| Case ID |
30d41f75-ce93-401e-99c0-e008d62c844a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
F.A.O. No. 50 of 2013 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 14, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 14, 2021 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the grounds that the claim was time-barred. The court held that the appellant's cause of action arose on 15.10.2011 when the goods were due for delivery but were lost. Despite the issuance of a cheque by the respondents acknowledging the claim, the court found that the cheque was issued after the expiration of the limitation period, which was thirty days from the date of the cause of action. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, particularly section 28, were clear on the limitation period and the requirement for prior notice to the manufacturer or service provider. The appeal was thus dismissed as the appellant failed to file the claim within the specified thirty-day timeframe and did not establish sufficient cause for any delay. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the interpretation of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, particularly the limitation period for filing claims. The Lahore High Court addressed the issue of whether the appellant's claim was time-barred due to the expiration of the thirty-day limitation period following the accrual of the cause of action. The court highlighted the necessity of adhering to the procedural requirements set forth in the Act, including the need for a written notice to the manufacturer or service provider prior to filing a claim. This case serves as an important reference for consumers and businesses alike regarding the enforcement of consumer rights and the legal implications of acknowledgment of claims through written communication, such as cheques. It underscores the importance of timely action in consumer protection cases and the strict adherence to statutory provisions governing such claims. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ANWAAR HUSSAIN, JUSTICE,
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Athar Hassan Shah,
Syed Fayyaz Hussain Naqvi,
Syed Sibt-e-Nabi Abidi
|
| Petitioners |
ANWAAR HUSSAIN
|
| Respondents |
SH. MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 1125,
2022 PLD 414
|
| Other Citations |
M.S. Port Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Port Qasim Authority PLD 2012 Sindh 182,
Coca-Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited v. Ashiq Ali PLD 2014 Lah. 196,
Tanvir Ahmad Butt v. The Director, Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. 2018 CLD 1064,
Al-Ghazi Tractor Limited through Manager and 2 others v. Peer Muhammad Ali 2019 CLC 580
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act, 1908,
Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)
|
| Sections |
19,
25,
28,
28(1),
28(2),
28(4)
|