1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF SOHAIB AHMED RUMI

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/PRESIDING OFFICER
DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT, GUJRANWALA
Case No. 39/09

Shiraz Hassan S/o Fayyaz Ahmad R/o House No. 4, Mian Street D.C Road,
Gujranwala. (Complainant)

Vs.

M/S Haier Electronics Company Through it Managing Director, Raiwind Road,

Lahore and others (Respondents)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE PUNJAB CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2005

Date of institution : 10-02-09.

Date of decision : 01-04-10.

JUDGMENT:

1. Case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator Model

HR-195 manufactured by M/S Haier Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd: Raiwind Road,
Lahore (respondent No.1) for consideration of Rs.15,100/-, from Pakistan
Electronics Gujranwala (respondent No.2), through invoice No. 808 dated
10-02-2008 against a warranty providing proper functioning of product for three
years. After six weeks of usage in accordance with the printed instructions of the
manufacturer, the refrigerator did not work properly. Younger sister of the
complainant could narrowly escape from an electric shock from the refrigerator.
Respondent No.2 was accordingly informed. On this reference a mechanic from
respondent No. 3, the local service center, Haier Electronics company attended
the refrigerator and apparently set right the fault, which could not be removed
being manufacturing fault according to the complainant. Despite repeated
requests respondent No.2 neither eradicated the fault permanently as earlier
detected nor replaced the refrigerator. On 22-12-08 mother-in-law of the
complainant received a fatal electric shock while using defective refrigerator and
lost her life. Necessary legal notice was issued, but none of the respondents paid
attention. Complainant demanded compensation for loss of life and replacement
of the defective product.

2. Respondent No. 1&2 replied that complainant did not make his
complaint to respondent No.2. Since the purchase of the refrigerator, he
continued to use the refrigerator till 22-12-2008 knowing it dangerous and even
 2 of 8

to the peril of his family life. Respondents contended that complainant’s own
conduct amounts to criminal negligence if averment of the complaint is true;
The death certificate of the mother in law of the complainant is not issued by
authorized officer; No autopsy was conducted to ascertain the cause of death;
The warranty card ensured proper functioning of the part of the refrigerator for
one year if used in prescribed manner; If the refrigerator was defective, the
complainant should have placed it at the shop of respondent No.2 or dropped it
to the service center. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the case was also
challenged, besides, claiming that the complaint is barred by time.

3. The following evidence was produced by the complainant in

order to establish his case:-

Complainant himself appeared as PW1, Dr. Mateen

Imran as PW2, Mushtaq Ahmed as PW3, Bilal Hussain
as PW4, Muhammad Mazhar Javaid as PW5 and
produced receipt of refrigerator in question Exhibit
“PA”, warranty card Exhibit “PB”, copy of legal notice
mark “A”, Acknowledgment dues Exhibit “PC”,
“PD”&”PE”, death certificate Exhibit “PF”, and report
Exhibit “PF/1”,

4. On the other hand respondents produced the following evidence:-

Muhammad Mohsin Ali appeared as RW1 and produced

service report of refrigerator in question Exhibit “RA”,
& “RB”.

5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent at the very out set raised
an objection that the limitation period for bringing a claim before the Consumer
Court as provided by the law is 30 days. The refrigerator in question was
purchased on 10-02-08 and as per para 7 of the plaint about 6 weeks after using
the refrigerator sister of the complainant received an electric shock. In this way
cause of action firstly arosed on March 24, 2008. The case at the most should
have been filed by 24th April, 2008, but the complaint was filed on 10-02-09
which is badly barred by time. It was contented by the counsel for the
complainant that on 22-12-08 mother-in-law of complainant was electrocuted by
the refrigerator, the legal notice was issued on 13-01-09, therefore, accrual of
 3 of 8

cause of action would be presumed form the death of unfortunate lady. Learned
counsel for the respondent contented that if for the sake of arguments it is
admitted to, that date of accrual of cause of action is the date of death of mother-
in-law i.e 22-12-08, even than the complaint should have been filed till 22nd
January, 2009, but the same was filed on 10-02-09 which is again out of time.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments put forth

on behalf of parties to this case. Before proceedings further, it would not be out
of place to reproduce the relevant provision of subsection 4 of section 28 of
Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.

“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”.

