Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1684 2018 SLD 1684 2018 CLD 1064
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 522 of 2015, decided on 22-05-2017.
ATIR MAHMOOD, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ilyas Khan Awan for Appellant.

TANVIR AHMAD BUTT

VS

THE DIRECTOR, ORATIER TECHNOLOGIES (PVT.) LTD. PLD PUBLISHERS

Law:

Section:

Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005)--- ----Ss. 28(4) & proviso, 27 & 33---Jurisdiction of Consumer Court---Settlement of Claim---Limitation period of thirty days to file complaint---Computation of limitation period---Condonation of delay---Scope---Consumer Court had power to extend the time limit for filing of complaint for up to one year but such extension could only be made when sufficient cause was disclosed for not filing complaint within 30 days, by filing a proper application---Complaint, under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, if hit by time limitation, then framing of issues and recording of evidence was of no consequence and such complaint was liable to be dismissed. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: ATIR MAHMOOD, J.--- Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 17.11.2012, the appellant filed a complaint under sections 22 and 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter called 'the Act") against the respondent on account of providing faulty and defective services of 'online website' namely 'www.pakistanlawsite.com' which is being run in the name and style of Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. by the respondent. 2. The respondent contested the complaint by filing written statement. After recording of evidence, learned Consumer Court dismissed the complaint vide order dated 29.07.2015. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent blocked the account of the appellant for one week without service of notice due to which the appellant being a lawyer had to suffer a lot in connection with his professional engagements; that the learned consumer court has decided the complaint without framing of issues which is erroneous and illegal; that without framing of issues, the parties could not produce the evidence properly; that the impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law; that learned court below has also misconstrued the law on the subject; that the impugned decision is against the law, therefore, this appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to learned court below for decision afresh after framing ofโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492