Summary: (a) Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995: ----Secs. 2(c), 2(f), 8(1), 9(1), 9(3) Consumer protection—Scope and interpretation of key terms—The Act aims to protect consumer rights by addressing unfair trade practices. A "consumer" is defined under Sec. 2(c) as any person who buys goods or services for consideration, excluding resale or commercial purposes. Unfair trade practices under Sec. 2(f) include failure to deliver goods or services as per agreed standards. The doctrine of "caveat emptor" has been replaced with modern consumer protection principles, obligating vendors to ensure fair trade practices. Courts must interpret the Act liberally to promote consumer welfare, discourage exploitative practices, and fulfill the legislative intent. (b) Consumer complaint under the Act of 1995: ----Secs. 8(1), 9(3)—Maintainability and jurisdiction Complaint regarding non-delivery of goods or services can be filed under Sec. 8(1), even for goods classified as "future goods" under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Consumer Court has jurisdiction if a trader's failure to deliver constitutes an unfair trade practice under Sec. 2(f). Sub-section (3) of Sec. 9 allows the Authority to award compensation independently of criminal liability under sub-section (1). The Consumer Court erred in interpreting that complaints are limited to immediate delivery of goods and failed to appreciate that the Act provides hybrid remedies for consumers, including compensation for damages. (c) Interpretation of statutes: ----Purpose-driven interpretation—Consumer protection legislation Consumer protection laws must be interpreted to advance their objectives of safeguarding consumer rights. Courts should avoid technical interpretations that undermine legislative intent. The Act of 1995 was enacted to promote consumerism and protect consumers from exploitation. Provisions under the Act are independent and not conditional upon one another, and any interpretation that defeats its purpose must be rejected. (d) Procedural requirements for evidence: ----Recording of evidence in consumer complaints In cases involving disputed questions of fact and law, evidence must be recorded to resolve the matter. Consumer Courts should avoid summary dismissal of complaints based on erroneous interpretations or procedural technicalities. Proper adjudication requires framing issues and allowing parties to present evidence to substantiate their claims. ----Cited Cases: Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Ors [AIR 2021 SC 70] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors [2023 SCC OnLine SC 409] K V Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal [AIR 1997 SC 628] Rohit Chaudhary and Ors v. Vipul Ltd. [AIR 2023 SC 4229] ----Disposition: The impugned order dated 21.06.2022 was declared not legally sustainable and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Consumer Court for re-adjudication after recording evidence of the parties, in accordance with the law.

Summary: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act (VI of 1997)--- ----Ss.13(2), 11B & 17(2)---Consumer---Filing of complaint regarding exaggerated amount in electricity bill---Limitation---Application for rejection of complaint being time barred filed by the respondent (Electricity Supply Company) was accepted by the Consumer Court---Validity---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997 (Act) was promulgated to provide for healthy growth of fair commercial practices, the promotion and protection of legitimate interest of consumers and speedy redressal of their complaints and matters arising out of or connected therewith, which purpose and object clearly envisages that the enactment is consumer beneficial and as such, it requires to be treated in the same manner in order to provide and extend the consumers a fair chance qua protection of their legitimate rights---Section 13(2) of the Act provides that a complaint shall be submitted before the Consumer Court within 10 days of the sale, delivery or rendering of the service---Appellant had filed the complaint against the respondent-PESCO before the Consumer Court on 03.08.2022, while the disputed electricity bill was payable till 05.08.2022, thus, in the attending circumstances of the case, the question of limitation would at best be seen at the time of final determination of the matter by the Consumer Court; particularly, in the circumstances, when the first proviso to S.13(2) has conferred discretion upon the court to entertain a complaint filed beyond ten days within such time as it may allow if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the same within the specified time subject to the provision of second proviso---Consumer Court was held to have committed gross illegality and jurisdictional error in rejecting the complaint of the appellant---Appeal was accepted, in circumstances. Muhammad Umar Saeed for Appellant. Hamid Ali for Respondents.

