Consumer protection

2026 PLD 49 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.13Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Care Commission Act (V of 2015), Ss. 13 & 19Consumer protectionMedical negligenceScopeImmunity to healthcare establishmentAppellant was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court on the complaint of respondent for committing medical negligenceValidity

For a claim of medical / clinical negligence to be established, a medical practitioner has to be found to have breached a duty of care to a patient, who in turn suffers injury as a result of such breach

Demonstrating that a doctor has breached duty of care is the first major hurdle in any negligence case but this is not always clear cut

There is scope for genuine differences of opinion when it comes to diagnosis and treatment

Consumers Protection Court had no jurisdiction to try such like complaints

Private healthcare establishments have been given immunity under S.19 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Care Commission Act, 2015

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction dismissed the complaint filed against appellant

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 MLD 1145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(g), (n), 16, 17 & PreambleKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act (XXXVIII of 2014), S. 22Consumer protectionServiceScopeEnvironment protection

Appellants were employees of Municipal Committee and complainant sought relocation of dumping zone for garbage of the city

Appellants were aggrieved of conviction awarded by Trial Court for violating directions issued to them

Validity

To encourage fair trade practices and to protect legitimate interests of consumers, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, was promulgated

Consumer is the person who buys goods for consideration or hires services

To attract provision of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, complainant had to prove that he was a consumer by way of purchase of goods or hired services of a service providers for consideration

Respondent/ complainant neither purchased any goods nor hired services of appellants, rather they were aggrieved from the actions/acts of appellants for establishing a dumping site for waste material, creating hazard and nuisance to nearby population

Grievance of respondent/complainant was not in respect of goods for services in view of S. 2(g) & (n) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997

Matter fell within the jurisdiction of Tribunal established under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to appellants and remanded the matter to Trial Court to return the complaint for presenting it before competent forum

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2022 CLD 352 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

PreambleFree competition, providing ofConsumer protectionScope

Intent of Legislature is to make an overarching law, national in character, for creating conditions conducive for free competition in all spheres of commerce with a view to enhance economic efficiency

By its regulatory mechanism, Competition Act, 2010, prohibits and discourages anticompetitive ways with aligned purpose of ensuring free competition to ultimately secure consumer protection

Consumer's protection, among others, signifies free flow and easy availability of goods required by him in the market without any hindrance, and his freedom to choose among them what is best for him in terms of price and quality.

2021 PLD 61 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 33Consumer protectionFaulty serviceProof

Appellants complained against respondent Airline for providing faulty service as they could not board the plane due to security check process

Validity

Tickets issued were processed for scheduled flight and accordingly boarding passes were issued

Appellants proceeded to departure lounge and waited for boarding announcement

Appellants were unable to board aircraft due to the fact that their passports were physically taken and retained by Airport Security staff (at foreign Airport) for security verification purposes

During such process of security, the flight departed

Airline staff at airport did not deny boarding to appellants nor cancelled their confirmed tickets or allowed boarding to other passengers, instead of appellants

Airline was not at fault in performance of services requested and correspondingly contracted

Blame at the best was attributed to the Airport Security staff at foreign airport

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as Consumer Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 CLD 257 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.25, 28 (3) (4) & 30Consumer protectionClaimLimitation

Consumer purchased seed of maize on 11-12-2007 and used the same in the month of June, 2008, but claim was instituted before Consumer Court on 7-10-2008 and notice was issued on 21-9-2008

Consumer Court partly allowed claim filed by consumer and directed company to provide him 250 bags of maize seed

Validity

Starting point of period of limitation provided for filing of claim before Consumer Court was accrual of cause of action and if in particular background of the matter, cause of action was accrued to consumer in the month of June, 2008, when crop was harvested, institution of claim before Consumer Court was beyond limitation

Consumer purchased 250 bags of maize and out of the same 248 bags were consumed and used by consumer and subsequently challenged quality of whole purchased lot only by producing two bags and that too without any proper seal over the same

Not certain that either the bags contained seed, were in fact originally filled by the company or after de-sealing the same by consumer, those were refilled by some substandard seeds by consumer to create a circumstance to justify the claim

Consumer failed to bring any convincing evidence on record to show that seeds in sealed bags of company were in fact substandard one

Merely by saying of consumer, it could not be presumed that quality of seed was not up to the mark for the reason that consumer was not an expert in the relevant field

