Brief facts of the case are that on 6-11-08, petitioner ordered the respondent for preparation of earrings weighing 9 Masha against payment of Rs.19,000/-. Thereafter, she changed her mind and replaced earlier order with a new order for preparation of gold locket set on payment of Rs.42,000/-. Price of gold was settled at Rs.23,800/-. The respondent promised to deliver the set on 9-11-08 but he failed to prepare and hand over suit locket due to respondent's family rift, therefore, the petitioner kept on visiting their shop for redressal of her grievance but the respondent did not.
Hence, this petition for possession of suit jewellery and damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. Arguments heard on maintainability of petitioner's claim.
2. Admittedly, cause of action accrued for first time when petitioner approached the respondent five months before. This period dates back to November 2010 from the institution of claim i.e. 29.3.11 and May 2010 from issuance of legal notice dated 4-10-10. In any case, petitioner's claim is barred by time as she did not file the claim within a period of one month from arising cause of action as required by Sec 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. No doubt, the court is competent to condone delay in filing a claim but such condonation can not be granted beyond a period of 60 days. It is pertinent to mention that neither the petitioner mentioned about issuance of legal notice in the petition nor she sought condonation of delay, therefore, her claim is liable to be dismissed the same being badly barred by time. After completion, file be consigned to record room.