Summary: Dismissed -- The appellant claims to have been a victim of an online scam on the Daraz platform, where she was persuaded to purchase a discounted VIVO V19 cell phone. After making a payment through Daraz Wallet, she received a false confirmation of delivery. Realizing it was a scam, she contacted Daraz Customer Care, which initially pretended to resolve the issue but later denied liability and suggested approaching the Federal Investigation Agency under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. The appellant then filed a claim under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, demanding compensation. The District Consumer Court rejected the claim under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant filed a criminal appeal, asserting it is maintainable under Section 33 of the Punjab Act. The counsel for Daraz argued against the appeal, claiming the complaint did not disclose a cause of action against Daraz. The court, considering the nature of proceedings under the Punjab Act, examined the applicable laws and emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal jurisdictions. It upheld the office objection, stating that the Consumer Court's order was in the exercise of civil jurisdiction, making a criminal appeal incompetent.

Summary: Issue: The primary issues revolve around the interpretation of ?fraudulent use of another?s trademark, firm name, or product labelling or packaging? under Section 10(2)(d) and the distribution of false or misleading information under Section 10(2)(a) of the Competition Act 2010.Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision. It held that Rahim Foods' actions constituted deceptive marketing practices under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act by copying K&N?s Foods? packaging and labelling, which likely caused confusion among consumers. However, it agreed with the Tribunal that there was no direct distribution of false or misleading information about K&N?s Foods? products by Rahim Foods, thus not violating Section 10(2)(a).Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the act of copying packaging and labelling to the extent that it causes confusion among consumers amounts to fraudulent use under Section 10(2)(d), regardless of the registration status of the trademark or packaging. However, for an act to fall under Section 10(2)(a), there must be a distribution of false or misleading information specifically aimed at harming another business, which was not the case here.''(i) Free and fair competition in trade and busniess is an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution; (ii) Codification of common law on injurious falsehood and passing-off actions; (iii) meaning and Scope of Section 10(2)(a)&(d) of the Competition Act 2010; (iv) Criterion for determining confusing similarity in the use of another's product labeling and packaging: (v) No locus standi of an adjudicatory body to contest for upholding its quasi-judicial decision.''

Summary: [The limitation period of 30 days provided under Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 runs from date of knowledge of the defect or fault in the product or service. During this time, the consumer has to first send a written notice to the manufacturer or service provider under Section 28(1) of the Act and provide 15 days to respond to the same, as required under Section 28(2) of the Act. Where the defects raised are of technical nature and are denied by the manufacturer or the service provider, the onus to bring expert evidence on record to prove such defects is on the consumer. The Consumer Court also has to satisfy itself that sufficient expert evidence is available to ascertain if such defects exist] The appellant sold a Suzuki Swift vehicle to the respondent, but the respondent discovered certain defects in the vehicle and filed a claim under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The claim was granted, ordering the appellant to refund the price of the vehicle and pay compensation/litigation costs. The appellant appealed to the High Court, but their appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the respondent's evidence was based on his own observations and lacked specific allegations of defects. The appellant also raised issues of limitation, claiming that the claim was filed beyond the allowed time period. The appellant further argued that no expert evidence was presented to prove the alleged defects in the vehicle. After considering the arguments and examining the record, the Supreme Court found that the respondent had failed to plead specific defects in the vehicle and did not provide expert evidence to support his claims. The Court also noted that the alleged admissions by the appellant and its representative were not binding and did not establish the existence of defects. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of limitation and discussed conflicting judgments on when the limitation period begins under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the judgments of the lower courts, which relied on the supposed admissions and failed to consider the lack of evidence and defects in the pleadings, were not sustainable. The Court settled the question of law regarding the commencement of the limitation period and concluded that the respondent's claim was barred by limitation. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts.

