District Consumer Commission Duty-Bound To Refer Product For Laboratory Analysis When Prayed For; Cannot Dismiss For Want Of Expert Evidence: Punjab State Commission

"The District Commission was duty bound to send the laptop to competent authority or the person by getting the expert opinion before recording such finding." Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a notable ruling delivered on October 13, 2026, held that a consumer forum cannot dismiss a defect complaint for want of expert evidence when the complainant has explicitly prayed for laboratory examination under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

A bench comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President), Ms. Simarjot Kaur (Member), and Mr. Vishav Kant (Member) ruled that in such circumstances, the forum is under a statutory obligation to send the product for technical testing before deciding the defect claim.

The appellant purchased a laptop on January 6, 2022, and reported functional defects during the one-year warranty period via email on September 9, 2022, and October 9, 2022. The opposite parties eventually denied free-of-cost repair on September 30, 2024, prompting the complainant to file a consumer complaint on February 13, 2025. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Nawanshahr, proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties but dismissed the complaint as time-barred and devoid of expert evidence, against which the consumer appealed.

The primary questions before the State Commission were whether the complaint was barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and whether the District Commission committed a jurisdictional error by dismissing the plea for lack of expert opinion despite a specific prayer under Section 38(2)(c) of the Act seeking laboratory analysis.

Cause Of Action Accrues From Date Of Refusal To Honour Warranty Obligations

The State Commission held that the District Commission committed a palpable error by holding that the complaint was time-barred simply on the ground that it was filed long after the initial date of purchase. The bench noted that the laptop had been purchased under an invoice dated January 6, 2022, and the appellant had promptly communicated the defects within the subsistence of the warranty period on September 9, 2022.

The bench clarified that the formal denial to honour the warranty obligation constitutes the foundational date for computing the statutory limitation period. The opposite parties specifically refused to repair the unit free of cost only on September 30, 2024, which generated the actionable grievance for the consumer.

"The cause of action had accrued to the Complainant on 30.09.2024 when the OPs had denied to repair free of cost. The Complaint was filed on 13.02.2025 before the District Commission. Meaning thereby that the Complaint was filed within the period of limitation and the same was maintainable before the District Commission."

Mandatory Obligation Under Section 38(2)(c) To Procure Expert Laboratory Report

Addressing the District Commission's second ground for dismissal—the absence of an independent expert opinion—the State Commission highlighted that the appellant had incorporated an explicit prayer in the complaint seeking a direction under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appellant had categorically prayed for the Commission to impound the laptop and send it to an appropriate laboratory or appoint a court commissioner to assess the manufacturing and technical flaws.

The State Commission observed that consumer commissions cannot place the burden of procuring technical laboratory testing exclusively upon an individual litigant when the statute provides an explicit procedural mechanism. When an applicant specifically moves the forum under Section 38(2)(c), the forum cannot summarily ignore the prayer and subsequently reject the claim on grounds of missing expert evidence.

The bench pointed out that the evidence and assertions placed on record by the complainant stood completely unrebutted since the opposite parties had been proceeded against ex-parte. Consequently, the District Commission was mandated to exercise its statutory powers rather than rendering an unreasoned dismissal contrary to procedural justice.

The appellant had also invoked several binding precedents on reasoned orders and warranty defaults, including Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, Maruti Udyog Limited v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra, Hyundai Motor India Limited v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, and Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Private Limited.

Setting aside the order passed by the District Commission, the State Commission remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, with a mandate to consider all documentary evidence and procure an expert technical evaluation. The opposite parties, while permitted to join the remanded proceedings, were restricted solely to advancing oral arguments.

The State Commission clarified that the cause of action in warranty-related disputes crystallises upon the explicit refusal of service, ensuring complaints filed thereafter fall well within statutory limits. The judgment further establishes that consumer forums cannot penalise consumers for the absence of technical evidence when an application under Section 38(2)(c) has been left unaddressed by the forum itself.

Date of Decision: 13 October 2026