1. Muhammad Aslam S/o Ghulam Ghaos, proprietor Poultry Forms Kot Hanif Gujranwala filed a complaint U/S 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 against the Pak Feeds Mills Gujranwala, respondent, for recovery of Rs. 891218/- as damages stating that on 23-08-08 he purchased 340 bags of poultry feed manufactured by the respondent's Mills @ of Rs. 1144/- per bag for the total amount of Rs. 388960/- in order to feed 5000 chicks under shade of his poultry form.
2. On 13-09-08 he also purchased 11700 more chicks for the same poultry form. According to the complainant 11500 chicks died of Toxicity present in the feed administered to them which was manufactured by the respondent's factory. After analysis of the feed by the laboratory the high percentage of Toxic was found in the feed which had caused death of the chicks. The complainant spent Rs. 60000/- for the medicine and other expenditures on the flock total amounting to Rs.
3. 891218/- and suffered the damages due to defective product manufactured by the respondent's factory.
4. The complaint was contested by the respondent on the various grounds. Certain legal objections were raised about maintainability of the complaint which are being disposed off through the instant order.
5. Argument heard record perused.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that complaint is barred by time; Complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2(c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005; Complaint has not been filed in proper form as the alleged purchase of the feed was not directly from the respondent.
7. I have gone through the file with able assistance of both the counsels for the parties. In Para one of the complaint it has been mentioned that on 23-08-08 340 bags of poultry feed were purchased.
8. In Para two of the complaint it has been stated that 11700 chicks were purchased on 13-09-08 which died of Toxic feed. If the cause of action accrued within 15 days after administering the feed to the chicks i.e on 28-09-08 even then the complaint was to be filed within 30 days of this date, as per Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, but the compliant was filed on 30- 04-09 after a period of 7 months. Filing of complaint with this delay has not been explained by the complainant in the complaint, no sufficient cause has been advanced for the same. Even an application for codonation of delay has not been annexed with the complaint. Irrespective of the other legal objections the complaint on this score alone is not entertainable. Consequently the same is dismissed being barred by time. The complainant may adopt alternate remedy, if so desire, by filing the suit in the Civil Court to recover the damages. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.