COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PAKISTAN LIMITED versus ASHIQ ALI
Section 4, 10, 25, 28 (4), 30 (1) (C), 31 and 33 Claims against losses in the Company range, Principal Consumer Grants claim that soft drinks produced by the Company The dead bottle contains a dead worm in it. The trial court accepted the consumer complaint and awarded damages against the beverage company on the same day as the cause of action for the consumer when he knew it was a defective product, ie 25. The complaint was lodged in accordance with Section 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 on February 21, 2009 and the filing limit was 30 days due to the process, therefore, the complaint was filed after the prescribed time limit. Was. The delay case was not filed, and the delay was not waived by the trial court, therefore, when the complaint was filed after the prescribed time limit without the prayer of delay, the trial court had no jurisdiction. There was no option. If the product contained a company mark but was forged and the company did not produce it, then the trial court obtained expert evidence under section 30 (1) (c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 Was forced to do. Determine whether the company manufactured it or declared it to be fake when no harm was done and if the product was not used, the trial court was not justified in damages. The court had rejected the judgment and order and dismissed the complaint filed by the consumer appeals. In the circumstances it was allowed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