8. I am of the view that if case of the complainant is considered

falling under subsection 4 where the maximum period for filing the claim has
been mentioned as 30 days from arising of the cause of action, even then, the
case is not out of time. The term “cause of action” has not been defined in the
Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. So much so this term even has not been
defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, according to one authoritative
judgment, cause of action means bundle of facts necessitating the institution of
case. After all, cause of action is not some thing irreversible fixed or immutable
or static. It has often been held by the law Courts that some cause of action are
re-occurring causes of action i.e which accrues on the accrual of resistance from
the other side. In the context of cause of action concerning immovable property
it has been repeatedly held that every fresh denial of right from the side of
defendant furnishes the plaintiff with a fresh cause of action. It has also been
held time and again that whenever adverse entry in record of right i.e “Register
 4 of 8

Haqdaran Zameen” or “Jama Bandi”, furnishes the person against whom that
entry had been made a fresh cause of action. Considered from this angel it can
be safely held that whereas the concerned consumer or user of the defective
product feels dissatisfied with its working and starts grumbling about its quality
or useworthiness, a fresh cause of action accrues in favour of the complainant.
That being so, if the equipment in question is defective and creating problems
for the user, whenever such problem confronts him on daily basis, there can be
no denying the fact that on each such occasion a reoccurring cause of action
arises in his favour for presentation of claim under the legal provision cited
above.

9. In this case cause of action firstly accrued in the 6th week of the
date of purchase of refrigerator when sister of the complainant received an
electric shock while using the refrigerator. It continued and during this
continuation the unfortunate lady met with fatal accident and even after her
burrial cause of action remained continue and so much so during pendency of
case it is continued when the refrigerator was examined by the expert on the
direction of the Court and detected the leakage of electricity current in the same,
therefore, objection of the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable, as
such the complaint is held within time.

10. According to the evidence, about 4/5 days after the purchase the
electric bulb installed inside the refrigerator become out of order. Besides,
whoever attempted to put metal utensils inside the refrigerator, felt electric
current. On the direction of respondent No.2, service center (respondent No.3)
was contacted whose representative visited and checked the refrigerator.
Complainant once again approached respondent No.2 with the request to change
the equipment. A mechanic of respondent No.3 later removed the fault of
defrosting and advised for shifting of the refrigerator in question at the service
center for a period of 15 days for removal of fault of electric bulb and earth.
Complainant asked the respondent No.2 to provide another refrigerator as
alternate arrangement for the interim period who flatly refused. After that
complainant’s wife Saima and her sister Noreen Ashraf received electric shock
while using the refrigerator. During the night of 21 and 22 December, 2008
Farhat Ashraf mother-in-law of complainant received fatal shock and died at the
spot. Bilal Hassan PW4 an electrician, as per his deposition, on the asking of
complainant inspected the refrigerator and found running the electricity in its
body.
 5 of 8

11. On the other hand Muhammad Mohsin Ali technician from the
respondent company when appeared as RW1 stated in his examination in chief
that he had visited house of the complainant to attend the complaint. The electric
bulb was not working. He made adjustment in the thermostat and advised the
customer to bring the refrigerator in the service center. After 5,6 days he again
visited the house of the complainant and made adjustment of thermostat once
again. Thereafter, complainant did not contact the company and also failed to
bring the refrigerator at workshop. By going through the statement of this RW it
seems that he was concealing something. It is not understandable that if only the
electronic bulb was not working what was the need to ask for bringing the
refrigerator in the workshop because this defect of ordinary nature could be
removed at site. If statement of this RW is presumed to be a gospel truth then
the reason for asking the complainant to take the refrigerator at workshop can be
traced out from the cross examination of this witness when he admitted that
complainant has pointed out during his visit a manufacturing fault in the wiring
of the refrigerator and the said fault could not be removed without bringing the
refrigerator in the workshop, but the complainant has not acted upon his advise,
meaning thereby that there was leakage of electric current in the body of the
refrigerator at that very time, but the mechanic from the service centre did not
take it seriously.

12. To administer justice and dig out the truth is the first and
foremost duty of the Court itself, therefore, this Court during the trail got the
refrigerator in question examined from experts in the refrigeration and
Electrical. Muhammad Asif Instructor Air Conditioning and refrigeration and
Muhammad Mazhar Javaid Instructor Electrical, Govt. Apprentice Training
Center, Gujranwala on the direction of this Court jointly inspected the
refrigerator in question and submitted report exhibit “PF”. One of the signatory
to the report which was also counter singed by the Principal of the above
mentioned Center appeared as PW5 in the witness box and stated that at the time
of inspection leakage of current from internal wiring of the refrigerator was
noticed which is a manufacturing defect. There was no leakage of current from
compressor. The strength of the current measured was 85 volt which can be fatal
for human life. During the cross examination by the counsel for the respondents
this PW clarified that he used Megat meter to detect the leakage of current. This
PW identified the signature of his co-instructor of refrigeration and Air
Conditioning on the report exhibit “PF”. Upto this juncture it is crystal clear
 6 of 8

that the product was defective which carried on an inherent defect and the same
had not occurred due to misuse or malpractice of the customer.

