Karachi: Court fines motor company for stalling vehicle delivery, causing misery to customer
The judge directed the company to pay the compensation and damages amount to the complainant for "mental agony" within 30 days.
A consumer court has ordered M/s MG Motors Pakistan to pay PKR 500,000 in settlement and damages to a customer who got a four-wheeler booked. However, the firm failed to deliver it to the customer on time despite receiving full payment.
The Judge of Consumer Protection Court, Judge Javed Ali Korejo, also fined PKR 50,000 to the firm for “providing faulty services” under Section 33(1) of the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014.
The judge directed the company to pay the compensation and damages amount to the complainant for “mental agony” within 30 days.
In case of failure to concede with the court’s order, the judge cautioned, the motor company “shall be penalized with detention for a time not less than one month, which may expand to three years, or with fine, not less than PKR 50,000.
Disposing of the complaint, the court instructed its office to send a copy of the order to the defendant company. The case will be taken up on the 18th of April for execution proceedings.
Advocate Rajesh Ambani told the court that his client, Arsalan Riaz, had booked an MG HS Exclusive Trophy Grade vehicle vided a pay order of PKR 2,000,000 in the company’s name provisional booking order on the 11th of June, 2021.
Ambani further went on to say that the total amount was fixed at PKR 5,763,000.
After the initial and final payment, the company promised that the four-wheeler would be delivered at the given time (i.e., in October 2021) but did not honor its promise.
The advocate further stated that a legal notice was served to MG Motors Pakistan on the 10th of November, 2021 but without any response.
The judge observed that, given all the surrounding circumstances, the complainant maintained monetary losses by investing a significant amount in purchasing the subject vehicle and suffered agony when the vehicle was not delivered on time.
The court further stated that since proceedings of the case had gone ex-parte, and the version of the complainant had remained unshaken, the court was left with no other option but to accept the complainant’s case.
What are your views on this? Share in the comments bar below.