Claim placed by consumer before Consumer Court was beyond limitation as provided in S.28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, and also was not maintainable in absence of mandatory notice, delivery of which was to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and also on merits

High Court directed Punjab Government to initiate appropriate administrative/legislative measure to make necessary amendments in S.30 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, in order to provide power to Consumer Court to frame issues from divergent pleadings of parties and also to record evidence of parties on such issues and then to give issue-wise findings on such material available before it

High Court set aside the order passed by Consumer Court

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 CLC 154 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.25, 28 (3) (4) & 30Consumer protectionClaimLimitation

Consumer purchased seed of maize on 11-12-2007 and used the same in the month of June, 2008, but claim was instituted before Consumer Court on 7-10-2008 and notice was issued on 21-9-2008

Consumer Court partly allowed claim filed by consumer and directed company to provide him 250 bags of maize seed

Validity

Starting point of period of limitation provided for filing of claim before Consumer Court was accrual of cause of action and if in particular background of the matter, cause of action was accrued to consumer in the month of June, 2008, when crop was harvested, institution of claim before Consumer Court was beyond limitation

Consumer purchased 250 bags of maize and out of the same 248 bags were consumed and used by consumer and subsequently challenged quality of whole purchased lot only by producing two bags and that too without any proper seal over the same

Not certain that either the bags contained seed, were in fact originally filled by the company or after de-sealing the same by consumer, those were refilled by some substandard seeds by consumer to create a circumstance to justify the claim

Consumer failed to bring any convincing evidence on record to show that seeds in sealed bags of company were in fact substandard one

Merely by saying of consumer, it could not be presumed that quality of seed was not up to the mark for the reason that consumer was not an expert in the relevant field

Claim was placed by consumer before Consumer Court was beyond limitation as provided in section 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, and also was not maintainable in absence of mandatory notice, delivery of which was to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and also on merits

High Court directed Punjab Government to initiate appropriate administrative/legislative measure to make necessary amendments in section 30 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, in order to provide power to Consumer Court to frame issues from divergent pleadings of parties and also to record evidence of parties on such issues and then to give issue-wise findings on such material available before it

High Court set aside the order passed by Consumer Court

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2012 PLD 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 31Consumer protectionMaxim: Restitutio in integrum(entire restitution)ApplicabilityWhere restitutio in integrum is not possible in strict terms, then compensatory financial adjustment may be made

If deterioration in value of defective goods has taken place through use by a customer who has paid price of such goods, then vendor may be compensated for consequent diminution in the value of goods

Equally when restitution is granted as relief in a case where a defective product is not used by a customer and vendor does not provide its replacement, then customer is entitled to rental cost of a like product for the period until a replacement is provided

Such adjustments address the object of restitutionary relief

Entitlement of customer to receive rental cost is based on the obligation of a vendor, who had received full price of defective product, either to pay the customer, profit on the price received or to pay the rental cost of the product for the period until a replacement is provided.

2012 PLD 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.6, 8 & 31(b)Consumer protectionReplacement of productChange of gearbox of car

Consumer purchased brand new car and due to some manufacturing defect its gearbox leaked and the same was replaced by the manufacturer

Trial Court decreed the case in favour of consumer and directed manufacturer to replace defective car with brand new one

Plea raised by manufacturer was that such relief conferred unjust enrichment upon consumer because of increased value of new model and diminished value of purchased vehicle due to its continuous use by consumer as it did not have the same impact and was liable to be treated differently

Validity

Original manufacturer's seal of gearbox was broken and replaced locally

New gearbox supplied in sealed condition by manufacturer was not fitted in the vehicle

Unsealing of gearbox was as serious as unsealing of engine of a new vehicle

Trial Court was correct to hold that consumer was supplied a defective car by manufacturer and that its repair by dealership diminished its value so as to deprive the consumer of brand new car that he had purchased

Consumer demanded replacement of vehicle at the time of detection of defect and took delivery of repaired vehicle after signing customer's satisfaction report under protest

Manufacturer was liable for defective construction of gearbox housing and for breach of warranty by consequent repair that the engine installation and gearbox assembly remained in original condition

Manufacturer's liability had arisen under the provisions of Ss.6 and 8 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

High Court directed the consumer to return his purchased vehicle to manufacturer who would forthwith refund the full price thereof received from consumer

High Court further directed that in case consumer did not return the vehicle to manufacturer he would lose his right of receiving accrued profit on the price paid, resultantly judgment passed by Trial Court was modified

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.