1. By filing this claim under section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act) claimant has asserted that she wanted to study in United Kingdom and for that she had taken admission in MCMSC Manchester College of Management Sciences by depositing admission fee of 2650 pounds besides another amount of Rs. 50,000/-; she was maintaining her account where an amount of Rs. 13,22,487/- were there; Immigration department of U.K for the purpose of visa of England when inquired from defendants about account status, they did not provide said information and visa was refused to claimant; she than filed an appeal/review by engaging a counsel with payment of Rs. 200,000/; even on this occasion defendants acted carelessly and instead of providing information to Department of U.K furnished it to claimant; admission and case fee were not returnable; a legal notice was served to defendants but they did not pay any heed. Claimant had demanded Rs. 16,05,00/- as compensation and damages etc.
2. Defendants submitted their joint written statement where preliminary objection qua limitation was taken and on facts case was also contested.
3. As question of limitation was raised being a preliminary objection so before further proceedings could be made arguments of both sides on this issue are heard.
4. Learned counsel for defendants has contended that under section 28 of the Act limitation for filing a claim in any case is thirty days to be started from accrual of cause of action, which in this case claimant got finally when her appeal/review was dismissed on 29.08.2012; even undated legal notice was sent after expiry of said period that means in first week of November, 2012 whereas claim was filed on 03.01.2013; even if legal notice is considered within time even then claim was instituted after thirty days of reply of notice of claimant. He finally maintains that in any situation it is a time barred case and no application for extension of time has been submitted by claimant.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for claimant is of the view that case of claimant is not time barred as cause of action accrued to claimant one week earlier of filing of claim; when there is no period provided then limitation for filing of claim shall be one year and not thirty days hence claim is not beyond limitation.
6. Before I comment what had been addressed by both sides I will like to reproduce section 28 of the Act and same is as under: -
28. Settlement of Claims. (1) A consumer who has suffered damage, or Authority in other cases, shall, by written notice, call upon a manufacturer or provider of services that a product or service is defective or faulty, or the conduct of the manufacturer or service provider is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and he should remedy the defects or give damages where the consumer has suffered damage, or cease to contravene the provisions of this Act.
(2) The manufacturer or service provider shall, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, reply thereto.
(3) No claim shall be entertained by a Consumer Court unless the consumer or the Authority has given notice under sub-section (1) and provides proof that the notice was duly delivered but the manufacturer or service provider has not responded thereto.
(4) A claim by the consumer or the Authority shall be filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of action: Provided that the Consumer Court, having jurisdiction to hear the claim, may allow a claim to be filed after thirty days within such time as it may allow if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period: Provided further that such extension shall not be allowed beyond a period of sixty days from the expiry of the warranty or guarantee period specified by the manufacturer or service provider and if no period is specified one year from the date of purchase of the products or providing of services.
7. Let claimant say that she got cause of action one week earlier of filing of claim as evident from paragraph No. 11 but it cannot be held such on the reason that claimant has conceded that her review was rejected on 29.08.2012 because she had placed on record letter of Home Office UK Border Agency. Her plea is also negated from another angle that vide reply dated 12.11.2012 to legal notice defendants had asked claimant to withdraw it which amounted to final refusal by them. This is not the case of claimant in her pleadings that thereafter any further correspondence of her was made with defendants which means that chapter was finally closed on 12.11.2012.
8. In first eventuality if limitation had started to run on 30.08.2012 then claimant was supposed to file claim by of before 01.10.2012 as she during that period had not served legal notice to defendants.
9. What can be second eventuality? Legal notice is undated and no proof of service has been provided. Therefore in view of reply dated 12.11.2012 of defendants to legal notice if it is presumed that she got cause of action in beginning of November 2012 when she served notice than she was supposed to file this claim by or before 15.12.2012 but undisputedly claim was brought before this Court on 03.01.2013, therefore considering from any position it shall remain a time barred claim.
10. I am not in agreement with learned counsel for claimant that if no period is specified limitation shall be one year from the date of purchase of products or providing of services. When section 28
(ibid) is read as a whole there remains no ambiguity to hold that a claim must be filed within period of thirty days because last proviso in fact qualifies earlier proviso where discretion has been given to a Court for extension of time after thirty days. If a party desires extension on any reason for that there must be a written application before Court with grounds showing sufficient cause for delay. No petition whatsoever seeking extension has been submitted so question also does not arise for this relief.
11. Whatever has been discussed above in the light of that this claim is dismissed being hit by limitation. No order as to costs. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion.