2016 PLP 1546 (CLD)

ATIR MAHMOOD, J.

Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of F.A.Os. Nos.158, 223 and 255 of 2008 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant appeal are that on 09.02.2008, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant in the Consumer Court, Lahore on account of damages for defective service filing claim to the tune of Rs.30.02 million; that the appellant filed reply to the complaint; that the appellant also filed an application for rejection of the complaint asserting that the consumer court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint; that the respondent filed reply to application of the appellants. Learned consumer court dismissed the application of the appellants vide order dated 13.05.2008. The appellant filed application for revisiting order dated 13.05.2008 which application was also dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2008. Hence this F.A.O. has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contends that the impugned orders are against the law; that the learned consumer court had no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the matters raised in the complaints were between the financial institutions and their customers and even if there was any grievance, the respondents should have approached the banking court rather than the consumer court for redress of their grievances, therefore, the F.A.Os. in hand be accepted, the impugned orders be set aside and the complaints filed by the respondents be dismissed. He has relied upon the law laid down in case reported as Messrs Askari Leasing Ltd. through Chief Manager v. Presiding Officer and another (2015 CLD 196 Lahore = PLD 2015 Lah. 140).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed these appeals mainly on account, of maintainability. He asserts that the complaints filed by the respondents are still pending and the orders impugned are just interim orders whereagainst no appeal is provided in section 33 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. He prays that the appeals in hand be dismissed. He has relied upon the, law laid down in case reported as Allied Bank Ltd. Faisalabad through Attorneys of the Bank v. Khalid Mehmood (PLD 2013 Lahore 454).

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The only point raised in all the three appeals in hand is regarding jurisdiction of the consumer court to decide the issue of damages between a bank and its customer.

7. The emphasis of learned counsel for the respondents is on the point that the appeals in hand are not entertainable as the same have been filed against interlocutory orders. Undeniably, the appellants filed applications for rejection of the complaint on account of lack of jurisdiction which applications stand dismissed by the consumer court finally, as such, the impugned orders, in my considered view, are final orders to the extent of the said applications and not interlocutory orders, as asserted by learned counsel for the respondents. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is without any force, which is accordingly discarded.

8. Admittedly, the matters in hand are between banks and their customers. The banks undisputedly fall within the definition of 'financial institutions'. The matters pertaining to the financial institutions with their customers can only be taken up and decided by the banking court as provided under section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances), Ordinance, 2001 which reads as under: "7(4) Subject to subsection (5) no court other than a banking court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of Banking Court extends under this Ordinance including a decision as to the existence or otherwise of a finance and the execution of a decree passed by a Banking Court." Whereas the consumer court has no unfettered powers and there are certain restrictions as embedded in section 3 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 which reads as under: "The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.". Keeping in juxtaposition the above two provisions of different statutes, there remains no doubt that the consumer court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as such, it has transgressed its powers and erred in law while assuming its jurisdiction in the matters in hand. On this score alone, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Needless to mention here that being a Federal Statute, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 has precedence over the Consumer Protection Act, 2005 which is Provincial Statute as provided under Article 143 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case reported as Messrs Askari Leasing Ltd. through Chief Manager v. Presiding Officer and another (2015 CLD 196 Lahore = PLD 2015 Lah. 140).

9. For what has been discussed above, the learned consumer court has erred in law while entertaining the complaints. Therefore; the appeals in hand are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaints of the respondents are dismissed. SL/S-42/L Appeals allowed.