1. Brief facts of the case titled above are that complainant purchased 100 CC Suzuki Shogan Motorcycle Model 2006 engine No. 198790 on 19.4.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 62,640/- on installment basis from the respondent No. 2 who received an amount of Rs. 18840/- as markup in advance from the complainant. According to agreement price was to be paid in 24 monthly installments and therefore complainant had paid four installments but the defendant repossessed the motorcycle from the complainant on 24.10.2006 despite payment of two more installments. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant suffered business loss Rs. 4, 20,000/-, monetary loss Rs.38, 500/- and mental torture worth Rs. Two lac, but the defendant failed to make payment of the said amount to the complainant despite service of legal notice dated 10.4.2008 upon them.
2. 2 The defendant submitted written statement by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is hopelessly time barred, the court has got no jurisdiction while denying averments of the complaint.
3. 3 Complainant produced evidence as under: Complainant appeared himself as PW1 and while making statement on oath tendered his affidavit EXP1 to the effect that he made payment of markup in advance being an amount of Rs. 18,840/- and also made payment of four installments pertaining to the month of June, July, August and September 2006 but the defendant No. 2 repossessed motorcycle from the complainant on 24.10.2006, although complainant had paid two more installments. He maintained in the affidavit EXP1 that he suffered business loss Rs. 4, 20,000/-, monetary loss Rs.38, 500/- and mental torture worth Rs. Two lac. PW2 Syed Sabir Hussain appear on 11.7.2009 and tendered his affidavit EXP2 reiterating the same version. PW3 Miyan Amjad Ali Advocate tendered his affidavit EXP3 being scribe of legal notices EXP4, EXP5. He states that these legal notices were dispatched by him to the defendants through postal service. He also tendered postal receipts EXP6, EXP7 (both under objection). Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Choudhry Advocate learned counsel for the complainant tendered documents Markup slip EXP8, detail of original document of motorcycle EXP9, delivery challan slip EXP10, original cash receipt slip EXP11, cash receipt slip pertaining to month of July-August EXP12, cash receipt slip regarding month of September EXP13 and closed evidence of the complainant vide his statement dated 20.7.2009.
4. 4 Defendent No. 2 Syed Gohar Ali Gillani himself appeared as DW1 and made statement on oath that the complainant agreed to purchase 100 CC Suzuki Shogan Motorcycle Model 2006 from his branch office on 19.4.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 78,640/- with down payment of Rs. 16,000/- whereas remaining amount of Rs. 62,640/- was to be paid by the complainant on monthly installment basis. He added that complainant was bound to make payment of every installment by 7th of each month and that in case of delay for period exceeding 15 days the defendant company was authorized to repossess the motorcycle from the complainant. He added that complainant made payment of installments pertaining to month of June, July, August, September but the installments pertaining to month of October 2006 was not paid by the complainant and eventually the motorcycle was repossessed from the complainant on 30.10.2006. He added that complainant visited his office on 21.11.2006 in this regard demanding delivery motorcycle back to the complainant but he replied that the same could not be done because the complainant had failed to fulfill his obligations. He added further that the motorcycle had been resold and the same could be delivered again to the complainant on payment of full remaining amount. He closed his evidence vide his statement dated 20.7.2009.
5. 5 The learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments as under: Argument of the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Choudhry Advocate is that complainant has proved his case with cogent and convincing evidence and hence he is entitled to compensation prayed for. On the other hand learned counsel for the defendant Mr. Muhammad Irfan Wyne Advocate argued that the case is hopelessly time barred and is not maintainable in the consumer court.
6. 6 Arguments so addressed have been considered, record has been perused which reveals that precise stand of the complainant as contained in the complaint is that he purchased motorcycle from the defendant on 19.4.2006 on installment basis and he had paid four monthly installments but on 24.10.2006 the defendant repossessed the motorcycle from the complainant. Obviously cause of action first of all arose on 24.10.2006 when defendant repossessed motorcycle from the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Period of limitation for such claims basically as described in the Act is only 30 days from arising of cause of action but position of the instant complaint is that despite arising of cause of action on 24.10.2006 the complaint was instituted on 02.7.2008 i.e. much after the expiry of prescribed limitation period. No doubt the limitation can be extended by the Court if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within prescribed period but no such sufficient has been shown in the complaint or in the evidence produced by the complainant, as such question of extension of limitation period does not arise in the circumstances of this case. Relevant to the situation is section 28(4) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 which reads as under: Sec. 28(4):- "A claim by the consumer or the Auth ority shall be filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of action: Provided that 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."
7. 7 In the light of above discussion I hold that the complaint is time barred.
8. Same therefore stands dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.