Summary: The limitation period of 30 days provided under Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 runs from date of knowledge of the defect or fault in the product or service. During this time, the consumer has to first send a written notice to the manufacturer or service provider under Section 28(1) of the Act and provide 15 days to respond to the same, as required under Section 28(2) of the Act. Where the defects raised are of technical nature and are denied by the manufacturer or the service provider, the onus to bring expert evidence on record to prove such defects is on the consumer. The Consumer Court also has to satisfy itself that sufficient expert evidence is available to ascertain if such defects exist. --- Facts:Respondent No.1 (Faisal Jameel Butt) purchased a Suzuki Swift (2010 model) from appellant (Pak Suzuki Motors) through respondent No.2 (a car dealer) for Rs. 1,049,000. After discovering defects, respondent No.1 issued legal notices and filed a claim under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, resulting in a Consumer Court decision for a refund plus compensation. The appellant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, leading to this Supreme Court appeal.---Procedural History:The appellant challenged the Consumer Court's decision in the High Court, which upheld the decision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal based on the appellant's contentions regarding evidence, defect allegations, and procedural issues such as limitation.---Issue:Whether the defects claimed by respondent No.1 were adequately proven and whether the claim was barred by limitation under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.---Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed respondent No.1's claim.----Reasoning:The Court found that respondent No.1's claims about the vehicle's defects were not adequately pleaded or proven. The defects were only mentioned in an affidavit, not in the initial legal notice or claim, violating the principle that evidence must align with pleadings. Furthermore, no expert evidence was presented to substantiate the alleged defects, which were technical and required specialized assessment.The Court also clarified the commencement of the limitation period for filing a claim under the Act, stating it begins when the consumer becomes aware of the defect, not from the response time to a notice issued to the manufacturer/service provider. Respondent No.1's claim was deemed time-barred as it was filed well beyond the statutory 30-day period after discovering the defects, without a proper application for condonation of delay.---Comments:This judgment emphasizes the importance of precise pleadings and the necessity of substantiating claims with relevant evidence, especially in technical matters requiring expert assessment. It also clarifies the procedural aspects of consumer protection claims, particularly regarding the limitation period, underscoring the need for timely action by consumers in filing claims.

Summary: Consumer Protection Act, 1997 (a) S. 12 Jurisdiction of the court. Appellants, the officers of Municipal Committee Khalabat Township, have established a dumping zone at village Padhana, Tehsil & District Haripur. The inhabitant of village lodged complaint before the consumer court Haripur who on hearing the parties, ordered the appellants to relocate the dumping site to some other area which could not affect the public, failing which the appellants were to be convicted. Held. To attract the provisions of the Act, 1997, a complainant must prove to be a consumer by way of purchase of goods or hired services of a service provider, for a consideration; hence the matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the consumer court. (b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014 S. 22(10) ___ Establishment of dumping zone for waste. Grievances of the respondents were regarding environmental hazards and air pollution causing life threatening diseases. Held that The matter falls within the jurisdiction of tribunal under s. 22(10) of the Environmental protection Act, Impugned judgment was set aside. Case was remanded to the consumer court where complaint shall be returned to respondents for presenting before the competent forum, in accordance with law.