13. During the course of cross examination counsel for the

respondents questioned the death of Farhat Ashraf. It was also argued that there
is nothing on the record to prove that Farhat Ashraf died due to electric shock as
autopsy was not conducted. I have seriously attended to this point. PW1 stated
that he found Farhat Ashraf in contact with the refrigerator from the left side of
her head. The whole left side of body had been burnt by electric shock. She was
shifted to Harris Medical Complex situated at the distance of 20/30 Karams
from the residence of the complainant. The Doctor examined the lady who has
already seummbed to the electric current. Dr. Mateen Imran was posted as
Medical Officer at Harris Medical Complex. At about 12:30 am during the night
between 21, 22 December 2008 he examined Farhat Ashraf who at the time of
examination as per this PW had already expired. Dr. Mateen Imran observed
mark of electric burn on the chest, upper limbs and half lower limbs of the dead
body. He issued death certificate exhibit “PF”. He was specially put to cross
examination by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding cause of death
of Farhat Ashraf and he remained consistent that death was due to electrocution.
The remaining PWs namely Mushtaq Ahmed corroborated and supported the
complainant’s version on this point. There is cogent evidence present on the
record to believe that Farhat Ashraf was electrocuted and her death was due to
receiving the electric current flowing from inside the refrigerator. She came in
contact with the refrigerator accidentally. It is not the case of the respondents
that her death was suicidal.

14. Counsel for respondents also argued that accident has occurred
not due to the defect in the equipment supplied, but due to the negligence of the
complainant who knowingly, the is leakage of current in the refrigerator, chose
to use it and fail to drop the equipment back at the service center of the company
for removal of the fault. According to the learned counsel as per warranty
policy’s condition No.4 printed in Urdu on the warranty card to take the
equipment in case of any defect at service center or workshop is the duty of the
customer and in this case complainant failed to perform his obligation, therefore,
he can not be absolved of his primary responsibility which become the cause of
death of a human being.
 7 of 8

15. I am of the view that this fatal accident had happened due to the
defect in the equipment which as per expert witness was inherent and
manufacturing fault and partly due to the negligence of service center, the
respondent No.3. There is no hesitation to accept that the refrigerator in
question was running with electric current in its outer body coming from inside
concealed wiring manufactured by the Haier Electronic Company who is
responsible for making the same. Respondents have not specifically denied the
positive assertion made by the complainant that the refrigerator in question was
smeared with electric current in its body and this very fact was noticed as
admitted by the RW1 during the course of evidence. The mechanic who was
sent to attend the complaint, considering the entire circumstances should have
disconnected the electric wire attached with the refrigerator permanently making
it nonfunctional till the fault was removed, but he acted negligently ignoring the
general precautions of safety as much as there was no observance of safety
precautions in the warranty card while using the equipment having leakage of
electricity current.

16. In the evidence there is nothing that before releasing the

consignment comprising of the refrigerator in question from the warehouse or
from the plant there was rechecking of the product qua the leakage of electric
current or at the time of delivery to the customer by the distributor it was
ensured that the product is free from leakage of electric current even after
receiving complaint from the customer none of the respondents performed its
legitimate role and did not realize the hazardous consequences. It is not only the
case of defective product, but also of deficiency in service. The unfortunate lady
left two daughters unmarried behind, apart from the wife of the complainant.

17. The respondents cannot take the refuge of alleging contributory

negligence on the part of complainant. The bone of contention in this case is
refrigerator having manufacturing fault. Had it been free of fault, the unfortunate
lady has not breathed her last. Respondents have received the price of the
equipment and were bound to deliver the refrigerator to the complainant free
from defects. Knowing it to be defective respondents did not bother to replace it
having knowledge that the defect in the refrigerator can cause a fatal accident.
Therefore, both the respondents are held liable for providing a defective product
and deficiency in service. I, therefore, direct respondent No.1 M/S Haier
Electronics Company to pay Rs.2.0 Million as a compensation to the legal heirs
of deceased Farhat Ashraf. Respondent No. 2 M/s Pakistan Electronics
 8 of 8

Gujranwala is directed to pay Rs.0.5 Million to the legal heirs of deceased

Farhat Ashraf. Respondent No.2 is also directed to replace defective refrigerator
in question by a new one free from any defect. Both the respondents shall also
pay in equal proportion the litigation expenses Rs.12000/-, proclamation fee
Rs.800/-, expert fee Rs.1500/- to the complainant. The above said amount shall
be paid by the respondents within one month of passing of this judgment to the
complainant. Respondent No. 1&2 are also awarded fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each
for manufacturing and supply of defective product and deficiency in service.
This amount shall be deposited in state treasury in a period of 30 days of the
passing of this judgment. File be consigned to record room after its due
completion.
Announced:
01-04-10
(SOHAIB AHMED RUMI)
District & Sessions Judge/
Presiding Officer
District Consumer Court,
Gujranwala.

Certified that this judgment is consists of eight pages, which have been dictated,
corrected and singed by me.
01-04-10
(SOHAIB AHMED RUMI)
District & Sessions Judge/
Presiding Officer
District Consumer Court,
Gujranwala.