1. CLAIM FOR THE RECOVERY OF RS. 3, 16,000/- ORDER. This order intends to dispose of an application for rejection of claim being barred by time moved by the defendant Ch. Saeed Arain Corporation in claim instituted by Muhammad Arshad claimant.
2. The learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner contended that the claimant had not issued any notice as disclosed by him on 15-12-11 and if the said notice was issued, still claim was barred by time as it was instituted on 27-02-12 whereas, U/S 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, claim was to be instituted within 30 days from the date of accrual of cause of action.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent argued that the defendant delayed settlement of the claim under one or the other pretext and also by making promises but lastly on his refusal to accept the claim, the claimant had to approach this Court.
4. There was no cavil to the settled law that U/ 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, a claim by the consumer or the Authority can be filed within 30 days of the arising of the cause of action. However, on sufficient causes shown by the claimant, the reasonable period of limitation may be extended.
5. According to claimant's version, he purchased seeds from the defendant on 08-11-11. The seeds, on sowing and applying proper modes to get good crop, failed to give requisite germination and good results. As per record, the claimant issued a written notice to the defendant on 15-12-11. The factum of issuance of the said notice was established from postal receipt attached with the claim. But the fact was that the notice was issued on aforementioned dated i.e. 15-12-11. Under the law, the claimant was supposed to wait for 15 days for reply on behalf of the defendant. It means that he could not agitate his claim before this Court till 30-12 11. On the said date i.e. 30-12-11, the limitation, beyond any doubt had started but the claimant did not approach the court till 30-01-12. He elected to file the claim on 27-02-12. By that time, the limitation to file the claim had expired as per provision of section 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. It was significant to mention that in the claim, no reasonable cause was shown for approaching the court with delay of about 02 months. No application for condonation of delay was ever filed by the claimant.
6. Therefore, period of limitation cannot be extended. Consequently, the claim is held to be barred by time. Application for rejection of claim is accepted and claim stands rejected. Since the matter has been disposed of at initial stage, therefore no order as to cost is passed.
7. File be consigned after its due completion.