SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. Succinctly, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Court, Lahore under section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, against the appellants, for providing alleged defective and faulty services with regards to purchase of tractor.
The parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Consumer Court vide impugned judgment dated 03.12.2012 accepted the complaint and directed the appellant(s) to pay Rs.43,000/-charged towards excess price of tractor, Rs.6,880/-towards receive of excess GST and Rs.50,000/- damages total Rs.99,880/- to the respondent/complainant within 30 days; hence, the instant appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Subsection (4) of Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 provides: "(4) A claim by the consumer or the Authority shall be filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of action: Provided that the Consumer Court, having jurisdiction to hear the claim, may allow a claim to be filed after thirty days within such time as it may allow if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period: Provided further that such extension shall not be allowed beyond a period of sixty days from the expiry of the warranty or guarantee period specified by the manufacturer or service provider and if no period is specified one year from the date of purchase of the products or providing of services.'
In the present case, admittedly the cause of action accrued to the respondent on 16.11.2011, when she deposited the purported excess amount and received the delivery of tractor; the respondent issued legal notice to the appellants on 24.02.2012 and filed the complaint under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2005 on 27.04.2012, which otherwise should have been filed within 30 days from accrual of cause of action, because the above provision of law provides period 30 days for filing such claim from the date of accrual of cause of action. The respondent did not file any application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1408 showing sufficient cause for delay. Reliance in this regard can safely be placed on judgment reported as Messrs Pak Suzuki Motors Company Limited through Manager v. Faisal Jameel Butt and another (PLD 2023 SC 482), wherein it has invariably been held that:- 'A perusal of the above provision indicates that before filing that a claim before the Consumer Court, the consumer or the Authority has to issue a written notice under Section 28(1) to the manufacturer or service provider notifying him of the defect in the product or service or if the conduct of the manufacturer or service provider is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, seeking that he should remedy the defect or give damages, or cease to contravene the provisions of the Act. Under Section 28(2), the manufacturer or service provider is to respond to the notice within 15 days. Section 28(3) provides no claim shall be entertained by the Consumer Court unless the consumer provides proof of sending and delivery of the said notice. Section 28(4) stipulates that a claim shall be filed within 30 days of the arising of the cause of action. The Proviso to Section 28(4) provide that the Consumer Court may extend this limitation period beyond the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period, however, this extension shall not be beyond a period of 60 days from the expiry of the warranty or guarantee period specified by the manufacturer or service provider, or if no period is specified, then one year from the date of purchase of the product or provision of service.
9. In our view, even though no limitation period is provided for sending a written notice under Section 28(1) of the Act, it is apparent that Section 28(4) of the Act in unequivocal terms stipulates and clarifies that a claim with regards to a defective or faulty product or service, or contravention of the provisions of the Act by the manufacturer or service provider has to be filed within 30 days of the arising of the cause of action. The cause of action, in such circumstances where a product or service is faulty, therefore, arises the moment the consumer obtains knowledge that the product or service is defective or faulty. If the provision is interpreted to mean that despite having knowledge of the defect in the product or the Service, the consumer can issue a written notice under Section 28(1) of the Act at any time the consumer desires, pursuant to which, after 15 days of such receipt of the notice, the cause of action for the purposes of the 30-day limitation period would ensue, this would make Section 28(4) of the Act as redundant, and a claim under the Act can be filed at any time without any limitation period subsequent to obtaining knowledge of the defect or fault in the product or the service.
10. The limitation period in such consumer protection claims becomes more significant especially because claimants should bring a claim as quickly as possible due to the potential depreciation of the product in question, the characteristics of which may differ according to the specific product. Delaying the filing of a claim can lead to challenges in establishing the product's condition at the time of purchase and linking any defects to the consumer's use or handling. As time passes, the product may deteriorate, be repaired or modified, or become unavailable, making it more difficult to prove the defects or assess its original condition. Bringing a claim promptly helps ensure that the product's condition and any defects can be accurately evaluated and documented. This can also contribute to a stronger case by providing evidence that directly supports the consumer's claim. Additionally, timely action demonstrates the consumer's diligence and commitment to addressing the issue.
11. The legislative intent behind Sections 28(1), (2) and (3) of the Act is to grant rights to both the consumer and the manufacturer or service provider to address the defects or faults in the product or service before the matter proceeds to litigation. It ensures that the consumer firstly brings the issue to the attention of the manufacturer or the service provider through a written notice, so that the defect or fault is rectified and they fulfill their obligation to the consumer before the consumer has to file a claim before the Consumer Court, so that there is a possibility of settling the claim of the consumer without the need to initiate litigation, which would be more cumbersome for a simple consumer. At the same time, it also affords the manufacturer or the service provider the right to respond to the notice within a specified timeframe, enabling them to address any legitimate concerns, protect their reputation, and mitigate potential costs that may be incurred under the Act. In effect, it provides for a mechanism to settle the dispute before initiation of litigation and the same cannot be construed as giving a fresh cause of action wherefrom the 30- day limitation provided under Section 28(4) would commence. Therefore, when the consumer obtains knowledge of the defect or fault in the product or the service, the 30-day limitation period stipulated under Section 28(4) of the Act commences. It is during this period that the consumer has to first put his grievance before the manufacturer or service provider, seeking rectification of the defect or fault in the product or service, or damages, and provide 15 days to the manufacturer or service provider to remedy the same, as required under Section 28(2). It is only after the manufacturer or the service provider responds to the written notice, or where he fails to respond within the stipulated 15-day period, that the consumer can file a claim before the Consumer Court if the cause of action still subsists. The consumer can still file a claim before the Consumer Court by giving sufficient cause for filing the claim beyond 30 days which will be examined by the Consumer Court, as per the provisos to Section 28(4) of the Act.' (Emphasis supplied)
4. When this Court has reached to a conclusion that the complaint of the respondent was barred by limitation, there is no need to touch the other merits of the case, because limitation is not mere a technicality and where the limitation period has expired, the right accrues in favour of the other side which cannot be lightly brushed aside. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Anwar v. Essa (PLD 2022 SC 716) and Asad Ali v. The Bank of Punjab (PLD 2020 SC 736).
5. Additionally, it is a settled principle of law that when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. Reliance is placed on Messrs Tri-Star Industries (Pvt) Limited v. Trisa Burstenfabrik AG Triengen and another (2023 SCMR 1502) and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and another v. E- Movers (Pvt.) Limited and another (2022 SCMR 1021).
6. Besides, the respondent cannot claim general damages because the same is not governed by section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2005, rather in order to determine the civil rights, the respondent could resort to court of plenary jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
7. The crux of the discussion above is that the appeal in hand succeeds; resultantly, the impugned judgment is set aside, consequent whereof, the complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed. No order as to the costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.