Claim against company

2014 PLD 196 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 10, 25, 28(4), 30(1)(c), 31 & 33Claim against companyLimitationDamages, grant ofPrinciple

Consumer claimed that bottle of soft drink prepared by the Company contained dead worm in it but Company contested the same on the plea that it was counterfeited

Trial Court accepted the complaint of consumer and awarded damages against beverages company

Validity

Cause of action accrued to consumer on the same day when according to him he had knowledge that it was defective product i.e. on 25-10-2009 and complaint was filed on 21-12-2009

In accordance with S.28(4) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, limitation for filing of claim was 30 days from the cause of action, therefore, complaint was filed after prescribed period of limitation

Application for condonation of delay was not filed, and delay was not condoned by Trial Court, therefore, when complaint had been filed after prescribed period of limitation without prayer of condonation of delay, Trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint

If product contained mark of company but it was counterfeited one and not manufactured by the company, then Trial Court was bound to first procure expert evidence under S.30(1)(c) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, to determine whether the same had been manufactured by the company or was counterfeited

When no damage was caused and product was not used, Trial Court was not justified to grant damages

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed complaint filed by consumer

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.