This complaint under section 25 of "The Punjab Consumer Protection Act" 2005 has been filed with the allegations that the complainant purchased 08 sacks of D.A.P fertilizer and paid Rs. 26,800/- total in the presence of Muhammad Shrief S/O Rustam Ali, Ghaffar S/O Yaseen etc; that complainant used these 08 sacks of D.A.P fertilizer in his 06 acres land. After it's usage, his crops ruined, upon which the complainant became doubted and to trace out the defect of D.A.P fertilizer, he sent the said fertilizer sample to the Agricultural Chemist, Gujranwala, on 01-02-2011 through rapat No. 85/058 and registered No.188, whereupon it came into his notice that quantity of Nitrogen is 2.01% and phosphorous is 0.66%. However, the prescribed standards/quantity of Nitrogen would be 18% and Phosphorous 46% due to which the complainant has to suffered loss; that complainant contacted the respondent in presence of above mentioned witnesses but (Conti .2) Case No. 25/2011. Muhammad Saleem VS Muhammad Aslam (2) respondent did not put away his loss and threatened him; that, respondent had sold faulty and low standard sacks of D.A.P fertilizer by way of committing fraud and to amass illegal money; that a prerequisite legal notice was also given to respondent on 19.02.2011 but no response from the other side. Hence, this complaint for recovery of Rs.26,800/-, price of 08 sacks of D.A.P fertilizer as well as compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- and litigation expenses.
02. The respondent in reply to the said complaint inter-alia raising certain preliminary objections has controverted the allegations of the complaint with the averments that neither he deals with the business of D.A.P. Fertilizer nor did he sell the said fertilizer to the complainant. It is the stance of the respondent that the complainant has not sustained any loss on the part of the respondent and the instant complaint has been submitted just to blackmail the respondent and his complaint is concocted, self-made and liable to be dismissed. 03 To substantiate his version complainant himself appeared in the witness box as P.W.1 and produced his affidavit as Exh-P1, Maqsood Ahmed as P.W.2, his affidavit Exh-P2 and Sarwar Hussain as P.W.3, his affidavit Exh-P3. In documentary evidence complainant tendered copy of FIR No.56/2011, Exh-P.4, another FIR No. 55/2010, Exh-P.5, postal receipts Exh-P.6, receipt A.D Exh-P.7, certified copy of plaint Exh-P.8, application under order 39 rule 1,2 Exh.P9, application for appointment of local commission Exh.P.10, affidavit of Muhammad Shrief Exh-P11, affidavit of Muhammad Saleem Exh-P12, affidavit of Muhammad Saghir Exh-P13, (Conti .3) Case No. 25/2011. Muhammad Saleem VS Muhammad Aslam (3) affidavit of Sian Akther Exh-P14, affidavit of Mubark Ali Exh-P15, Interim order Exh-P16, Record of land Exh-P17, Fertilizer Analysis Report as Mark "A" Frd Maqbozgi fertilizer as Mark "B" Copy of Punjab fertilizer control order Mark "C" Fertilizer Analysis Report Mark "D" and Agreement Mark "E". From respondent side Muhammad Aslam respondent appeared as R.W.1 and produced his affidavit as Exh-R.1, Muhammad Sarwar appeared as R.W.2 and produced his affidavit as Exh-R.2. In documentary evidence respondent produced copy of transfer application of investigation as mark "A" and mark "B" to the R.P.O alongwith copy of bail order as mark "c" and closed the evidence.
04. I have hared the arguments and perused the record.
05. Case of the complainant is that he purchased 08 sacks of D.A.P fertilizer for Rs. 26,800/-, which he used in 06 acres land and the same resulted into destruction of his crops. The complainant has not mentioned in his complaint the date of purchase of D.A.P fertilizer. He also did not mentioned about its warranty/guarantee etc. He has also not placed on the record any cash memo/receipt of purchase of D.A.P fertilizer to substantiate his version against the respondent. Admittedly respondent is not agency holder of fertilizer. He allegedly purchased D.A.P fertilizer against Rs.3350/- per sacks. Admittedly the D.A.P fertilizer was of SONA brand (manufacturer of the fertilizer) and the manufacturer has not been impleaded as party to the proceedings. As per Sec.
02 (h) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, the respondent is neither manufacturer/agency holder of the fertilizer nor he is seller/agent empowered to exercise over the design construction or quality of the product which allegedly caused damaged to the crops. As per Sec.04 of the act ibid it is specifically mentioned that the manufacturer of a product shall be liable to a consumer for damage proximately caused by a characteristics of the product that renders the product defective when such damage arose from a reasonable anticipated use of the product by a consumer but astonishingly the complainant has neither bothered to issue notice to the manufacturer of the fertilizer nor has impleaded the manufacturer as party in his complaint. The complaint has been filed against Muhammad Aslam who, in his written reply averred that he had never dealt in the business of fertilizer and complainant has never purchased D.A.P fertilizer from him.
06. Contrarily to this stance the complainant and his witnesses placed upon the record certified copy of plaint of civil court Exh-P8, Wherein, Muhammad Aslam has admitted that he brought the fertilizer for his own use as well as for the others including the complainants happened to be his co-villagers. The complainant has also placed upon the record photo copy of FIR No.56/2011 Exh-P4, against the respondent, wherein, respondent alleged to have entered into the selling of business of bogus fertilizer. The case is yet pending for adjudication and if it is proved, the respondent will certainly reap the fruits of his wrong doing.
07. The Consumer Court as per law could dealt the question of defective products sold by the manufacturer or agency holder or seller /agent empowered to exercise control over the design, construction or quality of the product and jurisdiction can not be extended to the criminal sale of bogus and fake products as the criminal law provides separate forum to deal the criminal matters in accordance with the relevant law. It is also noteworthy that the complainant has not placed upon the record any report of field officer or Revenue Officer of his area to substantiate the allegation that his crop factually suffered damage due to usage of fake and bogus fertilizer.
08. As for as the question of limitation is concerned. As per Sec.28 (4) of the act ibid a claim by the consumer or the authority shall be filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of action. The complainant did not mentioned in his pleadings the date of purchase of fertilizer or the date when he used the fertilizer in his field and when he came to know that it was bogus and fake, from where the limitation could have been calculated.
09. For reason recorded above, the instant complaint having no legal force to be blessed with acceptance is hereby dismissed, accordingly, with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room after it's due completion.