J.- Appellant, Ameer Khan, has preferred this appeal under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, against the Judgment dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge Consumer Protection Court, D.I.Khan, by means whereof he was directed to provide respondent/ consumer a new product (air-conditioner) of the same description.

2.The facts forming the factual canvas of the instant appeal are that the respondent/consumer filed a complaint under the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, stating that he purchased

a split air-conditioner of Kenwood Company from the appellant on 25.07.2024. Within a month, the air- conditioner stopped cooling. Upon complaint, the appellant’s expert visited the site and found that the compressor had malfunctioned. The consumer returned the air- conditioner with its warranty card to the appellant for repair. After a few days, the air-conditioner was re- installed, but it stopped working again. The consumer, at this point, demanded a replacement for the defective item, which was still under warranty. Finally, the consumer filed a complaint before the Consumer Protection Court.

3.Upon filing the complaint, the appellant was summoned. After his appearance, he filed his reply admitting the purchase of an air conditioner and contending that the company has no replacement policy.

Instead, they are bound to repair the faulty compressor

4.The learned Judge of the Consumer Protection Court, after hearing both parties, issued a judgment on 12.06.2025 directing the appellant to replace the air conditioner with a new product of the same description within a period of two weeks, subject to the respondent paying transportation and installation charges. Feeling

aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.06.2025, the appellant has filed this consumer appeal.

5.Arguments heard and record perused.

6.Before discussing the merits of the case, it is deemed appropriate to understand what is warranty, given or tendered in respect of any goods and what is the binding effect of such warranty or guarantee. In the Chambers Concise Dictionary, “Warranty” is defined as “an assurance of the quality of goods being sold, usually with an acceptance of responsibility for repairs during an initial period of use” or “an undertaking or assurance expressed or implied in certain contract” while in Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary “warranty” means “A guarantee or assurance. An agreement with reference to goods which are the subject of a contract of sale, but collateral to the main purpose of such contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages, but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated.”

7.In the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997 (Act) in section 2(o) “unfair trade practice” has

been defined in its clause (v) and (vi), unfair trade practice includes:

(v)giving misleading representation of the need for, or the usefulness of any goods or services;

(vi)falsely giving to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, specification, required ingredients, efficacy or length of life of a product or any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper tests thereof;

8.On perusal of record, it is clear that the respondent purchased the air conditioner from the appellant, and the issuance of a warranty card to the respondent was not denied. The warranty provided is for 10 years for the compressor, 04 years for the PCB, and 01 year for parts and service. The air- conditioner was purchased on 25.07.2024, and a defect in the compressor was reported within the first month of use. Despite attempts at repair, the defect could not be permanently resolved. The complainant contacted the appellant within the first year of purchase, but the defect persisted.

9.As for the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no replacement or return policy of the company, but rather it would repair the faulty parts, it is important to note that the defects were reported within the first year of the warranty when all warranties are still active. Section 15 of the Act empowers the Consumer Court to issue directions for the return of the price or charges paid by the complainant if the assertions made in the complaint are proven true. Section 15 of the Act is reproduced below for convenience:

15.Findings of the Court.---(1) If after the proceedings conducted under section 14, the Court is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any or all of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following actions, namely-

(a)to remove defect from the goods in question;

(b)to replace the goods with new goods of similar description

which shall be free from any defect;

(c)to return to the complainant the price or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant;

(d)to do such other things as may be directed for adequate and proper compliance with the requirements of section 4, section 5 or section 6;

(e)to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or negligence of the opposite party.

(2)Every order made by the Court under sub-section (1) shall be signed.

(underlined is my emphasis)

10.It is clear from the provision of the Act above that the Consumer Court has its own domain and jurisdiction to record findings, and the terms and conditions of the Warranty Card are added factor to it. The learned Judge of the Consumer Protection Court has passed the impugned judgment fully in accordance with the law,

which requires no interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, the consumer made payment for a perfect and flawless product, not to receive a defective or faulty item. Therefore, the repeated malfunctioning of the compressor leaves no doubt in the mind that the product was faulty. Hence, it has been rightly ordered to be replaced with a new one with the same description. This appeal is meritless and is therefore dismissed, along with the listed miscellaneous petition.

Announced.

(*M/Subhan)

SD/-

JUDGE

(S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inam Ullah Khan