' ATIR MAHIVIOOD, J. Through this appeal .Under Section 33 of the punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, the appellant has assailed order dated 24.11,2011, passed by learned Presiding - Officer, District Consumer COWL Multan, whereby the complaint filed ,by the respondents was accepted by, the Consumer Court directing the appellant to return the, price, of the dispute furniture, to the respondents and also pay compensation of Rs, 20,000/:- alongwith counsel fee on return of disputed, furniture to him.
2. , The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the complaint filed- t)y. The respondents before the Consumer Court was barred by time as they, 'felt aggrieved, were bound to file the complaint before-the consumer Court within one month of accruing -the cause of action which according to the complainant himself accrued to him within about one month of the purchase of furniture from the, appellant, but the complaint was. Filed on 14:042011 With a delay of more than two months., He contends that the delay could not be condoned by the Court without sufficient cause, therefore, this appeal be allowed the order impugned beset aside and the complaint of the respondent be dismissed.!
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Consumer' Court can 'Condone delay in filing the complaint upto 60 days as per proviso of Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. He argues that the impugned order is in accordance with law, therefore, the instant appeal be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The only plea taken by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the Complaint was barred by time which could not be condoned by the Consumer Court under the law.
6. The respondents filed a complaint before the Consumer Court on 14.04.2011 alleging that he purchased furniture of Rs, 63,500/- from the appellant on 01.12.2010 which was given to respondent No, 2 namely Mst. Bushra Siddiqa at the time of her marriage took place on 04.12.2010. It was also alleged in the plaint that the appellant had given guarantee of one year of the furniture in writing.
The respondents further stated in the complaint that within one month of marriage of Mst. Bushra Siddiqa, a double bed and a stool out of the furniture purchased by the respondents from the appellant became defective which were neither repaired nor replaced by the appellant.
7. The furniture was admittedly purchased by the respondents from the appellant on 01.12.2010 and was given in dowry to Mst. Bushra Siddiqa (respondent No, 2) on 04.12.2010. According to version of the respondents, a double bed and a stool became defective within one month of marriage of Mst.
Bushra Siddiqa meaning thereby the said items became defective, at the most, on 03.1.2011. As such, the cause of action accrued to the respondents on 03.01.2011. This is the terminus a quo wherefrom the limitation started and continued uptil 02.02.2011 as a period of 30 days commencing from the date of accrual of cause of action has been provided under Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 for filing a complaint by a consumer who has suffered damage on account of defective product or service or bad conduct of the manufacturer or service provider.
But the complaint was filed on 14.04.2011 which is barred by time by two months and 12 days.
Section 28(4) of the Act ibid is reproduced hereunder:--- "28(4) A claim by the consumer or the Authority shall be filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of act: ' 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."
' Bare perusal of the above makes it clear that period of limitation prescribed for filing a complaint is 30 days from the date of arising of the cause of action. Although the delay upto sixty days in filing the complaint can be condoned by the Consumer Court yet it would be subject to 'sufficient cause'.
No 'sufficient cause' has been given by the complainant in the complaint or the application for condonation of delay filed with the complaint. Without offering plausible reasons, the delay could not be condoned by the Consumer Court. In this case, the delay is even above the mandate of condonation of delay for 60 days given to the Consumer Court as per second proviso of Section 28(4) of the Act ibid. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the complaint filed by the respondents before the Consumer Court was barred by time.
8. Without touching other merits of the case, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Consumer Court is set aside resulting in dismissal of the complaint filed by the respondents.