Consumer court can't decide matters of property dispute.
 |
| Consumer court can't decide matters of property dispute. |
**کیس کا خلاصہ: محمد امیر قاضی بمقابلہ محمد آصف علی، علی احمد، اور ذوالفقار علی**
**عدالت:** لاہور ہائی کورٹ، بہاول بینچ
**فیصلے کی تاریخ:** 20.11.2013
**اپیلیں:** FAO نمبرز 17/2009، 18/2009، 19/2009
**فریقین:**
- **مدعی:** محمد امیر قاضی
- **مدعی علیہ:** محمد آصف علی (FAO 17/2009)، علی احمد (FAO 18/2009)، ذوالفقار علی اور محمد عرفان (FAO 19/2009)
**پس منظر:**
مدعی علیہ نے ضلع صارف عدالت، بہاولپور میں الگ الگ درخواستیں دائر کیں، جن میں الزام عائد کیا کہ قسطوں کی ادائیگی کے باوجود اراضی کی منتقلی نہیں ہوئی۔ انہوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ رسیدیں دستخطوں کے بغیر تھیں، جس سے مالک کے ساتھ منتقلی میں مشکلات کا اشارہ ملتا تھا۔ ضلع صارف عدالت نے 10.04.2009 کو اراضی کی منتقلی کا حکم دیا، جس کے نتیجے میں یہ اپیلیں دائر کی گئیں۔
**دلائل:**
- **مدعی کے وکیل:**
1. ضلع صارف عدالت کو یہ معاملہ سننے کا اختیار نہیں تھا کیونکہ یہ معاملہ معاہدے کے نفاذ سے متعلق تھا، صارف کے تحفظ سے نہیں۔
2. ماتحت عدالت کے احکامات غیر قانونی تھے اور عدالت کی دائرہ کار سے باہر تھے۔
3. فریقین کی رضامندی سے عدالت کی دائرہ کار میں تبدیلی ممکن نہیں ہے۔
- **مدعی علیہ کے وکیل:**
1. مدعی نے خود عدالت میں اقرار کیا کہ اراضی کی منتقلی پر رضامندی ہو چکی ہے۔
2. ضلع صارف عدالت کا فیصلہ فریقین کی رضامندی اور عدالت میں ریکارڈ کردہ معاہدے کے مطابق تھا۔
**فیصلہ:**
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے کہا کہ:
1. صارف عدالت کی دائرہ کار میں وہ تنازعے شامل نہیں جو جائیداد اور معاہدے کے نفاذ سے متعلق ہیں، یہ معاملہ سول عدالت کے دائرہ کار میں آتا ہے۔
2. ضلع صارف عدالت نے غلط دائرہ کار میں معاملے کو سنا، جو کہ قانونی دائرہ کار سے باہر تھا۔
3. اپیل منظور کر لی گئی، اور ضلع صارف عدالت کا حکم منسوخ کر دیا گیا۔
**نتیجہ:** لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ دائرہ کار قانونی طور پر معین ہوتا ہے اور فریقین کی رضامندی سے تبدیل نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ ضلع صارف عدالت کا فیصلہ غیر قانونی قرار دیا گیا اور مناسب دائرہ کار میں تنازعے کو سننے کی ضرورت پر زور دیا گیا۔
Stereo. HCJDA-38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWAL BENCH
BAHAWALPUR
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Mohammad Ameer Qazi VS. Mohammad Asif Ali etc.
F.A.O No.17-2009
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing 20.11.2013
Appellant by
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Chaudhry, Advocate,
Respondent by
Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Advocate
Sadaqat Ali Khan, J. This judgment shall dispose of
(i)
FAO No.17/2009 titled Mohammad Ameer Qazi vs.
Mohammad Asif Ali etc.
(ii) FAO No.18/2009 titled Muhammad Ameer Qazi vs. Ali
Ahmad
(iii) FAO No.19/2009 titled Mohammad Ameer Qazi vs.
Zulfiqar Ali etc
as the common point of jurisdiction is involved in all three appeals.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Asif Ali respondent in
FAO No.17/2009, Ali Ahmed respondent in FAO No.18/2009, and Zulfiqar
Ali, and Mohammad Irfan respondents in FAO No.19/2009 moved three
separate applications in the District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur on
11.02.2009 with assertion that they had purchased plots on installments
spreading over four years and had been depositing installments with receipt
regularly and are not defaulter. They stopped the installments when they
received the receipts of the installments without signatures of the owner.
They stated that the owner is not ready to transfer the land in their favour
and that their grievance may be redressed by directing the owner to transfer
F.A.O Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2009
2
the land in their favour. Muhammad Ameer Qazi appellant in all three
matters made entrance in the said court and was directed to submit written
reply to the applications of the respondents. On 10.04.2009 following order
was passed by the Court below in three applications separately which is
reproduced as under:-
F.A.O Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2009
3
3.
The above order has been challenged in all the three appeals before
this Court.
4.
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Chaudhary, Advocate for appellant, in all
three appeals contended;
(i)
that the District Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to entertain
the applications of the respondents which were regarding the
alleged agreement to sell and Consumer Court was not a Civil
Court;
(ii) that order of the lower court by disposing of the matter on
alleged statements of the parties is not legal and is beyond the
jurisdiction;
(iii) that with the consent of the parties no court can assume the
jurisdiction, if court has no jurisdiction and that the impugned
order in all the three matters are liable to be set aside.
5.
Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Advocate for respondents in all
three appeals contended that present appellant himself appeared in the
Court and made a statement for transferring the land in their favour as
agreed between the parties according to the agreement mentioned in their
applications moved in District Consumer Court. He further contended that
as both the parties themselves made statements regarding compromise in the
Court so District Consumer Court has committed no illegality while
recording compromise statements of the parties and disposal of the matter
and lastly contended that all the three appeals may be dismissed.
6.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record.
F.A.O Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2009
4
7.
The preamble to the Punjab Consumer Protection Act (PCPA
states:-
PREAMBLE:- Whereas, it is expedient to provide for
protection and promotion of the rights and interests of the
consumers, speedy redress of consumer complaints and for
matters connected therewith.”
8.
Consumer is defined in Section 2-C of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2005 as under:-
2 (C ) “ Consumer” means a person or entity who—
(i)
buys or obtains on lease any product for a consideration
and includes any user of such product but does not
include a person who obtains any product for re-sale or
for any commercial purpose; or
(ii)
hires any services for a consideration and includes any
beneficiary of such services;
Explanation:-
For the purpose of Sub-clause
(i) “commercial purpose” does not include use by a
consumer of products bought and used by him only for
the purpose of his livelihood as a self-employed person.
Services are defined in 2-K of PCPA Act 2005 is as under:-
“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;
F.A.O Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2009
5
Section 13 of the PCPA 2005 is as under:-
Liability for faulty or defective services.-
A provider of services shall be liable to a consumer for
damages proximately caused by the provision of services
that have caused damage
Section 28 of PCPA Act 2005, is as under:-
(1) “ A consumer who has suffered damage, or Authority
`in other cases, shall, by written notice, call upon a
manufacturer or provider of services that a product or
service is defective or faulty, or the conduct of the
manufacturer or service provider is in contravention
of the provisions of this Act and he should remedy the
defects or give damages where the consumer has
suffered damage, or cease to contravene the
provisions of this Act.
(2) The manufacturer or service provider shall, within
fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, reply thereto.
(3) No claim shall be entertained by a Consumer Court
unless the consumer or the Authority has given notice
under sub-section (1) and provides proof that the
notice was duly delivered but the manufacturer or
service provider has not responded thereto.
(4) A claim by the consumer or the Authority shall be
filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of
action:
Provided that the Consumer Court, having jurisdiction
to hear the claim, may allow a claim to be filed after
thirty days within such time as it may allow if it is
satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing
the complaint within the specified period:
Provided further that such extension shall not be
allowed beyond a period of sixty days from the expiry
of the warranty or guarantee period specified by the
F.A.O Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2009
6
manufacturer or service provider and if no period is
specified one year from the date of purchase of the
products or providing of services.
Section 31 of PCPA Act 2005, is as under.-
ORDER OF CONSUMER COURT
If, after the proceedings conducted under this Act,
the Consumer Court is satisfied that the products
complained against suffer from any of the defects
specified in the claim or that any or all of the allegations
contained in the claim about the services provided are
true, it shall issue an order to the defendant directing him
to take one or more of the following actions, namely:-
(a)
to remove defect from the products in question;
(b)
to replace the products with new products or
similar description which shall be free from any
defect;
(c)
to return to the claimant the price or, as the case
may be, the charges paid by the claimant;
(d)
to do such other things as may be necessary for
adequate and proper compliance with the
requirements of this Act;
(e)
to pay reasonable compensation to the consumer
for any loss suffered by him due to the negligence
of the defendant;
(f)
to award damages where appropriate;
(g)
to award actual costs including lawyer’s fees
incurred on the legal proceedings;
(h)
to recall the product from trade or commerce;
(i)
to confiscate or destroy the defective product;
(j)
to remedy the defect in such period as may be
deemed fit; or
(k)
to cease to provide the defective or faulty service
until it achieves the required standard
F.A.O Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2009
9
9.
Perusal of the above provisions shows that in order to invoke
the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court, the complainant must first
qualify to be “Consumer”. To be a Consumer under the said Act, a
person must hire the “Services” for a certain consideration from the
services provider. In case there is no Services being availed by the
complainant and no consideration being paid in return for the said
services, the complainant does not qualify to be a Consumer and,
therefore, the matter goes outside the fold of said Act.
10. According to the contents of all the three applications all the
applicants alleged that there was an agreement regarding the purchase
of plots but present appellant has refused to execute the register sale
deed in their favour. This matter relates to the breach of contract and
civil court has the jurisdiction and absolutely Consumer Court had
not the jurisdiction who had wrongly entertained such an applications
for execution of the agreement to sell regarding immoveable property
and decided the same illegally without jurisdiction. As dispute
regarding immoveable property cannot be converted as consumer
dispute since there is no sale of goods or services for consideration.
The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that both the
parties with their consent decided the matter from District Consumer
Court is not tenable as it is held in case titled “Administrator, Thal
Development through EACO Bhakkar and others vs. Ali
Muhammad” (2012 SCMR 730) as under:-
Consent of the parties can neither confer nor can take
away the jurisdiction of a Court/Tribunal, unless so
conferred or barred by law.”
Jurisdiction of the Consumer Court is different from the civil
jurisdiction. Consumer Court is to identify a consumer a building
service and then if the service is defective, the Consumer Court is to
fix damages and award the same as stated above. Needless to mention
here that it is the duty of every court to examine the issue of bar of its
jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity and decide it in accordance with
law, instead of escaping to decide such important aspect of the case on
mere concession of one or the other party.
11. In view of what has been discussed, these three appeals are
allowed and order dated 10.04.2009 passed by District Consumer
F.A.O Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2009
11
Court Bahawalpur, is set aside by dismissing all three applications of
the respondents.
(Sadaqat Ali Khan)
Judge
Approved for reporting.
Comments
Post a Comment