2024 C L C 1575
[Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench)]
Before Kamran Hayat Miankhel, J
HONDA ATLAS CARS PAKISTAN LIMITED and another----Appellants
Versus
SALEEM AKHTAR FAROOQ and others----Respondents
F.A.O. No.09-A of 2021, decided on 1st November, 2022.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act (VI of 1997)---
----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 91---Complaint before the Consumer Court---Genuineness of document---Presumption of correctness---Document produced as evidence admitted without any objection---Effect---Oral evidence---Scope---Claim / stance of the claimant (buyer of vehicle) before the Consumer Court, was that an extra amount was recoverable from Automobile Manufacturing Company (company) which was illegally charged to him at the time of delivery of vehicle , which amount he paid under protest---Consumer Court allowed the complaint against which judgment debtor / company preferred appeal---Validity---Record revealed that, in support of his contention, respondent/ complainant himself appeared as a witness and reiterated the stance taken by him in his complaint and only produced the concerned Manager but no other document was produced by him to substantiate his plea that the respondent could not charge him for any excess price of the vehicle at the time of its delivery---Conversely, the appellants produced one witness, who exhibited three documents i.e. authority letter, relationship contract, delivery order and one relating to Federal Excise Duty---Said witness further stated in his statement that duly exhibited relationship contract contained the signature of respondent /complainant---Said relationship contract reflected that the price prevailing at the time of delivery would be charged---Presumption of correctness was attached to the relationship contract which was duly exhibited without any objection from other side---When a document is produced and exhibited without objection, it always carries sanctity and strong evidence is required to cast an aspersion on its genuineness---Such document is binding on the parties to the lis---Under Art. 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, once a document is produced as evidence and admitted in evidence without any objection, it amounts that the same has been duly proved--- While there were contradictions regarding place of agreement and handing over pay-orders etc., in oral evidence but the documentary evidence prevailed over the oral evidence---Oral evidence does not exclude documentary evidence---Document can be rebutted by a document only---Oral evidence of respondent / complainant could not rebut the documentary evidence of appellants---Respondent /complainant while examining one of the witnesses of appellants put conceding questions, thus proving that agreement took place at company (appellant's) showroom---Said conceding questions and their answers clearly depicted that the signatures on the relationship agreement were that of respondent / complainant---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Consumer Court---Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent stood dismissed---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
Sher Muhammad v. Muhammad Khaild 2004 SCMR 826 ref.
Usman Nasir Awan for Appellants.
Asad Tanveer Qureshi for Respondent No.1.
