CLAIM U/S 23 (4) OF THE PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2005
1. Ijaz Hussain Khan, the claimant filed the claim U/s 23 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 for proceedings against the Khaiber Zarai Corporation etc, the defendants with further prayer of claim of damages of Rs. 4,79,000/- purportedly before the consumer Judge Okara through District Collector Okara On 13-02-12. The said claim was forwarded by the DCO/Authority to this court On 22-03-12.
2. The claimant submitted that during the period from 01-03-11 to 19-12-11, he purchased seeds and pesticides valuing Rs. 1, 33,155/-. Allegedly, the maize seeds Opener purchased from the defendants were found defective. He sowed the seeds, adopted all precautionary measures and made spray and used proper pesticides but despite all that, the seeds purchased from the defendants failed to give desired results due to which, he had to suffer a great loss. He assessed the loss as well as damages to the tune of Rs. 4, 79,000/- and claimed this amount from the defendants.
3. The defendants, in their respective written statements took the plea that the case of the claimant was false. According to them, maize crop was delicate which was to be sown with best care and caution. Facts like late sowing, weather condition, unfavorable high temperature, inadequate fertilizer doses, uneven land, poor management practices etc could not be ruled out to achieve the requisite results. According to them, maize seeds supplied by them were of good quality. An opener seeds was an international brand introduced by Moncento Pakistan Agrolet Private Limited and it was imported from USA having its country office at Lahore. They further pleaded that the Company guarantees only genetic and physical purity. FOR excellent germination, there were other facts of great significance which could not be ignored.
4. The defendants took a specific plea that the claim was barred by time.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Before proceedings further in the matter it would be useful to discuss Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 which deals with limitation for filing of claim before the consumer court. A bare perusal of the said Provision would reveal that primarily, the limitation for filing of claim before consumer court is 30 days from date of accrual case of action. However, on sufficient cause shown, this period may be extended for reason able time. The last proviso of Section 28 of the said Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. The point to be taken into account is, when the cause of action had arisen in favour of the claimant and wherefrom, the limitation would be counted.
7. It was mentioned in Para No. 3 of the claim that the claimant purchased maize seeds Opener quality during the period from 01-03-11 to 19-12-11. In this connection, he relied upon the sale report of Khayber Zarai Corporation. This document was an admitted on behalf of the claimant and the same was not rebutted or negated by the defendants. Therefore, the contents of the said documents shall be taken into account and considered as correct.
8. According to the said report, the claimant purchased Opener Monsento Seeds from the defendants i.e Khayber Zarai Corporation during the period from 10-07-11 to 1-08-11. The document produced and relied upon by the claimant negated his assertion taken in the claim that he had purchased seeds from 01-03-11 to 19-12-11. In fact the first purchase of Opener maize seeds was made by the claimant on 10-07-11, secondly, on 27-07-11 and lastly on 01-8-11. After 01-08-11, the claimant did not purchase any seed from the defendant. There was no dispute to the fact that the maize crop was of 03 months. The last purchase was made by the claimant on 01-08-11. Firstly, at the stage of germination, it fell to the knowledge of a cultivator that the seeds were of poor quality.
The germination period of any such seeds is about 15 days. In the first week of November 2011, when the seeds did not give the requisite results, it had come to the knowledge of the claimant that the seeds were substandard and of poor quality. Secondly, the claimant filed his claim before DCO/Authority Okara on 13-02-12. By that time, period of 30 days had admittedly expired. At the most, the claimant could file his claim before Authority or direct before this Court in the first week of December 2011. However, before filing claim directly to the court, the claimant was under a legal obligation to issue a legal notice as required u/s 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. This notice was never issued. If this aspect of the case is ignored, even then the claim was time barred for the reason that transaction between the parties was completed on 01-08-11. The maize crop was of 03 months. In the first week of November 2011, the claimant had acquired knowledge of the alleged factum of poor crop but he slept over his right for long time and approached DCO/Authority Okara on 13-02-12.
9. In view of the my findings and reasons recorded above, it is declared that the claim is hopelessly time barred and no reasonable cause was visible on record permitting the claimant to file claim either before DCO/Authority or before this Court beyond the period of limitation.