1. Briefly, the claimant Ch. Dilbar Hameed deposited 60 crate kinnow fruits in the cold storage of the defendants on 07.02.2009 for their preservation at the rate of Rs.18/- per crate per month but that all the kinnows when checked from sample crate were found rotten on 02.04.2009. Hence, this claim for recovery of an amount of Rs.260000/- u/s 25 of PCPA 2005, for providing faulty and defective services to the claimant.
2. After submission of written statements by the defendants, in view of controversial point as raised by learned counsel for the parties during the preliminary arguments, on 20.07.2009, it was deemed fit, in the interesting of justice, to issue local commission in order to ascertain whether or not kinnow fruits alleged to have been packed in the crates deposited in the cold storage of the defendants, deteriorated due to negligence of the defendants or whether the claimant deposited faulty and defective product in the cold storage with malafide in order to extort money of claim from the defendants. Accordingly, the head of Citrus Department of Agriculture University Faisalabad was appointed as local commissioner with the direction to him to visit the defendants cold storage on 30.07.2009, at 11:00AM when both the parties were also to appear there alongwith all relevant documents.
3. The local commissioner Prof. Dr Aman Ullah Malik has submitted his report EX-CW1/1 before this court on 11.08.2009, when his statement was also recorded as CW1.
4. Heard the arguments, record perused.
5. As both the parties depended on the report of the local commissioner, therefore, no their evidence was required in this case. On perusal of the report of the local commissioner, it appeared that claimant raised plea before the local commissioner that at the time of storage kinnow fruits were in good condition, as he got fruits waxed through a friend, and later fruits were packed in wooden crates and delivered to cold storage. However, the learned local commissioner, after hearing both the sides at length observed that remains of pedicels and leaves were found in the crates (photograph attached) and that Rice straw was used as a packing material in wooden crates, that the period during which Kinnow fruits were stored, others fruits like apples, potato, plum, grapefruit, Valencia, etc were also stored in the same cold storage as per cold store record/information and that no problem with any of the produce occurred during the period as such point was endorsed by shopkeepers Islam Subhan, and Abdul Rehman. The learned local commissioner concluded as under; a. There was no formal agreement between the two parties for an agreed duration of the storage of kinnow fruit i.e. For how long the kinnow will be stored/when fruit would be removed; b. The physical examination and presence of the remains of pedicels and leaves in the wooden crates, in which kinnow was packed, was evidence that the kinnow fruits were not waxed/fungicide treated, which is pre-requisite for long term kinnow storage. Therefore, under such conditions the storage life of kinnow is limited, and it is likely to be infected with diseases, during storage; c. It appears that the claimant had no proper information about the storage limitations of un- waxed/fungicide treated kinnow fruit, packing of wooden crates, while, the cold store had no protocol to inspect the fruit quality/condition at the time of storage and advise the customer about the approximate time for the viable storage period of a particular fruit/vegetable crop. d. From the witnesses' information who stored fruits during almost same period in the same cold store, it appears that there was no major breakdown of cold store during that period, which might have damaged fruit/caused fruit rot in kinnow, although a temperature data logger (which are not installed) can only give the precise temperature record.
6. From the above said scenario, it is crystal clear that the claimant has used the defective packing material like remains of pedicels, leaves and rice straw in the wooden crates and that the kinnow fruits were not waxed/fungicide treated as there was no major breakdown of cold storage during the period which might have damaged fruits, hence, there was no negligence on the part of defendants for rotting of the fruits.
7. In the bargain, the cause of action, if any, accrued to the claimant on 02.04.2009, when the deterioration of the kinnow fruits was disclosed but the claim was lodged on 29.06.2009, hence, the claim is barred by law of limitation u/s 28(4) PCPA 2005, which provided a period of thirty days for filing the claim.
8. For would has been disclosed about, the claim merits hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.