Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM vs CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD — 2025 CLC 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM VS CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD. Preamble---Scope and purpose---Though the preamble is not an operational part of the statute, it is a critical interpretative tool that elucidates the legislature's intent and the legislative purpose necessitating the enactment---It provides a gateway to understanding the goals the legislature sought to achieve through this law, thus, the preamble holds a pivotal role in statutory interpretation, shedding light on the true purpose and intent of the legislation. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM VS CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD. Ss.26, 29(1), (4), 31(3), 34 & 36---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Consumer Court, power of---Scope---Power to reject a plaint---Consumer Court rejected the complaint filed by the appellant for delivery of vehicle being barred by time in exercise of its powers under O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Contention of the appellant was that complaint could not be dismissed as the Consumer Court while proceeding with a complaint did not have powers of Civil Court---Validity---Appellant, on 06.04.2022, effectuated the booking of a vehicle and remitted the full consideration---Tentative delivery month was designated as July 2022, however, the vehicle remained undelivered, which culminated into issuance of legal notice on 15.08.2022, eliciting a response from the respondents on 24.08.2022, whereupon complaint was filed on 15.09.2022, thus, term "cause of action" as accruing upon the respondents' failure to adequately address the issues enumerated in the notice, specifically from the date of their reply on 24.08.2022, as such complaint was filed squarely within thirty days as stipulated in S.29(4) of the Act---Under S.31(3) of the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014, (Act) the procedural powers vested in a Civil Court under the C.P.C. are also vested in the Consumer Court---Such inclusion is intended to ensure that the Consumer Court could efficaciously manage the adjudication process, including summoning and examining witnesses, handling evidence, and issuing requisite orders to ensure a fair trial---Consumer Court's action of rejecting the complaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., was construed as effectively being a dismissal under S.36 of the Act, read with O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., adhering to the equitable principle that no person should suffer due to an act of the Court---Complaint was found to be within time, however, the power assumed by the Consumer Court under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint was held to be in accordance with law---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM VS CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD. Ss.2(e)(i) & 2(n)---Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S.2(e)(ii)---Analogous meanings of words 'product' and 'service'---Section 2(e)(i) of the Sindh Consumer Protection Act pertains to 'product', which is further delineated under S.2(n) and is synonymous with the term 'goods' as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930---Conversely, S.2(e)(ii) of Sindh Consumer Protection Act pertains to ' services' as defined under S.2(q) of Consumer Act. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM VS CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD. Duty of Court---Court bears an inherent duty to apply the correct law irrespective of whether the parties have specifically invoked it. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM VS CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD. Incompetent complaints, disposal of---Incompetent complaints should be summarily dismissed at their inception to prevent the squander of judicial resources and to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM VS CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD. Ss.2(e), (n), (q), 26, 29 & Preamble---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Preamble of the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014 ('Act')---Scope---Complaint before Consumer Court against a car dealership for late delivery of vehicle---Maintainability---Overarching purpose and objective of the Act are to safeguard and advance the rights and interests of consumers, who are susceptible to risks and failures in procuring their desired goods and services---Preamble aims to ensure the protection and promotion of consumer rights by establishing an expedited mechanism for the redress of grievances, minimizing the loss of time in resolving such disputes---Relief sought by the appellant did not pertain to pecuniary damages suffered but rather constitutes a grievance regarding the respondent's dereliction in delivering the booked vehicle,---Consumer's claim for damages under S. 26 of the Act must meticulously align with the provisions of S.29, which mandates that such a claim be predicated on damages incurred due to defective or faulty products obtained for consideration---Appellant procured a vehicle from respondents and remitted the entire payment and the dispute arose when respondents refused to deliver the vehicle, citing the non- payment of the residual balance---Crucially, booking a vehicle did not fall within the ambit of 'product' as defined under S.2(n), nor did it qualify as 'services' under S.2(q) of the Act, thus, the matter pertained exclusively to the contractual rights and obligations emanating from the sale/purchase of a vehicle and not to 'services' as delineated by S.2(q) of the Act and the appellant should have sought recourse through a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act for the enforcement of contractual obligations, if so advised, rather than approaching the Consumer Court, unless it was unequivocally established that he was a consumer who had purchased a defective or faulty product or engaged any service from a service provider---Complaint filed by the appellant was held to be not maintainable---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prof. Dr. KHEO RAM vs CHANGAN MEHRAN MOTORS LTD — 2025 CLC 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC