IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---The complaint filed by. the respondent against present appellants regarding purchase of defective tractor was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Faisalabad vide order dated 23.12.2014 and the appellants were directed to pay Rs,2,00,000/- as damages to the respondent. Hence, this appeal .
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that complaint filed by the claimant/present respondent against the appellants was not competent on the touchstone of limitation, as the same was filed beyond the period prescribed for filing a claim and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and the same may be set aside.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed such contentions of learned counsel for the appellants by maintaining that such plea/objection was not raised by the present appellants before the learned trial court, neither in their written reply nor in evidence and was raised for the first time before this Court. However, he has candidly admitted that section 28(4) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 provides a limitation of 30 days for filing a claim, but contended that proviso attached to such Section does provide extension of time in such period for filing a claim.
4. Arguments heard.
5. As per para 7 of the complaint, the cause of action was shown to have been accrued in favour of the claimant/present respondent for the first time on 19.10.2010, whereas the complaint/claim was filed before the learned Consumer Court on 24.02.2011, as such, it is established that the present respondent did not file the complaint/claim within 30-days as provided under section 28(4) of Punjab.
For ready reference, Section 28(4) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (II of 2005) is reproduced herein-below:- "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."
No doubt, proviso attached to Section 28(4) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 empowers the Consumer Court to extend time for filing the claim after 30 days, but it is admitted position that the learned trial court was never moved by the claimant/present respondent for such extension in time for filing the claim. Moreover, the respondent has failed to extend any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period.
So far as the next contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the point of limitation was never raised by the appellants during trial and thus, it could not be raised at this appellate stage, is concerned, it would be suffice to say in this regard that it is the bounden duty of a Court to adjudge a proceeding placed before it on the touchstone of limitation at very initial stage. The learned Consumer Court has failed to perform its such Statutory duty and the claim placed before it beyond provided limitation was never adjudged at limine stage on the touchstone of section 28(4) of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. Thus, the learned Consumer Court proceeded with a claim, which was to be burried in its inception being barred by time. The impugned order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Consumer Court is not sustainable and the same.is set aside.
6. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the complaint/claim filed by the respondent against the present appellants is dismissed being hit by limitation.