| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 639 2019 SLD 639 2019 PLD 165 |
Lahore High Court
F.A.O.No. 134 of 2012, decision Dated: 18-10-2018.
MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Rao Muhammad Iqbal
Respondent(s) by: ex parte.
F.A.O.No. 134 of 2012, decision Dated: 18-10-2018.
MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Rao Muhammad Iqbal
Respondent(s) by: ex parte.
S.E. MEPCO AND OTHERS
VS
JUDGE DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT AND ANOTHER
Law: Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)
Section: 27,28
Punjab Consumers Protection Act (II of 2005)--- ----Ss.27, 28 & Preamble---Consumer Courts---Nature of jurisdiction---Duty of Consumer Court to determine its jurisdiction---Scope---Consumer Court established under the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005 was not a court of general jurisdiction and it was duty of Consumer Court to examine allegations raised in a complaint before it in order to determine its jurisdiction in the matter---Vague and general allegations without raising any dispute about defective products or faulty services did not confer jurisdiction upon Consumer Court to adjudicate upon a matter and assume jurisdiction. Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation), FESCO v. Muhammad Ilyas 2016 CLC 1417; Executive Engineer MEPCO, and another v. District Consumer Court and others F.A.O. No.125 of 2012; Askari Bank Ltd. and others v. Irfan Ahmed Niazi and others PLD 2016 Lah. 168 and Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited through Manager v. Shafqat Ullah Tahir 2016 CLD 1546 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, J.--- This is first appeal against order dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, D.G. Khan Camp at Layyah, whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.2 stood accepted. 2. The background of this F.A.O. is that Muneer Ahmed Khan-respondent No.2 (respondent) filed a complaint against the appellants before the learned District Consumer Court, D.G. Khan Camp at Layyah (the District Consumer Court), alleging therein that he got allocated five transformers, but the said transformers were installed at other locations instead of approved sites and as such respondent prayed for installation of said transformers on the allocated sites. The said complaint was contested by the appellants, maintaining that though the allocation mentioned by the respondent had been approved, but all the cases for installation of transformers had to be completed subject to release of funds. The complaint filed by the respondent was accepted vide order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, in following terms:- "...the complaint is conditionally accepted and all un-authorized…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492