HABIB ULLAH AMIR, J.---This appeal under section 33 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 has been preferred by Muhammad Yasin feeling aggrieved with order dated 15.12.2016 of the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Faisalabad, whereby complaint of appellant against the respondents was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Briefly the facts as learnt from this appeal are that the appellant was running the business of property, who planned to visit Kenya via Dubai on 1.05.2016 from Faisalabad International Airport, and in this context, he purchased a returned Air Ticket from Qatar Airways through-its authorized dealer, Muhammad Rehan, Southern Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. Respondent No.5 on 28.04.2016 against an amount of Rs.82,000/- and on the same day, he was issued Qatar Airways Ticket confirming status for his departure on the said date. According to the plan, the appellant reached Faisalabad International Airport, Faisalabad at 07:00 a.m. After customs clearance and obtaining boarding card issued by the concerned authorities, he went on board. At that time, the plane was about to fly, when Mrs. Zahra Administrator, Qatar Airlines/respondent No.3 approached the appellant and asked him to show money but on the pretext of insufficient funds, the appellant was de- boarded/off-loaded, despite of the fact that respondent No. 3 was not authorized to de-board the appellant. Thereafter the appellant appeared before respondent No. 5 with complaint but he was directed to purchase a fresh ticket. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached learned District Consumer Court, Faisalabad for redressal of his grievance by filing the complaint and after fulfilling the codal formalities of serving notice to the respondents, the learned court turned down the claim of the appellant being time barred of one day. Hence, this appeal.
4. The claim of the appellant in the complaint filed against the respondents is that he was de- boarded on 01.05.2016 and was not allowed to take flight and being so, it was the date when admittedly causes of action arose. However, admittedly he filed complaint before the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Faisalabad on 01.06.2016 whereas under section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, it is the bounden duty of the consumer or the authority to file claim within thirty days of the arising of cause of action however, it is 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 specified period but the complaint of the petitioner was not annexed with the application for the condonation of delay. Similarly contents of the complaint have also been perused but it has nowhere been requested to the learned Consumer Court that the delay in filing the complaint may be condoned.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Faisalabad would have extended jurisdiction by condoning the delay in filing the complaint as time was spent in awaiting reply of notice issued to the respondents and that the period of reply may be counted for limitation purposes but at the same time, there is no denial of fact that under section 28(4) of the Act ibid a claim by the consumer or the authority shall be filed within thirty days from arising of cause of action whereas admittedly the cause of action to the appellant arose on 01.05.2016 and he filed the claim on 01.06.2016 i.e. One day beyond the period of limitation. It is the settled principle of law that once complaint is filed after prescribed period of limitation without application for condonation of delay, the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In this regard reliance is placed upon the cases reported as Coca Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited v. Ashiq Ali (PLD 2014 Lahore 196) and Messrs Dawlance Limited Refrigeration Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Branch Coordinator v.
Muhammad famed (2012 CLD Lahore 1461).
5. For what has been discussed above, no illegality, irregularly or perversity has been found in the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Faisalabad, thus, he was justified in dismissing the complaint of the appellant being time barred. Being so, instant appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.