MOHSIN ABBAS vs SUZUKI MOTORS COMPANY LTD — 2025 CLD 111 ISLAMABAD

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

MOHSIN ABBAS VS SUZUKI MOTORS COMPANY LTD. Ss. 2(c)(i), 2(f), 5 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.544-A---Consumer rights---Unfair trade practice---Appellant booked three pickup vehicles with respondents against payment of Rs. 29,97,000/----Respondents failed to provide the vehicles within stipulated period---Appellant filed a complaint, which was dismissed by the Consumer Court without recording evidence on the grounds that the booked vehicles constituted future goods within the meaning of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, thus civil suit was maintainable instead of a consumer complaint---Validity---Section 9(1) of Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 provided that where any right of consumer required to be protected under S. 5 of the Act of 1995 is in any way infringed, the person responsible for such infringement shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to forty thousand rupees, or with both---Section 9(3) provided that the Authority (the Court of Session) may, where it deems appropriate, order for payment of compensation to the consumer to the extent the consumer has suffered any damage or loss through any unfair trade practice---Without prejudice to subsections (2) and (4), the function of the Authority is two-fold, (i) to determine criminal liability, and (ii) determination of the value of compensation---Both the determinations can be made together, but are not dependent upon one another---Unlike S.544-A, Cr.P.C., the award of compensation has not been made conditional to award of conviction by the Legislature---Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., opens with the words "whenever a person is convicted of an offence", contrary to subsection (3) of S. 9 of the Act of 1995 where the Authority is empowered to award compensation keeping in view the extent to which a consumer suffers damage or loss through any unfair trade practice---Court below had confused the scheme of two distinct provisions of different statutes and the manner in which a Court had to proceed while dealing with cases thereunder---For the purpose of determining the value of compensation under the Act of 1995, the Authority has to frame separate issue and accept evidence in support thereof, so as to achieve the purpose for which the Act of 1995 is enacted---Each provision of the Act of 1995 carries meaning and is enacted for the purpose of achieving its object---Unless a statute itself provides an exception, deviation from the provisions of a statute is unlawful---Therefore, all subsections of S. 9 of the Act of 1995 were independent of each other and not conditional to conviction of a respondent in the consumer complaint---Findings of the Consumer Court to such extent were, therefore, not justified in law and were contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1995---Divergent claims of the parties available on record contained substantial disputed questions of facts and law, which could have been resolved after recording evidence of the parties---Consumer Court should have refrained from knocking out the complainant on erroneous interpretations of the expressions contained in the Act of 1995---In the case in hand, prima facie, the appellant fell within the meaning of 'consumer of service' to the extent of delivery of vehicles---Therefore, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Consumer Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law after recording evidence of the parties.

MOHSIN ABBAS vs SUZUKI MOTORS COMPANY LTD — 2025 CLD 111 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD