1. Anyait Ullah S/o Noor Din has filed this complaint against M/s H.M Khalid. Complainant's case is that he purchased 18 tin of watermelon seed "Black King" brand for consideration of Rs. 6000/-. It was ensured by the respondent that watermelon will be born longitudinal in shape. After sowing and nourishing crop, he found that watermelon are small in size and round in shape and in this way complainant claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs. 400000/-. Respondent appeared in the court in response to process issued and by way of filing reply, refuted averments of the complaint, taking stance that watermelon seed purchased by the complainant is of a famous brand known as "Black King" which is being imported by the respondent from neighboring country China and all the cultivators in the surrounding areas are fully aware that this branded seed creates round shape watermelon. Production of watermelon in longitudinal shape was never claimed by the complainant. It was further stated that on the tin pack container of the seed, picture of the fruit/ watermelon in round shape is conspicuous. Respondent also pointed out that complainant has earlier purchased and cultivated the same branded seed from the respondent last year, therefore no such question could arise of any such misrepresentation. The plaint was also resisted by raising technical objections about its maintainability being time barred.
2. In order to prove its case the complainant produced Muhammad Yaqoob as PW3, Irfan as PW2 and himself appeared as PW1. He produced EX-PA receipt showing sale of seed, Ex-PB receipt of dispatched legal notice, Ex-PC Acknowledgment receipt and Mark A copy of legal notice.
3. Respondent appeared as RW1, produced Javaid Iqbal as RW2. A tin of packed watermelon seed "Black King" was also produced in the court which was taken into possession. The complainant in the witness box reiterated the averments of his complaint. PW2 Irfan Ullah son of the complainant verified the statement of his father. During the cross examination PW2 expressed his ignorance about the round shape picture of the watermelon printed on the container of the seed.
4. Muhammad Yaqoob PW3 stated that he saw the round shape watermelon in the field of the complainant.
5. I have examined the receipt, Ex-PA which contains the description of black king water million 18 tin amounting to Rs. 6000/- issued on 28-01-07. It does not contain any description about the shape of watermelon. I have also examined the sealed container of the seed on which picture of round shape watermelon is printed. On the back of the tin pack it is mentioned as "An improved sughar Baby Type Hybrid globe fruit with dark green rind".
6. In support of the contention that the complainant has already purchased the same seed last year, respondent placed on record photo copy of the receipt dated 02-02-06.
7. The main controversy between the parties is about false, deceptive and misleading representation and defective product (seed) of watermelon. The complaint has not laid emphasis on the poor growth of the fruit, rather laid stress upon the type and shape of the watermelon. After examining the tin pack of the seed a person of an ordinary prudence can easily judge that it contains the seed of round shape watermelon picture of which is printed on the same alongwith the description as globe fruit. So no question arises of any misconception or false statement. As far as the size of the fruit is concerned, no crop inspection was got conducted by the complainant from any expert in the field. Complainant should have made a request to the Executive District Officer (Agriculture) for crop inspection to get a report. No sample of the fruit was collected, no photograph, if taken of the fruit was produced in evidence. I have also given my anxious thoughts to the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent regarding limitation period for filing the plaint. Admittedly, the seed was purchased on 18-01-2007. It was cultivated and after flowering the crop was ready for harvesting in 33 days and at that time the cause of action could accrue, when the complainant came across with the shape and size of the fruit. Approximately it was 04-03-2007. Legal notice was served by the complainant through his counsel to the respondent on 10-09-2007 and the complaint was filed on 22-09-2007. If it is presumed that harvesting of water million crop is carried on usually in the month of April or May, 2007, even then the complaint was filed after the period of 4 months without any explanation of delay or any request for extension of time. Therefore, the case can be thrown out on this score alone. The up short of the discussion is the complainant has failed to prove its time barred claim, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to the cost. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.