1. Ch. Liaqat Ali Solharia advocate has filed the instant complaint with the accusation that he has placed an order for preparation of some gold ornaments on 20-08-09 weighing 5 tolas @ of Rs.26700/- and on the same day Rs.110000/- were paid in advance but respondent has handed over to him a locket set weighing 1 tola, 3 mashs and 7 raties on 04-02-10 and a Kara weighing 1 tola and 7 mashs on 03-05 11 while remaining ornaments were not provided. It has also been alleged that the handed over were found less in weight as recorded in receipts. Complainant has claimed Rs.50, 000, 00/- as compensation for agony which allegedly he has faced.
2. Said complaint was resisted by the complainant who in the written statement admitted the receipt of Rs.110000/- as advance and also handing over of gold ornaments locket set and Kara. He has also admitted that Rs.14800/- are to be paid to the complainant and have shown his willingness to pay the same. However, he has denied the allegation of faulty services and also objection has been raised to the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that matter pertains to the settlement of accounts.
3. Efforts for reconciliation were made but remained unsuccessful whereupon parties were required to produce evidence.
4. Complainant, in order to prove the allegations has appeared as PW1 and has submitted affidavit Exh."P1". He has been corroborated by Arfan ullah PW2 who has also submitted affidavit Exh."P7". On documentary side, receipts Exh."P2" to "P5", legal notice Exh."P6", postal receipt Exh."P6/1" have been produced.
In rebuttal, respondent himself appeared as RW1 who has submitted affidavit Exh."R1". He has been corroborated by his brother Muhammad Sufian RW2 who has also submitted affidavit Exh."R2".
5. Contention of learned counsel for the complainant is that not only through the complainant's evidence but through the statement of RW2 allegation against the respondent of providing of faulty services is being established as during the cross examination, it has been admitted that the ornaments were not delivered in time.
6. Conversely the arguments advanced are that specific performance of the contract has been sought for which this Court lacks jurisdiction.
7. In the light of arguments, record has been carefully perused. Although in the complaint prayer has been made for delivery of remaining ornaments but when learned counsel for the complainant was confronted with the proposition that specific performance of the contract cannot be sought from this Court as for the same exclusive jurisdiction lies with Civil Court, he has frankly conceded the same. But argued that in view of the admission of RW2 that the ornaments were not handed over to the complainant in time, compensation be awarded to the complainant. Although contrary to it, the arguments advanced are that mere delay in delivery does not fall within the definition of faulty services but I do not find myself in agreement with the same. In present eventuality the time has become necessary ingredient regarding quality of services to be provided as the gold ornaments oftenly are used or prepared for some functions while its utility will go down in case of non delivery in time. Subsection 2 of section 14 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 is also there to support the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that delay in delivery of gold ornaments amounts to providing of faulty services.
8. In spite of above mentioned observation against the respondent, compensation cannot be awarded to the complainant as the instant complaint has not been filed within 30days of arising of cause of action. Although neither in the complaint nor in the statement of the complainant time agreed for the delivery of ornament has been disclosed but with issuance of legal notice on 20-07- 11, it becomes confirm that cause of action has arisen to the complainant earlier to said date. If for the sack of arguments it is considered that cause of action has arisen, if not earlier, from the date of issuance of legal notice, even then, the instant complaint is found to be barred by limitation. As has been filed after almost 60 days while period of limitation prescribed is 30 days. Although it is correct that Court can extend the time but when plausible explanation has been put forth while not only the complaint is silent but complainant himself has not uttered a single sentence regarding delay in his affidavit Exh."P1", so, in view of the law lay down by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court Lahore in FAO No.198/2008 case titled Tayyab Jamil TCS vs. Sobia Arshad, I feel no hesitation to declare the instant complaint barred by limitation.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, instant complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.