1. The claimant Mr. Muhammad Aslam has made the complaint that he possesses a car No. LZU- 1212, Model 2005 which was got leased by him in April, 2005 from the Habib Bank Limited, Faisalabad and it was insured from the Premier insurance company and it was 16.12.2006 when the claimant visited the defendant for the replacement of the defective front bumper and it took four days for the replacement and after some time, same disorder position in the working of the car was noticed by the claimant and it came to know that the parts of the vehicle of the claimant namely (i) power pump (ii) original horns and rubber of the roof were replaced with some substandard parts. When the claimant logged the complaint, the defendant admitted the guilt and promised to return the original parts and also requested not to highlight the matter at any forum as the reputation of the company was involved. The claimant also sent the legal notice to the defendant in which the defendant evasively promised to return the same and to pay compensation of the parts but just three days before filing of the claim, the defendant flatly refused to accede the request of the claimant, hence this claim.
2. The claim was hotly contested by the defendant, that the claim was false and that the legal notice was received to the defendant which was responded on 22.11.2007. The claim has been made after about eleven months of accrual of cause of action. As per customer history the vehicle of the claimant came to the defendant's show room / work shop for repairing on 13.12.2006 and was delivered back through the representative of the insurance company in correct form and a fool proof system is there in the work shop of the defendant and contents of the claim are false and it is liable to be dismissed with special cost of Rs.10,000/- as required by section 35 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
3. The defendant made an offer for pre-trial settlement in writing that if the claimant makes special oath on Holy Quran that his parts were changed in the work shop of the defendant, the defendant was ready to make it's payment of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant. This application was resisted by the claimant that if the defendant makes a special oath on Holy Quran that the parts of the claimant's vehicle were not changed and that the defendant did not promise to return the parts, the claimant would with-draw his claim.
4. In view of the above situation, pre-trial settlement was deemed to be failed and the parties were directed to produce their respective evidence and the claimant himself appeared as PW1 with his affidavit as witness Ex-Pw1/1 and examined Mr. Muhammad Amjad Baig his real brother as Pw2 with affidavit as Ex-Pw2/1.
5. In rebuttal the defendant Mr. Riaz Mehmood Qurashi, General Manager of the defendant company appeared as DW1 with his affidavit as Ex-Dw1/1, customer history of the car No. LZU-1212 as Ex-D1, legal notice as Ex-D2, reply of the legal notice Ex-D3, receipt of the O.C.S (courier Service) as Ex-D4 and repair order dated 18.12.2006 as Ex-D6.
6. Arguments heard, record perused. The perusal of record file reveals that the claim has been made by the claimant on the basis of alleged exchange of three parts of his vehicle by the defendant company on 16.12.2006 and the claim was filed in the court on 17.03.2008 after a period of about one year and three months and reason shown by the claimant for filing the claim at a very belated stage was the promise of the defendant to accommodate the claimant by replacement of the parts or payment of the price of the parts and even it was 01.11.2007 when the claimant got issued a legal notice to the defendant which was responded by the defendant through his learned counsel Mian Mansoor Ali, Advocate on 24.11.2007 but there was not a single word expressly or impliedly in reply to the legal notice regarding any promise made by the defendant to return the parts to the claimant or it's price. Section 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 provides thirty days time for filing such claim from the date of accrual of cause of action and there are two provisos to this section but the claim of the claimant is not covered under any of the same, so the claim is hopelessly barred by time.
7. Moreover, the claimant logged the complaint with the defendant after eleven months and with the court after fifteen months, during which at a number of times vehicle of the claimant may have visited the private workshops. There is no evidence on the file that by whom the parts of the claimant's vehicle were changed and there is no mention of time and date when the claimant came to know of the exchange of parts of his vehicle. The claimant in his evidence mentioned the name of one Mr. Abdul-Jabbar, Motor Mechanic who pointed out the change of parts but the said Mr. Abdul-Jabbar has not been examined in evidence. Accordingly the claimant fails to prove any defective and faulty service on the part of the defendant company and the claim fails against the defendant and is liable to be dismissed.
8. As regards, the request of the defendant for payment of cost U/S. 35 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, though the claimant has failed to prove his claim on technical grounds but no malafide of the claimant is found in filing the claim against the defendant as there existed no such previous enmity, grudge or any such previous litigation between the parties prior to filing of this claim. Accordingly the claim is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. File be consigned.