1. This date was fixed for filing of written arguments of the defendant while written arguments of the claimant are included in the file and oral arguments of the parties have already been heard as such I proceed to dispose off the complaint by discussion in the following paragraphs.
2. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that some time ago he got prepared gold ornaments weighing about six Tolas from Ayub Jewelers Chak No.372/TDK Tehsil Chobara District Layyah at the rate of Rs.22,700/- per Tola; that Muhammad Ayub s/o Muhammad Ismail jeweler/ shop keeper had informed that the ornaments were guaranteed and genuine and that the receipt and guarantee card would be provided and that he would be responsible for any damage or sub-standard-ness; that no receipt or guarantee card was provided despite repeated demands; that after about six months it came into the knowledge of the claimant that the Ayub Jewelers made forged and fictitious ornaments; that the claimant presented the ornaments to other experienced jewelers who informed that there was almost fifty percent mixture in the disputed ornaments; that said mixture was inserted by fraud by Ayub Jewelers; that when the claimant asked Ayub Jewelers they claimed that who says that the ornaments were forged; that Ayub Jewelers brought the claimant to experienced Jeweler Centre at Chowk Azam Layyah fame and shown the ornaments; that Ilyas Jewelers confirmed the forgery of the ornaments; that Punchayit was got conducted at Chowk Azam by Ayub Jewelers through Ilyas Jewelers; that Ilyas Akhtar of Ilyas Jewelers informed Muhammad Ayub that the ornaments were forged and advised him either to get the return of ornaments without surcharge or to get the same replaced or to make payment at prevalent rate; that Muhammad Ayub admitted about the forgery of the ornaments and promised to take the ornaments back and to pay the price at present rate; that these facts would be borne by said Ilyas Akhtar; that in accordance with decision of the Punchayit, the claimant along with his brother named in the complaint went to Ayub Jewelers to get the ornaments exchanged; that the claimant handed over one ring weighing one Tola valuing about Rs.25,000/- to the defendant who took the same into his possession and circumvented on talk of the claimant and adverted to abuses; that meanwhile the father, brother and a cousin of the defendant named in the complaint also arrived and all of them abused the claimant and his elder brother and debased their beards and told them to do whatever can be done by saying that nobody can question them and also told that they had not issued guarantee card purposely; that they kept the ring returned by the claimant; that the defendant has declined completely from return of sub-standard ornaments, hence this complaint.
3. It has been prayed by the claimant that forged ornaments may be got exchanged including the ring already returned; that the receipt and guarantee card may also be procured; that the factory and work of Ayub Jewelers should be banned due to the fraud and maltreatment; that the ornaments may be got checked from laboratory; that the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- may be got recovered from the defendant for the loss caused due to forged ornaments as damages; that case may be got registered against the delinquents.
4. The version of the defendant contained in the written statement is to the effect that required notice has not been issued; that the complaint is not maintainable due to non issuance of required notice; that the period of alleged transaction is not ascertainable from the complaint; that the complaint is time barred; that no receipt is available to the claimant about alleged transaction; that the claimant has no cause of action; that the case has been moved on instigation of Ilyas Jewelers; that the defendant had remained as the apprentice of Ilyas Jewelers; that the owner of Ilyas Jewelers namely Ilyas Akhtar wants the defendant as apprentice back to his own shop and got filed the present complaint to pressurize him; that there is no shop of Jeweler of the defendant in Chak No.372 TDA; that no ornament has been delivered by the defendant to the claimant; that the defendant has not received any payment from the claimant; that the defendant has not received any ring from the claimant; that there is no business of the defendant in the name and style of Ayub Jewelers; that there is no factory established on the said name; that the defendant has never defrauded the claimant; that the defendant has never messed up with the claimant; that the complaint is baseless and false; that the complaint should be dismissed with costs and damages with any other admissible relief to the defendant.
5. The oral evidence of the claimant consists of the cross examinations of the claimant as PW-1, Mohammad Ismail witness as PW-2, Ghulam Mustafa witness as PW-3, Altaf Hussain witness as PW-4. The documentary evidence of the claimant consists of the affidavit of the claimant as Mark- P/1, affidavit of Mohammad Ismail as Mark-P/2, affidavit of Ghulam Mustafa as Mark-P/3, affidavit of Altaf Hussain as Mark-P/4, statements of the claimant and three other witnesses and affidavits of same witnesses as Mark P-1 to Mark P-4 and copies of the receipts of Ayub Zargar as additional evidence.
6. Oral evidence of the defendant consists of the cross examination of the defendant as DW-1, Tanveer Ahmad witness as DW-2, Najam Abbas witness as DW-3, Documentary evidence of the defendant consists of the affidavit of Mohammad Ayub defendant as Ex.D1; affidavit of Tanveer Ahmad as Ex.D2; affidavit of Najam Abbas as Ex.D3. Documentary evidence of the defendant consists of the receipts about payment of proclamation fee and purchase of cameras and instruments about Movie Making as Mark-D1 to Mark-D8; original affidavit of Ghulam Rasool DW as Mark-D9; original receipt book as Ex.D4; original CD with CD cover as Ex.D5; original visiting card of the defendant as Ex.D6; original receipts about proclamation fee of cable network as Ex.D7 to Ex.D9; original receipt about cable fee as Ex.D10; original stickers as Ex.D11.
7. A perusal of the affidavits produced in evidence and oral statements got recorded by learned local commissioner shows that the claimant has narrated his story in his own statement as PW-1 coupled with his affidavit produced as Mark P-1; while Muhammad Ismail PW-2 coupled with his affidavit produced as Mark P-2 is the witness about the keeping of a ring returned to the defendant and subsequent pushing out the claimant alongwith this witness from his shop by the defendant; while Ghulam Mustafa PW-3 coupled with his affidavit produced as Mark P-3 is the witness of the Punchayit during which the defendant had allegedly accepted alleged mixing of the ornaments; while Iltaf Hussain PW-4 coupled with his affidavit produced as Mark P-4 is the witness about payment of Rs.1,36,200/- to the defendant by the claimant in the presence of this witness as price of disputed ornaments.
8. I am convinced from written arguments of the parties in the light of their evidence that the claimant has failed to prove the points for determination by his evidence. The claimant has not clarified about the date pf purchase. The period of limitation cannot be properly computed without date of purchase. The period of limitation could have been calculated from the date of issuance of legal notice. The claimant has not proved issuance of legal notice. It is not substantial compliance of mandatory provision of S.28 (3) of PCP Act (Act II of 2005) only to annex the copy of the notice and receipt in the file without production in evidence. The claimant has not requested to send disputed ornaments to any laboratory for verification of alleged forgery during pendency of the present case. The claimant has not examined alleged expert in his evidence who had allegedly declared disputed ornaments as forged. The claimant had admittedly not got any receipt at the time of purchase while it is not expected from a prudent person to fail to get the receipt of the payment of such huge amount of Rs.1,36,200/-. The claimant has not examined any member of alleged Panchayit to prove alleged extra judicial confession of the defendant about alleged imitation of disputed jewellary. The claimant has failed to prove that any such workshop or factory was being run by the defendant about making of imitation ornaments.
9. There are such discrepancies in the evidence in contrast with version of the claimant in the complaint which relate to the allegation of debasing the beards of the claimant and witness. Both of them have not asserted said allegation in their oral statements in the evidence as well as affidavits. Another discrepancy relates to the allegation of abuses. The abuses at the time of taking of the ring by the defendant and his relatives are alleged in the complaint and also alleged in the statement of the claimant as well as in his own affidavit but there is no such assertion in the statement or in the affidavit of PW-2.
10. On the other hand, the defendant has proved in his evidence that he had enmity with the owner of Ilyas Jewelers due to previous job at the shop of said person while the claimant had admittedly not got the ornaments checked from any other expert except Ilyas Jewelers. It is also proved by the defendant that he is functioning as movie maker at the functions of marriage etc. he is also alleged to have made the movie at the marriage of the son of the claimant. The defendant has established that the enmity of the claimant is due to non payment of said movie and due to instigation of Ilyas Jewelers.
11. In accordance with above findings, the claimant has failed to prove his version by cogent evidence therefore the complaint is hereby dismissed.
12. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
13. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is not preferred under S.33 of PCP Act, 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules, 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
14. The file of this complaint is to be consigned to the record room duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.