Consumer complaint

2023 YLR 130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25, 31 & 33Consumer complaintJudgmentReasons, absence of

Complaint filed by respondent / complainant was partly accepted by Consumer Court imposing compensatory amount against appellant

Validity

Irrespective of the issue of strict application of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Consumer Court was bestowed with powers to adjudicate upon rights and liabilities of parties and to pass legally binding and judicially executable judgments/orders imposing fulfilment of obligations upon parties and directing payment of compensation as well as damages under S. 31 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

Final order of Consumer Court passed under S.31 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, at the very least, pass the test of being a legally valid judgment/order depicting independent application of judicial mind upon critical aspects of a controversy

Pivotal issues were not determined by Consumer Court and there was no narrative/discourse available in the order about actual issue on the basis of which claim was preferred and allowed

High Court set aside order passed by Consumer Court as there was no discourse in the order about how the Court came to the conclusion and matter was remanded for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2016 CLD 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 33, 27, 25, 13 & 3Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 7 (4) & 2(a)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 143Consumer complaintLiability for defective servicesJurisdiction of Consumer Court regarding matter between financial institutions and their customersScope

Respondents filed application for rejection of the complaint on the ground that the Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the matter was between the financial institution and its customer, which was dismissed by the Consumer Court

Respondent, later on, filed application for revisiting said order of dismissal, which was also dismissed

Petitioner contended that impugned order being interlocutory order present appeal was not competent

Validity

Impugned orders to the extent of the applications were final and not interlocutory orders

Matters in hand were between Bank and customers

Bank fell within the definition of 'financial institutions'

Matters pertaining to the financial institutions with their customers could only be taken up and decided by the Banking Court as provided under S. 7(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Consumer Court had no unfettered powers and certain restrictions existed in S. 3 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, which provided that the Act would be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law

Consumer Court, therefore, had transgressed its powers and erred in law while assuming jurisdiction in the matter in hand and entertaining the complaint

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinances, 2001, in terms of Art. 143 of the Constitution, being a Federal statute, had precedence over the Consumer Protection Act, 2005

High Court, setting aside the impugned orders, dismissed the complaint

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.