MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Sh — 2022 CLD 638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Sh. MUHAMMAD AKRAM S. 28---Settlement of claims---Limitation---Scope---Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, has been enacted with an avowed aim to protect the consumers and their rights as is evident from the reading of the preamble of the Act, the businesses and the interest of the society are also required to be safe-guarded---Both the rights of the consumers and those of society and/or businesses have to be protected simultaneously---Under the Act, on one end of the fulcrum is the objective to provide a speedy and effective remedy to the consumer and on the other end is the consideration to ensure that the businesses are not burdened by the time barred cases---Scheme of law envisaged under the Act is unequivocal in this regard. S.28(4)---Settlement of claims---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---Given the nature of the Act, as a special statute, the legislature has not only provided special limitation period for filing claim under the Act, but has also vested jurisdiction in the Consumer Court to condone delay in filing the claim in cases where sufficient cause for such delay is established to the satisfaction of the Consumer Court. Ss. 28(1) & 28(2)---Settlement of claims---Cause of action---Notice---Limitation---Scope---Cause of action accrues in favour of a claimant, the moment goods or services provided turn out to be defective and/or in violation of the provisions of the Act---Service of written notice upon the manufacturer or provider of service, envisaged under the Act, is a mechanism and procedure set out by the Legislature for the redressal of such cause of action prior to approaching the judicial forum i.e. Consumer Court---If the manufacturer and/or provider of services admits the claim of the claimant on receiving the written notice and compensate the claimant to the satisfaction of the latter, the cause of action, as a natural corollary, comes to an end---Conversely, the denial of the claim or no response to the written notice keeps the limitation running. S. 28---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 19---Settlement of claims---Limitation---Effect of acknowledgment in writing---Scope---Appellant got booked his commodities through cargo service of respondents---Cargo of the respondents was stolen away---Respondents admitted the claim of appellant and issued a cheque, which was dishonoured on its presentation---Legal notice was served upon the respondents that was followed by filing of the claim in the Consumer Court---Consumer Court dismissed the claim on the ground that it was barred by time in terms of subsection (4) of S. 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005---Appellant claimed extension in period of limitation on the ground that when the respondents were approached, without issuing a formal written notice, they solicited time from the appellant to trace the goods but later on admitted the claim and handed over a cheque---Validity---Even if the cheque was taken as an acknowledgment, it was issued after expiry of the specified period of thirty days---Fresh cause of action on the basis of acknowledgment would have come into play had the cheque been issued before the expiration of the thirty days---Appeal was dismissed. S. 28(1)---Settlement of claims---Limitation---Scope---Legislature in terms of S. 28 of the Act has provided the entire mechanism, along with time-limit of thirty days from the accrual of cause of action, for filing the claim before the Consumer Court---Time-limit of thirty days has been provided for filing of the claim with the condition that prior to filing of the claim and after the accrual of cause of action, a written notice is to be sent to the manufacturer of goods or service provider, as the case may be, requiring him to rectify the breach and compensate the claimant. Proviso---Scope---Proviso in a statute by no means can be construed in a manner so as to make the main section redundant. S. 19---Effect of acknowledgement in writing---Scope---Bare reading of the subsection (1) of S. 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, leads to the ineluctable conclusion that fresh cause of action on the basis of acknowledgment comes into play only if such acknowledgement is made before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit or application. Condonation of delay---Scope---Delay of each and every day has to be explained by filing an appropriate application while seeking condonation of delay. S. 28(4)---Settlement of claims---Limitation---Scope---Subsection (4) of S. 28 stipulates limitation period of thirty days, the first proviso provides for situation in which such limitation period may be relaxed and delay can be condoned and refers back to limitation period by using the words 'the specified period' whereas the second proviso places an embargo on the maximum time for which 'the specified period' could be extended under first proviso by use of words "such extension" in the second proviso. S. 28(4)---Settlement of claims---Limitation---Scope---In terms of second proviso to subsection (4) of S. 28 of the Act, delay can be condoned for a period of sixty days beyond period of warranty/ guarantee provided under the contract between the parties or deemed to be one year from the date of purchase of product or provision of services where no such warranty or guarantee is provided and for this purpose filing of formal application for condonation of delay is not required---Unless the Consumer Court is approached by a claimant with the application for condonation of delay or extension of time period specified in subsection (4) of S. 28 of the Act, a time barred claim cannot be entertained---Second proviso to subsection (4) vests discretion in the Consumer Court to extend time limit but the said proviso cannot and should not be read in isolation from the first proviso---Provisos to subsection (4) cannot be so interpreted as to make subsection (4) itself redundant, which provides limitation period of thirty days as 'the specified period' for filing of the claim---Natural interpretation is that the first proviso modifies the scope and effect of subsection (4) to the extent that the general period of limitation provided under subsection (4) may be relaxed/extended/modified in cases where the Consumer Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified time and the second proviso to subsection (4) of S. 28 of the Act is a qualifying provision, which limits the discretion vested in the Consumer Court through first proviso qua 'the specified period' and gains traction from the use of words "such extension" in the second proviso---Proviso is applicable only to such provision which precedes it, thus, it is subsection (4) which precedes the provisos and therefore, both the provisos have to be read in conjunction with the main provision i.e., subsection (4). Proviso---Scope---Proviso is applicable only to such provision which precedes it. Ss. 28(1) & 28(4)---Settlement of claims---Cause of action---Limitation---Scope---Argument that as no limitation is provided for issuance of written notice under subsection (1) of S. 28 of the Act, the same could be issued at any time and limitation of thirty days provided under subsection (4) of S. 28 starts running only after issuance of the written notice since the cause of action is recurring in such like cases had no force---Such an argument is misconceived and if accepted, would defeat the purpose of time-limitation provided by the legislature under subsection (4)---While the remedy to the consumers for their protection has been provided under the Act, the legislature could not have left it open-ended at the will of the claimant to serve written notice whenever he feels convenient---Rather, the written notice is to be served immediately on the accrual of cause of action. S. 28(2)---Settlement of claims---Notice---Limitation---Scope---Subsection (2) of S. 28 obligates manufacturer and/or provider of services to reply the notice within fifteen days from receipt of the notice---Claimant, in a case under the Act, has to put forth his claim in a written notice within such period of time that enables the manufacturer of goods or the service provider, as the case may be, to respond within fifteen days thereafter so that in case of default on part of the said manufacturer or the service provider to respond within said period of fifteen days, the claimant can approach the court within thirty days commencing from the date of accrual of cause of action.

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Sh — 2022 CLD 638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD