Jurisdiction of Consumer Court

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

S. 27Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtScopeExtent and scope of causes of action cannot be confined to a particular place/location where alleged breach occurs

Act of faulty or defective service occurred or committed may extend to such other places/locations, where a part of cause of action has also arisen

Cause of action wholly or in part, may arise at any such place / location where an enforceable contract of provision of services was entered into, executed, acted upon, performed partially or otherwise or breach thereof committed etc.

Cause of action may also accrue on the basis of any other tangible event/action, forming part of a component of a cause of action, which is determinable in view of the facts of each case.

2020 CLD 1022 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 27, 25 & 33Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtFiling of claims

Appellant Company impugned order of Consumer Court whereby complainant's complaint against appellant, a (Telecom Company), for not conducting "lucky prize draw" for various prizes as advertised by appellant, was allowed

Contention of appellant, inter alia, was that Consumer Court had no jurisdiction in the matter

Validity

Complainant had applied for a telephone connection pursuant to advertisement made by appellant, which was duly installed and practically no loss was caused to complainant

Grievance that offer of awarding certain prizes announced in said advertisement was not fulfilled was incompetent and did not attract jurisdiction of Consumer Court

Impugned order was set aside

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 PLD 429 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 29, 3 ,4 & 2(xvii)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 142 & Fourth Sched. Part II, Entry 11Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005) S.27Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtMalpractice and maladministration by healthcare providerSubject-matter of Federal and Provincial laws

Question before the High Court was whether Consumer Courts were a competent forum for claiming damages in respect of alleged medical negligence or whether Punjab Healthcare Commission had exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the same; and furthermore, whether under the Constitution, a provincial law such as Punjab Healthcare Commission Act,2010 could be used to adjudicate dispute regarding the medical profession, which existed in the Federal Legislative List

Held, that in view of definition of "healthcare service provider" given in S.2(xvii) of Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010,and Ss.3 & 4 of the same with regard to powers of the Punjab Healthcare Commission; in any case of maladministration and malpractice on part of a "healthcare service provider", the Punjab Healthcare Commission was vested with powers to investigate and impose penalty

Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act,2010 barred proceedings under any other law which included the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

Punjab Healthcare Commission, therefore, regulated any person who was responsible for provision of healthcare services in the Province

After the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, "medical and legal profession" was included in Entry 11 of Part II of the Federal Legislative List, of the Constitution while subject of "public health, sanitations, hospitals and dispensary" was omitted in the same, meaning thereby, that the same fell within Provincial Domain

High Court observed that Constitutional mandate required medical profession be governed by Federal Law and matters related "public health, sanitations, hospitals and dispensary" be regulated by the Provinces

High Court further held that in presence of Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, Consumer Courts had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters of medical negligence/malpractice or maladministration

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

2019 CLC 580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 28(4) & proviso, 27, 25 & 33Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtSettlement of claimLimitation period of thirty days to file a complaintComputation of limitation periodCondonation of delayScope

Defendant impugned order of Consumer Court whereby complaint made against defendant was accepted and defendant was directed to pay damages

Contention of defendant was that impugned order was not valid as cause of action accrued to claimant/consumer on 19.10.2010 while claim was filed before Consumer Court on 20.02.2011, and thus the same was beyond the period of limitation

Validity

Record established that complaint was filed beyond the thirty days period prescribed by S. 28(2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and while proviso to the same empowered the Consumer Court to extend time for filing of complaint, however, in the present case, complainant did not move the Consumer Court for such extension in time and did not show any sufficient reason for failure to comply with limitation

High Court observed that it was bounden duty of court to adjudge a proceeding placed before it on the touchstone of limitation at the very initial stage, and therefore contention that defendant did not raise question of limitation at trial stage was not valid

Impugned order was set aside

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 YLRN 90 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13, 14 & 31Electricity Act (IX of 1910), S. 26Liability for providing faulty or defective servicesStandard of provision of servicesJurisdiction of Consumer CourtDishonest abstraction or consumption of energyScope

Respondent filed a complaint against the Electric Company (Company) under Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 contending therein that he a consumer of electricity provided by the company and he was not a defaulter but his meter was disconnected due to some amount outstanding as electricity charges against his brother

Validity

Section 14 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 provided for standard of service which was to be according to law to which the dispute related, which in the present case was Electricity Act, 1910

Allegation of the company was that the respondent was supplying the electricity to his brother for commercial purpose through the domestic meter and in fact was involved in dishonest abstraction of energy amounting to "theft"

Validity

Charge of theft on the consumer of energy through metering equipment fell within the jurisdiction of Electric Inspector

If the theft was not through the metering equipment then the same fell within the jurisdiction of civil court

Consumer Court could not entertain the dispute relating to supply of energy to the brother of respondent for commercial purposes through a domestic meter and declare the respondent as not a "defaulter" and restore his electricity connection

Consumer had sought relief of declaration that he was not a defaulter and issuance of mandatory injunction for restoration of his electricity connection

Power to grant such relief was not vested in the Consumer Court

Consumer Court could only determine liability of service provided to the consumer for damages approximately caused by the provision of services that caused damage or direct the service provider to cease to provide defective or faulty service until required standards were achieved

Appeal was allowed and the order passed by Consumer Court was declared to be without jurisdiction, resultantly, impugned order was set aside.

