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. Therefore, the consumer's claim was withheld over time due to delay in the application of section 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 any complaint by the consumer regarding wrongdoing of the refrigerator by consumers is not technical. Thay matter, and the consumer court should have summoned expert evidence in the sense of section 30 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, instead of deciding on oral evidence, the consumer court's decision was kept separate, circumstances. I
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
