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

Section: 25,31(e),31(f),2(h),2(j),2(s),2(d),2(n), 28

Law: Protection of Animals Act, 1911

Section: 11

Law: Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)

Section: 2(7)

(a) Interpretation of statutes-- ----Words occurring in a statute---Dictionary meanings---Principle---Firstly, if any word occurring in a statute has to be interpreted, its meanings should be searched and if it is defined in the definition clause or any other part of the statute with reference to that statute and with reference to the subject---If no such definition is provided in that statute/enactment, then its literal/dictionary meaning are to be taken into consideration. (b) Punjab Consumers Protection Act (II of 2005)--- ----Ss. 2(j), 25 & 28---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.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 Consumers Protection Act, 2005, was found to be maintainable by Consumer Court---Validity---Word "animal" in S.2(j) of Punjab Consumers 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 Consumers Protection Act, 2005, was not maintainable---Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Chamber 21st Century Dictionary; Conscise Oxford Thesaurus, Third Edn. and Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edn. Vol.2, para.201 ref. ORDER SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, J.---Respondent No.2 Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Ali filed a claim under section 25 of the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005 before respondent. No.1/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Multan mentioning the facts that petitioner and despondent No. 3/Shah Muhammad Dogar, Dealer of the petitioner, undertook to supply 5000 Lair Chicks Grade "A" to him in total consideration of Rs.3,25,000; that petitioner and respondent No. 3 were duty bound to fulfil their agreement for the supply of Grade "A" Lair Chicks, which responsibility they did not fulfil rather they supplied…

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