MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Sh — 2022 PLD 414 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(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).

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Sh — 2022 PLD 414 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD