P L D 2016 Lahore 425 (PLP)

IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--The claim, which was granted to the respondent by the learned Presiding Officer/District Consumer Court, Lahore, on 27.03.2009, has been called-in-question by the appellant mainly on the plea that in view of the provisions of Section 28 of The Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), the claim, as was raised by the present respondent was beyond limitation and, as such, did not deserve to be adjudicated upon merits.

2. Elaborating such contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the date of purchase of the disputed Washing Machine was 26.03.2007 with a one year warranty period, whereas, the legal notice was issued on 16.09.2008. The memo of complaint, as was filed by the respondent, did not contain any particular date as to when, according to the complainant, cause of action in his favour arose.

3. In view of Section 28(4) of the Act, a claim by the consumer or the Authority shall be filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of action. The Consumer Court, however, has been provided a jurisdiction to allow a claim to be filed after thirty days within such time as it may allow if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period. In the present case, neither such jurisdiction was asked to be exercised by the learned Consumer Court nor naturally the Consumer Court passed any order permitting the complainant to file a delayed claim by showing sufficient cause for its non-filing within specified period.

4. By virtue of second proviso to Section 28(4) of the Act, it is further provided that such extension shall not be allowed beyond a period of sixty days from the expiry of warranty specified by the manufacturer or provider and if no period is specified, then one year from the date of purchase of the products or providing of services would be considered as a period of limitation provided for filing claim before the Presiding Officer of District Consumer Court. Since according to the stated consumer, the warranty card, issued by the appellant at the time of purchase of Washing Machine, did not contain any date of expiry of warranty, as such, in absence of any such warranty period, the maximum time, which could have been granted to the claimant by the learned Consumer Court even after giving an extension in filing the complaint, must not be exceeded to one year from the date of purchase of the product or providing of service.

5. Keeping in view the date of purchase i.e. 26.03.2007, the claim, at the most, can be filed by or before 25.03.2008 and, as such, same was filed on 30.10.2008, which is clearly barred by time, and the learned Consumer Court entertaining such claim, has never given any extension to the claimant to file such delayed claim.

6. Another aspect, which is noted by this Court is that as per showing of the respondent-claimant himself, Washing Machine was originally purchased by his wife and it was a part of her dowry and after marriage, it was the wife of the claimant, who started use of said Machine.

7. The term "Consumer" is defined in Section 2(c)(1) of the Act in the following manner:- "buys or obtains on lease any product for a consideration and includes any user of such product but does not include a person who obtains any product for resale or for any commercial purpose". Keeping in view the above definition of 'Consumer', the husband of the wife, who brought her dowry articles, including Washing Machine in question, could not be treated as a 'Consumer'. If, at all, any complaint was to be lodged as to any defect in the Washing Machine, which admittedly purchased by the wife of the claimant, it was the wife, who should have been a complainant or claimant in the matter. The husband, who even never used such Machine, is not a "consumer".

8. Even otherwise, in view of Section 5 of The Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976, it is the bride, who is to be considered as an absolute owner of the items of dowry and other bridal gifts also.

9. For what has been discussed above, the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Lahore, on 27.03.2009, suffers from illegalities and law has been misapplied by the learned Presiding Officer. The same is not sustainable, thus, it is set- aside. The claim/complaint, filed by the respondent before the Consumer Court stands dismissed. This appeal is allowed. SL/D-9/L Appeal allowed.