Facts in brief are that the petitioner, a resident of district Faisalabad, applied for admission in Dispenser Course offered by the respondent No.1; petitioner also paid admission fee of Rs.6000/- besides making few other deposits for mid term and final term coming to Rs.1000 / 2000 and also kept on paying monthly fee of Rs.2000/-. After holding examination in March 2009, the respondent declared the petitioner as qualifying for Dispenser Course but when the petitioner applied for job it was found that respondent's Institution Islamic Institute of Medical Technology was neither registered nor even recognized by the competent authority, thus, not only that the respondent wasted petitioner's time of about 1 1/2 year but also caused him financial loss of Rs.57,000/- the petitioner also allegedly suffered mental torture compensa table by damages of Rs.1,50,000/-.The petitioner demanded from respondent both in person and through others and also issued him legal notice demanding to pay the suit amount of Rs.2,43,300/-but he did not respond positively: hence, this petition for refund of fee / other deposits and amounts spent on purchase of uniform, performance of journey and damages for mental torture.
2. Petition was contested by the respondent on the objections, inter alia, that petitioner's claim was liable to be dismissed the same being barred by time.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, drew the attention of court to para 14 of petition and submitted that while filing this petition on 17-12-09 the petitioner admitted in the said paragraph that respondent had refused to admit his claim two month before the filing of claim ( i.e. In mid- October 2009 ) but in order to meet respondent's objection on limitation, the petitioner or somebody on his behalf applied correcting fluid on the wording `two months' so as to show that it was `two days' and not two months. In this connection, attention was also drawn to a spare copy of petition (Mark `A') already placed on record where period of refusal has been stated as `two months'. As petitioner's claim becomes time barred the same having been filed late by one month from mid-October 2009, therefore, respondent's learned counsel prayed for dismissal of petition as it was not filed within a period of 30 days as required by section 28 of Punjab Consumer Act 2005.
As regards condonation of any delay in filing this claim, learned counsel submitted that such concession cannot be granted to the petitioner because firstly, provisions of section 5 of Limitation are not applicable to proceedings under Consumer Act and secondly because petitioner's conduct is such that he is not entitled to grant of any concession or latitude. With these submissions, respondent's learned prayed for dismissal of petition as well as proceed against the petitioner for tampering of judicial record.
4. On the other hand, petitioner's learned counsel denied the allegation that petitioner has resorted to tamper the judicial record as alleged; learned counsel also submitted that cause of action in this case arose when respondents refused to concede petitioner's claim within fourteen days from service of legal notice i.e. Till 27-11-09 whereas the present petition was filed on December 17, 2009, as such, his claim is quite within the period of limitation (30 days) u/s ec.28 of Consumer Act.
Learned counsel further submitted that even if for arguments sake, petitioner's claim is found as time barred the delay may be condoned u/s 5 of Limitation Act 1908.
5. It would appear from perusal of para 14 of petition that period of two days' has been re-written after applying correcting fluid on the period originally written in the petition. Such tampering appears to have been resorted to from a number of factors, such as, first, the alleged tampering was in the benefit of petitioner; second, copy of petition already placed on record ( Mark-A) is enough to expose petitioner's foul play as it belies petitioner's contention about respondent's denial of "2 days" before filing this petition; third, period of only two days' is generally not contended in plaints as it does not appeal to logic and reason that a consumer would rush to court only two days after respondent's refusal to admit his claim as a petition cannot be filed before expiring of 14 days from serving legal notice and last but not the least that there are as many as 11 other similar (petitions pending in this court and fixed for today) plaints of all the 12 petitions, filed by petitioner and his co affectees, almost with identical averments, were filed by the same counsel. All this is sufficient to show that the alleged tampering of judicial record as above, was resorted to by none but the petitioner as he is the ultimate beneficiary of alleged tampering.
6. It would apparently appear from what has been stated above that the petitioner or some body on his behalf resorted to tamper the judicial record in order to avoid dismissal of his claim, therefore, his claim is liable to be dismissed. As the respondent refused to admit petitioner?s claim in mid-October 2009, therefore, cause of action accrued to the petitioner on or around 17-10-09 but the petitioner filed this claim on 17-12-09 instead of within 30 days i.e. On or before 17-11-09 as is required by section 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, therefore, the petition is found time barred by one month which delay has not been explained by the petitioner. As regards condonation of said delay u/s 5 of Limitation Act 1908, it cannot be granted by this court as provisions of section 5 ibid are not applicable to proceedings under Consumer Protection Act as laid down in section 29 of Limitation Act.
7. For what has been stated above, petition is dismissed no order as to costs. After completion, the file be consigned to record room.