2018 CLD 1064 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 28(4) & proviso, 27 & 33Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtSettlement of ClaimLimitation period of thirty days to file complaintComputation of limitation periodCondonation of delayScope

Consumer Court had power to extend the time limit for filing of complaint for up to one year but such extension could only be made when sufficient cause was disclosed for not filing complaint within 30 days, by filing a proper application

Complaint, under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, if hit by time limitation, then framing of issues and recording of evidence was of no consequence and such complaint was liable to be dismissed.

2017 CLC 1160 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 2(o)Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtScope

Jurisdiction of Consumer Court was not exhaustive but limited to the extent and manner as provided under the Act.

2017 CLC 1160 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 15Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtScopeComplaint before Consumer CourtMaintainability

Respondent had challenged the act of appellant (Gas Company) by disconnecting the gas supply connection and demand of gas bill issued wrongly, by filing complaint before the Consumer Court

Said complaint was allowed by the Trial Court

(Gas Company) contended that Consumer Court passed order without jurisdiction, against law and facts

Validity

Matter in issue was directly and exclusively pertained to providing of services by the Gas Supply Company to its customer

Consumer Court could charge such a defaulter or a person responsible for causing any infringement of rights of consumer

In the present case, respondent had not registered any such grievance, which provided jurisdiction to the Consumer Court with regard to any defect in the goods or services provided to the respondent by the appellant

Matter pertained to dispute over, the gas bill, which could not be resolved by Consumer Court

Respondent on the one hand was stated to be defaulter while on the other hand, he had used unsanctioned excessive load, for which he had not paid

Such complicated and technical question could not be resolved by Consumer Court as jurisdiction conferred upon said court was not that of a civil court

Consumer Court, in circumstances, had passed order without jurisdiction

Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

2017 CLC 1160 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 15Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002), S.43Gas (Theft and Recovery) Act, (XI of 2016), S.6Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtComplaint before Consumer CourtMaintainability

Respondent had challenged the act of petitioner (Gas Company) for disconnecting the gas supply connection and demand of gas bill issued wrongly, by filing complaint before the Consumer Court

Validity

Grievance of aggrieved person could be resolved through the mechanism provided by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Section 43 of the said Ordinance has excluded the operation of any other law

If consumer had a dispute regarding billing or monitoring against a gas utility company, consumer or gas utility company, as the case may be was to file complaint or suit before Gas Utility Court

Circumstances established that Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint

Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by Consumer Court.

2017 CLD 1196 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 28(4), Proviso, 27 & 33Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtSettlement of claimLimitation period of thirty days to file a complaintComputation of limitation periodCondonation of delayComplaint of the complainant was rejected by Consumer Court on ground that the same was time-barred by one day

Contention of complainant, inter alia, was that time was spent in awaiting reply to notice issued to the respondent, which period of the reply should be counted for purposes of limitation

Validity

No denial of the fact that the cause of action arose on 1.05.2016 whereas complainant filed his claim on 01.06.2016 which was one day beyond the period of limitation

Once a complaint was filed after the prescribed period of limitation without an application for condonation of delay, the Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint

No illegality therefore existed in the impugned order

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 CLD 383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 7(4)Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005), S. 27Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 143Powers of Banking CourtJurisdiction of Consumer Court

Matter in question was between the Bank, which was financial institution, and its customer, which could only be taken up and decided by Banking Court, as provided under S.7(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, being Federal statute, had precedence over Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, as provided under Art. 143 of the Constitution.

2016 CLC 1417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25, 27, 30 & 31Electricity Act (IX of 1910), S.39-AComplaint, filing ofDetection billJurisdiction of Consumer CourtScopeIllegal orderLimitation

Consumer Court could issue direction if products complained against suffered from any of the defects specified in the claim or all the allegations contained in the same with regard to service provided were true

Complaint by the complainant was not with regard to any defective product or faulty services rather same was with regard to correction of detection bill which would fall within the jurisdiction of civil court

Criminal case had also been got registered against the complainant under S.39-A of Electricity Act, 1910

Matter of issuance of detection bill with regard to charge of theft of energy by the consumer through metering equipments or relating to reading would fall within the jurisdiction of Electric Inspector but not civil court

Consumer Court had to first identify a consumer availing service and if the said service was found defective, only then court could fix damages and award the same

Said court could not issue a direction for reduction in the detection bill issued by WAPDA which was the exclusive domain of civil court

Present complaint was incompetent and Consumer Court had wrongly assumed the jurisdiction in the matter as complainant had already invoked the jurisdiction of civil court

Impugned order had been passed without jurisdiction which was illegal and no limitation would run against such order

Impugned order passed by the Consumer Court was set aside and complaint filed was dismissed

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

2016 PLD 168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 7(4)Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005), S. 27Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 143Powers of Banking CourtJurisdiction of Consumer Court

Matter in question was between the Bank, which was financial institution, and its customer, which could only be taken up and decided by Banking Court, as provided under S.7(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, being Federal statute, had precedence over Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, as provided under Art.143 of Constitution.

