1. The complainant filed the instant complaint against the respondent stating that he was running school business in name and style of Future Vision School since 2003 and he used to purchase plastic chairs and other goods from the respondents since 2006. He purchased the plastic chairs and other articles from respondents on different occasions within the period of 2006 to 2008 but the respondent did not issue any receipt and the respondent gave life time guarantee and also assured that they used to prepare the plastic articles with pure raw material but after some months of purchase of chairs cracks were taken place in chairs upon which he contacted the respondent but they used to linger on the matter in dispute. He further stated that they asked him to pay 60% of total price then they would replace the damaged chairs and due to misrepresentation of respondents he suffered loss of Rs.150000/- and he claimed damages as Rs.300000/- from respondents. He also stated he sent a legal notice to the respondents but they did not reply to it.
2. The respondents contested the complaint by filing written reply where in they raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, malafide, cause of action, limitations, nonjoinder and misjoinder of the parties and special cost. On the facts stated that they used to issue a warranty card on their each transaction of sale and they were bound to the terms and condition of their warranty. Rest of paras were denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
3. An application for the rejection of complaint has been filed on behalf of the respondents on the grounds already taken in the written reply of complaint. The complainant submitted the written reply on the application wherein he denied the averment of application and prayed for the dismissal of application.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. It is evident from the plan reading of in para No.5 of the complaint where complainant himself stated that chairs were broken after some months of purchase and according to his own version he purchased the chairs in between 2006 to 2008 which clearly shows that the cause of action if any accrued in 2008 and according to section 28(4) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 a claim by a consumer shall be filed within the 30 days of the arising of the cause of action and no justification could be forwarded by the complainant for not bringing his claim within time, therefore, in these circumstances I am of considered opinion that complaint of complainant is hopelessly barred by time and as such not proceedable and resultantly the petition for rejection of complaint is accepted and the complaint is hereby rejected.