DAWLANCE UNITED REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. versus MUHAMMAD JAMEEL
Sections 28 (2), 28 (4), 30 (1) (c) The consumer court, in its order, directed the manufacturer (appellant) to provide a new refrigerator to the consumer (defendant) and to the consumer. Pay compensation The Consumer Court was referred to the manufacturer (appellant), under section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, not to the retailer but to the manufacturer, and therefore the consumer's claim was entertained by the consumer court appellant. Was not provided. (Manufacturer) was prepared as the respondent in the complaint on 17 3 2009 and the reason for the complaint was processed, born 19 5 2008, 3 or 4 days after purchase of the refrigerator. And that is why the consumer's claim has been withheld over time due to delay in the refusal of consumers to make any wrong request of the refrigerator on any request under section 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 The complaint was not a technical matter. , And the consumer court sought expert evidence within the meaning of section 30 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, instead of deciding the matter on oral evidence, the consumer court's decision was kept separate, under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