2016 PLD 168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 28, 27, 25 & 3Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.7(4)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.143Banker and customerClaim by consumer, dismissal ofJurisdiction of Consumer CourtSettlement of claim, limitation forPowers of Banking CourtSubsequent notices issued to Bank for settlement of claim not to affect on prescribed limitationPunjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 not in derogation of any other lawInconsistency between Federal and Provincial LawEffect

Complainant, while getting activation of his new credit card, was informed by the Bank the transactions having been made through his old credit card, which the complainant denied on ground that he had lost the old card and those transactions had not been made by him

Consumer Court allowed the claim by restraining the Bank to recover amount of the disputed transactions

Validity

Complainant had requested the Bank for blockade of his credit card after the card had already been used for alleged unauthorized transactions

Bank could be held responsible for the unauthorized use of the card only after the Bank had been told about misplacing of the same

Bank could neither stop the transactions nor be held responsible for the same, as there was no intimation to the Bank about loss of the card

Matter in question was between the Bank, which was financial institution, and its customer, which could only be taken up and decided by Banking Court, as provided under S.7(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Consumer Court did not have unfettered powers, and certain restrictions existed as embedded in S. 3 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and had transgressed its powers and erred in law while assuming jurisdiction in the present matter

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, being Federal statute, had precedence over Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, as provided under Art. 143 of the Constitution

Claim in question had been filed with delay of about one year after cause of action had arisen on pretext that complainant used to issue notices or letter to the Bank in that regard

Mere issuance of subsequent notices after specific denial by the Bank in response to the first notice did not extend period of limitation

Complainant had only thirty days to file his grievance petition in terms of S.28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005; whereas, Consumer Court might allow extension of time for filing the same, which had not been done, in the present case

Complaint, being barred by time, should have been dismissed

High Court, setting aside impugned order, dismissed the complaint

Appeal against order was allowed.

2015 PLD 31 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss 4, 2(h) & 33Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002) S.11Jurisdiction of Consumer Court"Manufacturer", definition and scope ofComplaint against Gas Supply Company for excessive billing

Defendant Gas Supply Company impugned order of Consumer Court whereby complaint filed by complainant in relation to excessive gas billing was allowed

Held, that defendant Gas Supply Company was not a "manufacturer" of a product as defined in Ss.2(h) & 4 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and defendant was merely a gas supplier and / or its seller; therefore stretching liability for excessive billing would be putting an altogether meaning to S.4 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005; than was intended by the Legislature

Consumer Court being a Special Court and not a court of general jurisdiction could not take up matters relating to excessive gas billing as the same did not fall within its purview and the spirit of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 did not cater to such eventualities

Complainant also had an alternate remedy under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 which he did not avail

Impugned order of Consumer Court was set aside and appeal was allowed accordingly.

2015 PLD 235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 27, 2(c), 2(k) & 33Jurisdiction of Consumer CourtScope"Consumer", definition and scope ofSale and purchase of immovable property

Appellant/defendant impugned order of Consumer Court whereby complaint regarding purchase of property by complainants from the defendant was disposed of in terms of consent of parties and he was ordered to register sale deeds in favour of the complainants

Contention of defendant was that Consumer Court had no jurisdiction in the matter

Held, that in order to invoke jurisdiction of Consumer Court, the complainant must first qualify to be a consumer, and in order to be a consumer under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005; a person must hire "services" for a certain consideration from a "service provider"

Complainants in the present case, had alleged that there was an agreement regarding purchase of plots but the defendant failed to execute registered sale deeds in their favour; and as such matter related to breach of contract which fell within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the Consumer Court had no jurisdiction in the matter

Disputes regarding immovable property could not be converted into consumer disputes since there was no sale of goods or services for consideration

Contention of complainants that matter was decided by the Consumer Court with consent from all parties was not tenable as consent of parties could neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a Court/Tribunal, unless so conferred or barred by law

High Court set aside impugned order of Consumer Court and dismissed complaint as not being maintainable

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

2015 PLD 204 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Reglns. 11 & 15Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005), S.27Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act (XVII of 1996), Ss.5 & 4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionJurisdiction of Consumer CourtComplaints against telecommunication companiesApplicability of Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2009

Petitioner Telecommunications Company, impugned order of Consumer Court, whereby application of petitioner under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of complaint of respondent, was dismissed

Contention of petitioner was that in presence of the Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2009; the Consumer Court under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complaint of respondent/complainant

Held, that the complaint fell within the parameters mentioned in Regln. 11 of the Telecom Consumers protection Regulations, 2009; and Regln. 15 of the said Regulations contained the procedure by which such complaints were to be dealt with

Petitioner Telecommunication Company fell within the ambit of "Federal Laws" therefore, any legislation made by the Federal Government would prevail over the provincial Statute

Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2009, made in pursuance of Ss.5 & 4 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996; was a special law; and the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 was a general law; therefore the District Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint

High Court observed that provision of a special law on a subject would exclude the applicability of a general law to the said subject

High Court set aside impugned order and rejected complaint of respondent under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.