| Case ID |
37fc2c7f-2fdd-4a8f-bc4f-2b76329b7487 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
F.A.O. No. 204 of 2011 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 04, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 04, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants against the District Consumer Court's order, ruling that the Consumer Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the absence of a valid cause of action attributed to the airline. The court noted that the alleged faulty service occurred due to airport security procedures, not due to any fault by the airline. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court is contingent upon the existence of a triable claim, which was not established in this case. The decision highlighted the importance of determining the proper forum for such complaints and clarified that the cause of action could not be confined to the location where the alleged breach occurred. The judgment reinforced the principle that the Consumer Court's jurisdiction extends to where a part of the cause of action arises, which in this instance included the place of ticket purchase. The court concluded that the complaint was not maintainable due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Summary |
In the case of F.A.O. No. 204 of 2011, the Lahore High Court addressed the appeals concerning jurisdiction issues under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The appellants had purchased tickets from Saudi Arabian Airlines for travel to Saudi Arabia. They claimed to have faced issues boarding their flight due to security checks that resulted in their passports being withheld. They alleged faulty services from the airline, seeking compensation for damages. However, the Consumer Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction as the cause of action arose at Jeddah Airport, outside its territorial limits. The Lahore High Court upheld this decision, clarifying that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court is determined by the location where the cause of action arises and emphasized the need for a valid claim to establish jurisdiction. The court also discussed the implications of service provider liability under the Act, reiterating that mere allegations of faulty service without substantiated claims do not suffice to invoke jurisdiction. The judgment serves as a significant reference for future cases involving jurisdictional challenges in consumer service disputes. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Asim Hafeez,
Muhammad Munawar Saeed
|
| Lawyers |
Fakhar Raza Ajmal Mulana,
Mian Abbas Ahmad,
Muhammad Khalid Mahmood Ayaz
|
| Petitioners |
Fakhar Raza Ajmal Mulana
|
| Respondents |
District Judge/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Multan,
Mian Abbas Ahmad,
Muhammad Khalid Mahmood Ayaz
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 663 = 2021 PLD 61
|
| Other Citations |
Mst. Gulnaz and another v. Haji Muhammad Riaz and others PLD 2020 SC 221,
North-West Frontier Province Government, Peshawar through Collector, Abbottabad and another v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 others PLD 1993 SC 418
|
| Laws Involved |
Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)
|
| Sections |
13,
27,
33
|