Expert Evidence

2023 CLD 934 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 30(1)(c)Defective motor vehicleClaim filed against manufacturer of vehicle before the Consumer CourtExpert evidence

Where the defects alleged are of such a nature that required expert inspection or probe, the onus to provide such expert evidence falls on the consumer who is alleging that the product is defective or faulty

Where such defects are alleged by the consumer, a Consumer Court, before deciding that a certain product is defective or faulty, must satisfy itself that sufficient expert evidence is available and could be relied upon to ascertain the defects so alleged instead of merely placing reliance on the statement of a consumer who may not be from the related field of expertise and therefore, not competent to address the technicalities forming part of the alleged defects, especially where the claim of the consumer is denied by the manufacturer

To this effect, section 30(1)(c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 allows the Consumer Court to invite expert evidence, if required, where the claim alleges that the products are defective and do not conform to the accepted industry standards.

2023 PLD 482 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 30(1)(c)Defective motor vehicleClaim filed against manufacturer of vehicle before the Consumer CourtExpert evidence

Where the defects alleged are of such a nature that required expert inspection or probe, the onus to provide such expert evidence falls on the consumer who is alleging that the product is defective or faulty

Where such defects are alleged by the consumer, a Consumer Court, before deciding that a certain product is defective or faulty, must satisfy itself that sufficient expert evidence is available and could be relied upon to ascertain the defects so alleged instead of merely placing reliance on the statement of a consumer who may not be from the related field of expertise and therefore, not competent to address the technicalities forming part of the alleged defects, especially where the claim of the consumer is denied by the manufacturer

To this effect, Section 30(1)(c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 allows the Consumer Court to invite expert evidence, if required, where the claim alleges that the products are defective and do not conform to the accepted industry standards.

2019 CLCN 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30(1)(c)Expert evidenceScope

Complainant/Consumer examined private witnesses, agriculturists by profession, in support of his case, to prove that purchased seed was substandard/misbranded and not hybrid one

Validity

Held, claimant was under legal obligation to get his crop inspected from Obriculturist, Agriculture Officer or any expert of Research Centre to obtain expert report/lab report of the plants.

2018 CLD 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 118Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3Summary suit on the basis of chequeNegotiable instrumentExpert evidenceScope

Cheque was given status of 'negotiable instrument' which could not be engineered or fabricated as other document(s) declared or qualified as 'negotiable instrument'

Defendant had taken contradictory stance in the present case

No question of issuance of cheque book would arise without having an account opened

Nothing was on record that any FIR was lodged with regard to alleged theft of cheque

Cheque in question belonged to defendant

Defendant could not escape the consequences arising therefrom unless proved contrary which he had failed to do

Mere typographical mistake/error could not decrease the consequences which a 'drawer' had to ensure encashment/payment of amount to the 'holder'

Plea which was not taken before the Trial Court could not be looked into by the Appellate Court

Evidence of an expert was nothing more than confirmatory or explanatory of direct or circumstantial evidence

Such evidence of expert could not be given preference over confidence inspiring and worthy of credence evidence available to prove otherwise

Defendant had not produced any document in support of his claim

Cheque in question was issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff which was dishonoured by the bank on presentation

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 MLD 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 118Summary suit on the basis of chequeNegotiable instrumentExpert evidenceScope

Cheque was given status of 'negotiable instrument' which could not be engineered or fabricated as other document (s) declared or qualified as 'negotiable instrument'

Defendant had taken contradictory stance in the present case

No question of issuance of cheque book would arise without having an account opened

Nothing was on record that any FIR was lodged with regard to alleged theft of cheque

Cheque in question belonged to defendant

Defendant could not escape the consequences arising therefrom unless proved contrary which he had failed to do

Mere typographical mistake/error could not decrease the consequences which a 'drawer' had to ensure encashment/payment of amount to the 'holder'

Plea which was not taken before the Trial Court could not be looked into by the Appellate Court

Evidence of an expert was nothing more than confirmatory or explanatory of direct or circumstantial evidence

Such evidence of expert could not be given preference over confidence inspiring and worthy of credence evidence available to prove otherwise

Defendant had not produced any document in support of his claim

Cheque in question was issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff which was dishonoured by the bank on presentation

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLD 130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 59, 61, 78 & 79Expert evidenceNature and scopeProof of documentOpinion of expert-Opinion of handwriting expert when relevantProof of signatures and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document producedProof of execution of document required by law to be attested

Under scheme of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, there are many methods for proving a document, and sending the document to the handwriting expert is one of the modes for proving signatures and thumb impression of a person on a document, which is, however, not a convincing method of proof

Expert evidence is in nature of confirmatory and explanatory of direct or other circumstantial evidence and is not of much significance in presence of direct and creditworthy evidence.

2016 PLD 130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 59, 61, 78, 79 & 129Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Suit for specific performance of agreementExpert evidenceNature and scopeProof of documentOpinion of expert-Opinion of handwriting expert when relevantProof of signatures and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document producedProof of execution of document required by law to be attestedCourt may presume existence of certain facts

Defendant took plea that plaintiff should have asked Trial Court to send the agreement to sell and payment receipt to handwriting expert for his opinion as to thumb impression of defendant on the same

Validity-Direct evidence, in the present case was produced by plaintiffs in shape of marginal witnesses and scribe, and as such there was no need for plaintiff to move Trial Court for sending the documents to handwriting expert

Whenever evidence, which was legally required to be provided to prove execution of a document, had been produced, then the other party, denying the execution of the document, had to produce handwriting expert in proof of his denial of execution

Defendant had not moved necessary application before Trial Court for sending the document in question to handwriting expert

Failure to ask court to refer the matter to handwriting expert would raise inference against the party

High Court observed that where none of the parties to the suit moved the court for referring the document in question to handwriting expert, remand of the case to Trial Court for said purpose was not legal.

2015 SCMR 284 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 59Proof of a factDirect evidenceExpert evidence

Where direct evidence to prove a fact was available then much importance had to be given to it, and expert evidence in such circumstances carried no legal value.

2012 CLD 1461 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30(1)(c)Expert evidence

Grievance of consumer regarding improper functioning of the refrigerator was a technical matter, and the Consumer Court instead of deciding the matter on oral evidence, should have invited expert evidence within the meaning of S. 30 of the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005.

2012 YLR 1830 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30(1) (c)Expert Evidence

Grievance of consumer regarding improper functioning of the refrigerator was a technical matter, and the Consumer Court instead of deciding the matter on oral evidence, should have invited expert evidence within the meaning of S. 30 of the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005.

1949 PLD 80 PRIVY-COUNCIL Judicial Precedent

Expert evidence-Not produced-Signatures, disputed and accepted, may be examined by Court for comparison.