Summary: [The importance of accreditation under the Pakistan National Accreditation Council Act, 2017 of Pesticide Laboratory under the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971. The concept of reading down of a rule] The case revolves around the certification of a pesticide laboratory and the validity of its reports. The respondents challenged the laboratory's report, which deemed their pesticides to be substandard and fake, on the grounds that the laboratory was not duly certified by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as required by Rule 22 of the Punjab Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, the Punjab Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018, and the Pakistan National Accreditation Council Act, 2017. The Court concluded that the certification of the pesticide laboratory is the prerogative of the provincial government under the Ordinance, and Rule 22, which mandates ISO certification, is inconsistent with the Ordinance and the Act, 2017. The Court clarified that ISO does not certify laboratories but only develops international standards. It further noted that the Pakistan National Accreditation Council (PNAC) is responsible for accrediting and certifying laboratories in Pakistan. Therefore, the Court read down Rule 22, interpreting it to mean that the pesticide laboratory should follow national and international standards accredited by PNAC under the Act, 2017. The Court directed the Provincial Government to review and amend the Rule accordingly. It ruled that the pesticide laboratories involved in the case, which were certified by PNAC, can be relied upon by the Agriculture Department for further proceedings. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, remanding the case for the High Court to address the remaining grounds raised by the petitioners. In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the petitions, clarified the accreditation process for pesticide laboratories, and emphasized compliance with national and international standards.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ---Art. 91---Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence---Documentary evidence versus oral evidence---Court held that once a document is produced and admitted in evidence without objection, it carries a presumption of genuineness and cannot be rebutted by oral evidence. Oral evidence cannot exclude or override documentary evidence; only another document can rebut it. Reliance was placed on the "relationship contract" (Ex:R-2) which indicated that the prevailing price at the time of vehicle delivery would apply. (b) Consumer Protection---Consumer complaint against price increase: ---Documentary evidence prevailing over oral evidence---Respondent No.1 alleged that the appellants unlawfully charged an additional amount for a vehicle after full payment in advance. However, the appellants produced a signed "relationship contract" binding the parties to the price at the time of delivery. The Court found that the oral testimony of Respondent No.1 failed to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the appellants. (c) Legal Principle---Documentary evidence outweighing oral evidence: ---Oral evidence contradicting documentary evidence---Court held that where oral evidence conflicts with documented agreements, the documentary evidence prevails. Oral statements inconsistent with written agreements cannot be given preference, particularly when the document is admitted without objection. -----Disposition: The appeal was allowed. Judgment dated 17.02.2021 of the Consumer Court, Abbottabad, was set aside, and the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 was dismissed.

Summary: Background: In the consolidated judgment for Writ Petition No. 1422 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 2579 of 2019, the petitioners, Air Blue (Pvt) Ltd, and its Manager (Sales), challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court (West), Islamabad, in deciding consumer complaints against them. In the first case, Agha Ahtisham Nawaz Khan filed a complaint alleging the loss of his baggage during a flight from Islamabad to Dubai. Air Blue compensated him with Rs. 20,000 against his claimed loss of Rs. 112,000. In the second case, Farhan Nawaz filed a complaint seeking recovery of Rs. 1,70,500 for a cancelled Umrah ticket. Air Blue contended that the Consumer Court lacked jurisdiction under the Carriage by Air Act, 2012, which, they argued, provided the appropriate legal framework for such disputes. ----Issues: Does the Consumer Court have jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints related to air travel under the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995? Is the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court ousted by the Carriage by Air Act, 2012? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court, through Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, held that the Consumer Court does have jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints related to air travel under the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995. The Carriage by Air Act, 2012, does not explicitly oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court or provide an exclusive forum for such disputes. The court reasoned that: The Carriage by Air Act, 2012, incorporates international conventions (Montreal Convention, 1999) and provides a framework for determining liability and damages but does not exclude other courts' jurisdiction. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, allows civil courts to try all suits unless expressly or impliedly barred, and no such bar is present in the Carriage by Air Act, 2012. The Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995, empowers the Consumer Court to handle complaints regarding services, including air travel. As a result, the petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court were dismissed, affirming the Consumer Court's authority to decide such matters. ----Citations/Precedents: 2007 SCMR 262 (Evacuee Trust Property Board Vs. Mst. Sakina Bibi) PLD 1969 SC 252 (The Gujranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Hafizabad Vs. Muhammad Feroze) PLD 1968 SC 381 (Chalna Fiber Company Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jabbar) 2012 CLD Lahore 846 (Regional Manager, Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Lahore, and others) PLD 2015 Lahore 204 (Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs. Judge District Consumer Court, Gujranwala, and others) PLD 2011 Karachi 514 (Dr. Naheed Fatima and others Vs. Messrs Pakistan International Air Corporation (PIAC) through Chairman and another)