2015 PLP 2362 (YLR)

SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.

This writ petition calls into question order dated 14-2-2013 passed by the learned Judge District Consumer Court, Lahore whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner sold a Toyota Belta Model 2009 Car to respondent No.2. A month after the sale of the said car respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner demanding Rs.1.5 Million as damages on accounts of the faults that the vehicle in question started to display soon after its sale and the misrepresentations made by the petitioner regarding the said car. Subsequently respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (the Act). The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the complaint which was dismissed by the learned Judge District Consumer Court, Lahore vide order dated 14-2-2013, hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was neither a "manufacturer" nor provided "services" in terms of Section 2(h) & (k) of the Act and as such the said Act was not applicable on him. Section 2(h) & (k) are reproduced here below:-- (h) "Manufacturer" includes a person or entity who? (i) is in the business of manufacturing a product for purposes of trade or commerce; (ii) lables a product as his own or who otherwise presents himself as the manufacturer of the product; (iii) as a seller exercises control over the design, construction or quality of the product that causes damage; (iv) assembles a product by incorporating into his product a component or part manufactured by another manufacturer; (v) is a seller of a product of a foreign manufacturer and assumes or administers warranty obligations of the product, or is affiliated with the foreign manufacturer by way of partial or complete ownership or control; or modifies or prepares the product for sale or distribution. (k) "Services" includes the provision of any kind of facilities or advice or assistance such as provision of medical, legal or engineering services but does not include- (i) the rendering of any service under a contract of personal service; (ii) the rendering of non-professional services like astrology or palmistry; or (iii) a service, the essence of which is to deliver judgment by a court of law or arbitrator; It was further stated that the provisions of the Act are also inapplicable on consumer to consumer transactions. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand placed reliance on Section 21(a)(b) and (g) of the said Act. The aforementioned provision insofar as it is relevant is reproduced as under:--

21. False, deceptive or misleading representation.

No person shall make a false, deceptive or misleading misrepresentation that: "(a) the products are of a particular kind, standard, quality, grade, quantity, composition, style or model; (b) the products have particular history or particular previous use; (g) the produces are new or reconditioned or have been in use for a particular period of time only;

4. The jurisdiction of a Consumer Court is derived from Section 25 of the Act which is reproduced hereunder:--

25. Filing of Claims.

A claim for damages arising out of contravention of any provisions of this Act shall be filed before a Consumer Court set up under this Act. (emphasis supplied).

5. It is quite clear that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court is attracted when any violation of the provisions of the Act takes place and is not restricted to persons who are manufacturers or provide services. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only a manufacturer or service provider can be sued before a Consumer Court is, therefore, not correct. In fact, Section 25 of the Act makes it quite clear that any violation of the provisions of the Act would also give jurisdiction to the District Consumer Courts over any person who contravenes, amongst others, the provisions of section 21 of the Act even in a Consumer to Consumer transaction. The learned Judge Consumer Court, therefore, rightly rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

6. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. MH/A-37/L Petition dismissed.