1. Arguments heard and record perused. According to Muhammad Shafique appearing as PW-1 he was subscriber of telephone No. 042-6547848 which remained disfunctioning since 15 months. The petitioner verbally informed the respondent but in vain. In spite of that respondent imposed package of Rs. 199/-without consulting of the petitioner. According to the petitioner he is paying regularly telephone bill and he issued legal notice to respondent in May 2008 and second legal notice was issued to the respondent in June 2008. My learned predecessor vide order dated 16-12- 09 decreed the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. Rs. 10,000/- on account of physical discomfort, Rs. 10000/- each as counsel fee and compensation for petitioner's loss of time.
2. The said order was assailed before the Hon`ble High Court. His lordship Mr. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed vide order dated 5-10-10 set aside the impugned order dated 16-12-09 turning that not sustainable and remanded the case for afresh adjudication regarding jurisdiction, limitation and quantification . In my view point of limitation is very material in the case in hand. Speaking in the case of the respondent the learned counsel for the respondent argued that according to section 28 (1) of PCPA 2005 if a consumer feels an grievance he must issue a notice and after 15 days of issuing of notice the consumer should contact Muhammad Shafique V/s Divisional Engineer Phones the Court but in the case in hand the complaint has been filed on 9-9-08 while legal notice was issued on 8-6-08, therefore, the complaint in hand is badly time barred. Secondly, that no Court fee has been affixed as the claim exceeded to Rs. 25000/- and thirdly, under section 4 of Pakistan Telecommunication Act 1966 if a consumer feels any grievance he must firstly move application to the PTA Authority . In case grievance/application is dismissed /turned down by the said authority then the consumer may knocked the door of this Court.
3. 2 Diametrically learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the claim is well in time as cause of action is a continuous one. In this respect he has referred to the deposition made by Muhammad Anees appearing as RW-1 according to which it is admitted that petitioner has been regularly paying the telephone bills issued by the PTCL. I am sorry to say that this single stance does not make cause of action a continuous one. According to RW-1 no complaint of any permanent defect in the said telephone line was ever made by the consumer to the PTCL. However, two complaints of defects of temporary nature were made and both the complaints were rectified.
4. According to RW-1 telephones lines is working in order. Without touching the merit of the case question is whether it is well in time which is essence of the law. As mentioned supra Muhammad Shafique appearing as PW-1 has stated that he issued first legal notice to the respondent in May 2008 and second legal notice was issued to the respondent in June 2008. I agree with the logic of learned counsel for the respondent that complaint in hand has Muhammad Shafique V/s Divisional Engineer Phones been filed on 9-9-08. In my view, respondent has succeeded to prove the claim in hand as a time barred. Hence the claim in hand is stands dismissed being a time barred.
5. After completion file be consigned to record room.