Consumer Protection Laws
1. Regional Manager, Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus
Presiding Officer, District
Consumer Court , Lahore
2012 CLD 846
Claim under an insurance policy filed before Consumer
Court---
Maintainability--- Jurisdiction of Insurance
Tribunal---Scope---Section
122(3) of The Insurance Ordinance, 2000, provided that
jurisdiction of
the Insurance Tribunal was exclusive in matters that fell
within the
ambit of its authority, and S.122(1)(a) of the Insurance Ordinance,
2000
stated that jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal extended
to “claims
filed by a policy holder against an insurance company in
respect of
or arising out of a policy of insurance”---Claim of
policy-holder fell
under S.122(1)(a) of Insurance Ordinance, 2000, as the said
provision
created an exclusive remedy in respect of claims based on
insurance
policies---Insurance Ordinance, 2000, as a competent Federal
Legislation
prevailed over conflicting Provincial Legislation under
Art.143 of the
Constitution, and even otherwise provisions of a special law
on a
subject excluded the application of a general law to such
subject. It
was held that suit filed by the policy-holder before the Consumer Court
was not maintainable.2. Chairman Indus Motors Co. Versus
Muhammad
Arshad
2012 PLD 264
Consumer Protection--- Replacement of product---Change 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.3. Sayyed Hanan
Khalid Gillani
Versus
District Judge/Presiding Officer District Consumer Court , Multan
2011 PLD 349
Ss. 2(j), 25 & 28---Constitution of Pakistan ,
Ar.199---
Constitutional petition---Word “animal”---Scope---Claim against
supplier---Dispute between the parties was with regard to
supply
of chicks---Consumer alleged that supplier did not supply
him
the chicks of grade “A” for which payment was made to him---
Claim submitted by consumer under S.28 of Punjab Consumer
Protection Act, 2005, was found to be maintainable by
Consumer Court---Validity---Word “animal” in S.2(j) of Punjab
Consumer Protection Act, 2005 was used in general sense,
therefore, birds included the same and agreement reached
between consumer and supplier for supply of chicks did not
fall
within the meaning of supply of any product---High Court set
aside the order passed by Trial Court and claim submitted by
consumer under S.28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005,
was not maintainable---Petition was dismissed in
circumstances.4. Allama Iqbal Open University Versus Irfan Boota.
2011 CLD 927
Ss. 2(c)(k), 25 & 28---„Consumer Services‟---Meaning and
scope---Consumer
Court awarded compensation totalling
Rs.20,000/- to complainant/student who was declared failed
by
the university as his assignment was not sent to the
Controller
of Examination of the University by his tutor---University
contended that the complainant, being a student, was not a
“Consumer” as defined by clause (c) of S.2 of the Punjab
Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and that the services
provided by the university also did not fall within the
definition of services‟
contained in clause (k) of the Punjab
Consumer Protection Act, 2005---Validity---University was an
educational institution and could not be described to have
undertaken commercial activity---• Definition of the term
„Consumer‟ in clause (c)
of
S.2 of the Punjab Consumer
Protection Act, 2005
contemplated hiring of services for a consideration
and the definition was not applicable to the
matter wherein a student had submitted
application for appearing in any examination to be
conducted by an educational institution---Neither
the student appearing in the examination held by the
university could be described as a „Consumer‟ as
defined in S.2(c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection
Act, 2005, nor the university was a „service
provider‟
as envisaged in the provisions of S.2(k) of
the Punjab Consumer
Protection Act, 2005 ---
Complaint lodged by the student was not
entertainable by the Consumer Court ---Appeal
was accepted and impugned order was set aside.5. Dr.
Shamshad Hussain Syed Versus District
Consumer Court , Lahore
2010 PLD 214
Ss. 2(c), 2(k), 25 & 35---Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art.199---
Constitutional petition---„Consumer‟---Definition-Jurisdiction of Consumer
Court---Scope---Complainant filed complaint under S.25 of
the Punjab
Consumer Protection Act, 2005 before the Consumer Court on the ground
that services rendered by the respondents were faulty and
defective as
diagnostic center of the respondents issued a wrong medical
report
stating that Anti HCV of the complainant was
reactive---Respondents filed
an application under S.35 of the Punjab Consumer Protection
Act, 2005 before
the Consumer
Court on the plea that the complaint was vexatious
and
frivolous--- Consumer
Court dismissed application of the respondents and
allowed application filed by complainant for appointment of
Medical
Board/Pathologist---Respondents asserted that the Consumer Court had
no
jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the complainant was
not a
“Consumer” under S.2(c) of the Punjab
Consumer Protection Act, 2005---
Validity---Complainant had availed medical services after
paying
consideration and was, therefore, a Consumer under Punjab
Consumer
Protection Act, 2005---Consumer Court had jurisdiction to try
complaint
of the complainant---Constitutional petition was dismissed
by High
Court.6. Chief Executive, FESCO, Faisalabad Versus Nayab Hussain
2010 PLD 95
Ss. 2(c)(k), 13 & 31---Jurisdiction of Consumer Court ---Scope---
Complaint against WAPDA---Application for installation of
electricity supply meter---Non-issuance of demand notice by
WAPDA---Plea of WAPDA that complainant could not be provided
electric connection due to non framing of Electrification
Scheme for
the area in dispute; that Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain complaint as complainant was not a Consumer and no
services had been rendered to him; and that WAPDA was ready
to
provide electric connection to complainant on payment of its
capital
cost, which he had not paid---Validity---In order to invoke
jurisdiction of Consumer
Court , complainant had first to qualify
to be a “Consumer”---Complainant would not qualify to be a
Consumer in absence of any service being availed by him and
payment of consideration in return for such service to
WAPDA---No
electrical energy was being supplied to complainant, thus no
services
were being availed by him and he was not a „Consumer” under
Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005---Making of such
application would not make
complainant a „Consumer‟
and inaction of WAPDA to
decide such application would not fall under
definition of “service” for purposes of the Act---Any
administrative step prior to start of actual service
was not a “service” under the Act---Consumer Court
had to identify a Consumer availing service, and if
such service was found to be defective, then could fix
damages and award same---Consumer Court could not
issue a mandamus as prayed for by complainant---In
order to get electricity connection, complainant had
either to pay capital cost of a transformer or wait
till entire area was electrified through a proper
Electrification Scheme-Complaint for being not
maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment