ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 17.11.2012, the appellant filed a complaint under sections 22 and 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter called 'the Act") against the respondent on account of providing faulty and defective services of 'online website' namely www.pakistanlawsite.com' which is being run in the name and style of Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. by the respondent.
2. The respondent contested the complaint by filing written statement. After recording of evidence, learned Consumer Court dismissed the complaint vide order dated 29.07.2015. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent blocked the account of the appellant for one week without service of notice due to which the appellant being a lawyer had to suffer a lot in connection with his professional engagements; that the learned consumer court has decided the complaint without framing of issues whit' is erroneous and illegal; that without framing of issues, the parties could not produce the evidence properly; that the impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law; that learned court below has also misconstrued the law on the subject; that the impugned decision is against the law, therefore, this appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to learned court below for decision afresh after framing of issues and recording of evidence in accordance therewith.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that the account of the appellant, according to his own version given in the affidavit, was blocked on 07.02.2012. Undeniably, the appellant filed complaint on 17.11.2012 with delay of about 10 months.
6. Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 deals with time limitation regarding filing of the complaint. The same is reproduced below: "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 subsection (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.
(Emphasis provided)
Bare reading of subsection (4) of section 28 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that there was 30 days time available to the appellant to file the complaint. The terminus a quo for counting limitation was the date when cause of action accrued to the appellant which in this case, according to the appellant himself, was 07.02.2012 but he filed the instant complaint on 17.11.2012 which was badly barred by time. When confronted with, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the consumer court as per second proviso under section 28 of the Act could extend the time upto one year as there was no guarantee provided by the service provider/respondent. I am in consonance with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that the consumer court had powers to extend the time limit upto one year but this extension could only be made when sufficient cause was disclosed by the appellant for not filing the complaint within time limit of 30 days by filing a proper application. Admittedly, the appellant did not file any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the complaint filed by the appellant was badly barred by time and was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. When the complaint was hit by time limitation, the framing of issues and recording of evidence was of no consequence. The impugned order is in accordance with law. I see no illegality therein.
7. For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.