' ATIR MAHMOOD, J. --- Through this appeal the appellant has assailed the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer/District Consumer Court, D.G. Khan whereby the complaint filed by respondent No, 1 was partly accepted to the extent of grant of Rs, 1,00,000/-as approximate damages/compensation & Rs, 1240/- as price of tickets and Rs, 1,00,000/- as counsel fee total amounting Rs, 2,01,240/- and dismissed to the extent of the remaining relief.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 1 filed a complaint stating therein that he faced faulty service of the appellant as transporters while travelling with his wife from Lahore to D.G. Khan on 12.08.2011 resulting in tension and loss of baggage. The defendants/appellants entered their appearance and filed their written statements. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Presiding Officer/District Consumer Court, D.G. Khan, vide order dated 30.06.2012 partly accepted the complaint to the extent of grant of Rs, 1,00,000/- as approximate damages/compensation & Rs, 1240/- as price of tickets and Rs, 1.00,000/- as counsel fee total amounting Rs, 2,01,240/-and dismissed to the extent of the remaining relief.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is against law and facts and liable to be set aside; that the impugned order is result of mis- reading and non-reading of evidence; that the impugned order has been passed mechanically, arbitrarily and without judicious application of mind; that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order based upon surmises and conjectures, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. From the perusal of available record it is reflected that the impugned order was passed by the Consumer Court on 30.06.2012 but the appeal was filed on 04.10.2012. Perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order reflects that the application for delivery of certified copy, was filed on 15.08.2012 which was prepared on 3rd of September. 2012 and on the same day it was received but this appeal was filed on 04.10.2012 is beyond the period of limitation. As a matter of fact application for delivery of certified copy was filed on 15.08.2012 which itself was beyond the period of limitation.
6. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of delay has been filed but no reasonable explanation has been given. It is stated that the appellant was under an impression that the First Appeal against Order can be filed before the High Court within 90 days and under that wrong impression this appeal could not be filed within time. I am afraid that this contention for condonation of delay is absolutely unacceptable because ignorance of law is .No excuse and furthermore the Punjab Consumer Protection Act is a special enactment wherein the period of limitation for filing the appeal has been specifically prescribed in Section 33 which is 30 days and in that eventuality the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable. The impugned order was passed on 30.06.2012 whereas this F.A.O. Was filed on 04.10.2012 beyond the period of limitation and as such without discussing the other merits of this case this appeal is dismissed as being barred by time.