CLAIM UNDER THE PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2005
1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Muhammad Yasin, the claimant is a cultivator by profession. He alongwith his co sharer/partner Naik Muhammad, stored 529 bags of potatoes with the defendants. As per agreement, the defendants had to store potatoes till 30 10-11. In the month of July 2011, the claimant and his partner visited the cold storage of the defendants and came to know that the stored potatoes were rottening. They protested for the poor services provided by the defendants but the defendants paid no attention to it. Thereafter, claimant filed an application on 21-09-11 before Chief Minister Punjab. The defendants undertook to compensate the claimant but failed. The claimant claimed that because of poor and substandard services provided by the defendants, he had to suffer a great loss. He claimed that he was entitled to get Rs. 20,87,000/-as cost of potatoes, compensation and damages. The claim was accompanied by an application U/s 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 wherein it was mentioned that the claim was within time and if the same was barred by limitation, then the limitation was liable to be condoned because defendants have been promising to compensate the claimant but ultimately, they refused.
2. The defendant resisted the claim and accompanied application for condonation of delay by way of separate written replies. According to them, the claim was time barred and there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, the claim was liable to be dismissed without further proceedings.
3. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record.
4. 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.
5. It is mentioned in Para No. 3 of the claim that the claimant and his partner visited the cold storage of the defendant in the month of July 2011 and on that occasion, it fell to their knowledge that the stored potatoes were rettening which constrained the claimant to file the claim before Chief Minister of Punjab on 21-09-11 and when the grievances of the claimant were not redressed, he issued a legal notice to the defendants on 01-10-11 but despite that, he was not compensated.
Statedly, the defendants promised many times to make up loss sustained by the claimant but lastly, he refused.
6. In application filed U/s 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, the claimant take conflicting stand with assertion that his claim was within time and at the same time, he took plea that if the claim was time barred, the limitation was liable to be condoned because the defendants made repeated promises to compensate him but lastly refused. The factum of taking self conflicted stances in application filed U/s 28 (4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 would reflect that the claimant was himself doubtful on the point of limitation and he was not sure that his claim was not time barred.
7. Admittedly, in the month of July 2011, the claimant had acquired knowledge that his stored potatoes with the defendant's cold storage were rottening and due to this reason, he had to file an application before Chief Minister of Punjab on 21-09-11. Lastly, when his application was not redressed, he issued a legal notice on 01-10-11.
8. The first thing to be noted was that the claimant had come to know about the factum of rottening of potatoes in the month of July 2011 but instead of knocking at the door of the Court which was the right forum, he elected to approach Chief Minister of Punjab. Anyhow, he issued the legal notice to the defendants on 01-10-11. For the sake of arguments, commencing of period of limitation is not counted from the July 2011, then no one can restrain itself to count the limitation from the date of issuance of legal notice which was 01-10-11. When the legal notice was issued on 1- 10 11, the claimant was sure that due to alleged poor service, his stored potatoes had been damaged. Therefore, the date of issuance of legal notice would be considered as a date when the claimant felt aggrieved of default on the part of the defendants and from this date, the limitation would start against the claimant Under Section 28 (2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, the defendants were supposed to convey reply of legal notice to the claimant within 15 days.
Therefore, these 15 days would be excluded from basic period of limitation which is 30 days. It would, therefore, imply that the limitation would start from 16-10-11. The period of limitation of 30 days would stand completed on 16-11-11. The claim was filed on 02-02-12. Thus, the claim was patently barred by time.
9. The claimant submitted that limitation, if expired, was liable to be condoned because defendants repeatedly made promises to compensate him but lastly refused. Such type of assertion can hardly be paid any significance for the simple reason that if such compromises are alleged or made by either of two parties for indefinite period, the point of limitation would not stopped running. The legal notice was issued on 01-10-11. The plea of promises made by the defendants cannot be agitated or accepted by any court of law. Therefore, this court of the opinion that the claimant has failed to show any reasonable cause swaying to condone the delay and permitting the claimant to file claim beyond period of limitation.
10. In order to justify his delay in filing claim and condonation of delay, the learned counsel for the claimant referred PLD 1958 (West Pakistan Lahore 169) and PLD 175 Karachi 468). The gist of both the authorities on the point of limitation was that fresh circumstances or circumstance coupled with other facts which themselves constitute complete cause of action, may in certain cases give rise to second and fresh cause of action. The facts of the present case, as discussed above and admitted by the claimant would show that this was not the case of first or second cause of action.
The first cause of action which was observed to have arisen in the month of July 2011 has been ignored and the limitation is counted from the date when legal notice was issued and the factum of issuance of legal notice on 01-10-11 was admitted on behalf of the claimant. Whether the act or thing required by the statute is a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of a tribunal, compliance could not be dispensed with and if it be impossible, the jurisdiction fails.
The court is not competent to dispense with what the legislature had made the indispensable foundation of its jurisdiction (PLD 1990 Lahore 461). When law had provided a thing to be done in a certain manner it ought to be done in that manner or not at all. This principal had to be adhered to in order to achieve the coveted object of law and equality before law. Where words employed in statute were clear, said words would best declare the true intention of the legislature (1958 CLC 435 Lahore). It may be reiteration but the fact was that the law on the point of limitation regarding claims before consumer court is very clear as discussed above and explained in Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. When the facts and circumstances of any case are floating on the surface of pleadings of the parties, and there is no denial probe on behalf of person who approaches the court for settlement of his claim, then further probe into the matter in shape of recording evidence is not required. The crux of whole matter is that it stands established on perusal of claim, the application filed under Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 and copy of legal notice dated 01-10-11 that the claim is time barred.
11. An other aspect of the case was also important which may be considered at initial stage so that the parties may not waste their time in persuading the matter. The claimant mentioned in his claim that he alongwith his partner stored the potatoes in the cold storage of the defendant.
The name his partner is not disclosed in the claim. The claim is supported by the receipt which shows that in fact the potatoes were stored by one Naik Muhammad. May be the partner of the claimant is the same Naik Muhammad but surprisingly, the name of Naik Muhammad counts no where in the litigation. Since the potatoes were stored by Naik Muhammad, therefore, it was Naik Muhammad who could file the claim, if otherwise he was competent to do so. No receipt whatsoever or agreement was ever made between the defendants and claimant Muhammad Yasin, therefore, Muhammad Yasin has no locus-standi to approach the consumer court. It being so, the claim filed on behalf of the claimant Muhammad Yasin was not maintainable.
12. In view of the reasons and findings recorded above, the claim and application for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed. Since the matter is being disposed of at earlier stage therefore, the parties are left to bear their own costs.