1. Briefly, the claimant purchased U-Track device for consideration of Rs. 44000/- for its installation in his Corolla Altus 1800cc Motor Car but that the device did not work properly as it drained out the battery of the said Motor Car hence, the claimant had to get it disconnected on 05.06.08, therefore, this claim for recovery of an amount Rs. 96000/- as amount of security tracker device, Rs. 34000/-, service charges Rs. 10000/-, transportation expenses Rs. 2000/- and compensation Rs. 50000/- under section 25 of PCPA 2005, for providing faulty/defective product to the claimant/consumer.
2. The defendant have vehemently contested the above said claim by filing his written statement, interalia, on the ground that the claim is barred by law of limitation under section 28 (4) of PCPA 2005. In support of their respective versions, the parties have produced their evidence, as such, the claimant got recorded his statement as PW-1, through his affidavit EX-PW1/1, whereas, his CW's 1, 2 and 3 namely Rana Umar Incharge Car Financing Bank Alfalah, Azhar Saeed Service Manager Toyota Faisalabad Motors and Rana Zahoor Ahmad Sales Manager Auto Motive Battery Company were got examined through their respective affidavits EX-CW1/1, to EX-CW3/1, respectively. In his documentary evidence the claimant has tendered Pakistan Post Officer letter No. G-3/Misc dated 05.11.08, as EX-P1, copy of application dated 17.10.08, as EX-P2, original postal receipt EX-P3. In rebuttal, the defendant has got examined Muhammad Ajmal as DW-1, Amjad Hussain as DW-2, and Abdul Wahab as DW-3, through their respective affidavits EXDW1/1 to and EX-DW3/1. In his documentary evidence the defendant has adduced the certificate of CNG work shop as Mark "A", within soft technology U-Track as Mark "B", Honda Certificate dated January 17.09, as Mark "C".
3. After conclusion of evidence of the parties, I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the record carefully and in estimably. On hearing the parties and scanning the evidence on record the controversy in between the parties has been narrowed down to following two points; a. Whether the claim is within limitation period under section 28(4) PCPA2005; b. Whether the battery of the Motor Car was drained out due to defect in the U-Track provided by the defendant?.
4. As to be first contention, the claimant has stated as PW-1, that after installation of U-Track as the battery was drained out, therefore, he took his vehicle to the Toyota Motor Service Center Canal Road Faisalabad for checking on 05.06.09, when it was disclosed on its checking by the mechanic/expert that the Tracker was defective as it had drained out the battery that, therefore, Tracker was got disconnected meaning thereby that finally, cause of action accrued to the claimant/consumer on the said date but the case has been lodged on 08.11.08, hence, it can by no stretch of imagination be said to be within limitation under section 28 of PCPA 2005, which provided a period of 30 days for such purpose;
5. As to the second moot able point, the claimant has categorically stated in para No. 4 of the body of the claim that the expert of Toyota Motors Canal Road Faisalabad told him that the U-Track installed has caused the draine out of the battery even in standing state of the car therefore, this witness was material but he has not been got examined by the claimant for reasons to unknown to me. The evidence in rebuttal particular by document Mark "C", shows that the U-Track Company provided satisfactory service to his customers at Faisalabad.
6. The upshot of the above whole discussion is that the claim is not sustainable, the same merits dismissal is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.