Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1987 2020 SLD 1987 2020 CLD 1022
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 168 of 2013, heard on 08-06-2020
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ashraf Mirza, Atif Mohtashim Khan and Rana Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICEPRESIDENT

VS

SHAIKH MUSHTAQ ALI ADVOCATE

Law: Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)

Section: 25,27,33

Punjab Consumers Protection Act (II of 2005)--- ----Ss. 27, 25 & 33--- Jurisdiction of Consumer Court--- Filing of claims 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. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, JUSTICE:---.--- This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Consumer Court, Lahore whereby the appellant-Company was directed to fix a date for the Lucky Prize Draw of Rs.10,00,000/- as well as 1000 Cordless phone sets duly advertised in National Newspapers for providing opportunity to all the concerned including the respondent to participate in the said Draw proceedings to be conducted within two months, otherwise the appellant would be liable to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for every successive day till holding of draw in a transparent way. 2. It is emphasized by learned counsel for the appellant that no loss or damage was caused to the respondent, who had simply applied for a telephone connection, which was duly installed without any extra charges and there being no complaint of any faulty or defective services, the jurisdiction of the learned Consumer Court was barred, whereas the respondent at the most could move the PTA, which has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters/disputes arising out between the appellant-company with its clients, but the learned Consumer Court while omitting to consider the said aspect passed the impugned order in a slipshod manner, which being illegal, against the facts and without…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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