The INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED vs ABDUL KHALID GILL Ss — 2023 CLD 984 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.

The INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED VS ABDUL KHALID GILL Ss. 10 & 25---Defective part/item of sold product (car)---Warranty offered by the manufacturing company---Damages, award of---Scope---Consumer Court ordered the appellant/company to pay damages to the respondent/consumer while directing the appellant to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one without any charges---Held, that the respondent/consumer was under heavy duty to substantiate financial loss, mental torture/agony at the hands of appellant/company through independent and reliable evidence, which he (respondent/consumer) had failed to produce---Respondent had not suffered any damage from the vehicle, rather the defect was observed during a routine check-up---Restriction contained in the S. 10 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 which stated that "where the consumer has not suffered any damage from the product except the loss of utility, the manufacturer shall not be liable for any damages except a return of the consideration or a part thereof and the costs"---Consumer Court had though rightly appreciated the facts and evidence while coming to the conclusion that the appellant/company was bound to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one without any charges, however, the Court below was not justified to award damages to the respondent/consumer--- Claim of the respondent/ consumer to the extent of damages was declined---Appeal was partly allowed. S. 25---Defective part/item of sold product (car)---Warranty offered by the manufacturing company---Scope---Consumer Court directed the appellant to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one without any charges---Contention of the appellant/motor vehicle manufacturing company('company') was that the quality of engine had been compromised on account of improper periodic maintenance and use of non-branded/substandard lubricants/filters as maintenance of the vehicle was not carried out by its(company's) dealer---Held, that the documentary evidence produced by the respondent/claimant, inter alia, showed that engine oil and filters of a branded company were used after regular intervals---Contents of the Warranty Booklet did not impose any burden upon the respondent for carrying out maintenance from authorized dealer(s), rather free maintenance service was offered and the customer was advised to follow the instructions regarding maintenance contained in Owner's Manual for efficient working of the vehicle---Furthermore, "engine" fell within the items which were covered by the Warranty; and it was mentioned in the Warranty Booklet that the company would either repair or replace any part which would be revealed defective in material or workmanship under normal use within certain basic coverage period---Documents relied upon by the respondent for coverage of such period had not been disputed by the appellant/company---Vehicle-in-question was also within warranty period when the defect was communicated to the appellant/company---High Court maintained the order passed by the Consumer Court that the appellant/company was bound to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one without any charges---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Ss. 25 & 28---Defective part/item of sold product (car)---Claim of the consumer in light of the warranty offered by the manufacturing company---Cause of action, accrual of---Limitation---Consumer Court directed the appellant to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one without any charges---Contention of the appellant/motor vehicle manufacturing company ('company') was that the claim of the respondent/consumer was time-barred as the cause of action accrued when the matter was reported for the first time by the complainant, whereas he filed complaint after about forty-six (46) days of said reporting---Validity---Record revealed that the prescribed notice in terms of S. 28(1) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 ('the Act 2005') was issued to the appellant about seventeen (17) days after the defect had been reported---Reply to the said notice, denying the claim of the respondent/consumer, was transmitted by the appellant after thirty (30) days of reporting but fifteen (15) days of sending of notice---Cause of action, in the present case, accrued on said date of denial of claim by the appellant/company, thus the complaint having been filed after about fourteen (14) days of said denial was well within time prescribed in S. 28(4) of the Act, 2005---High Court maintained the order passed by the Consumer Court that the appellant/ company was bound to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one without any charges--- Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. S. 25---Defective part/item of sold product (car)---Warranty offered by the manufacturing company---Expert opinion---Not necessary where malfunction admitted---Consumer Court directed the appellant/company to replace the defective engine with new one without any charges---Contention of the appellant/motor vehicle manufacturing company ('company') was that the Consumer Court was obliged to invite expert evidence to establish the condition of the engine---Held, that the appellant/company had not denied malfunctioning of the engine and its stance was that the defect occurred due to negligence of respondent/consumer---Consumer Court had rightly appreciated the facts and evidence while not calling for any expert evidence---High Court maintained the order passed by the Court below that appellant/company was bound to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one without any charges---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

The INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED vs ABDUL KHALID GILL Ss — 2023 CLD 984 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD