' 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 firstly 3850 Grade "B" Lair Chicks and at second instance later on another flock of 1150 Grade "B" Lair Chicks, which all were male; that due to the above mentioned act of the petitioner and respondent No, 3 he suffered huge loss and claimed himself entitled to compensation amounting to Rs,3 million along with other cost under sections 31(e) and 31(f) of Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005.
2. This claim was contested by the petitioner, who submitted his written reply raising (11) preliminary objections about the maintainability of the petition and one of the objections i.e. Objection No, 2 was:-- "That this honourable court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under reply and as neither the defendant is a "manufacturer" as defined under the provision of section 2(h) of the Act, nor has it manufactured any product as defined under the provision of section 2(1) of the Act. The chicks are allegedly purchased by the claimant from the defendant is also not a "product" as defined in section 2(j) of the Act. In view thereof the title claim is liable to be dismissed summarily."
' However, on factual side the assertions made by claimant/respondent No, 2 were also controverted by the petitioner through written reply.
3. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 2-11-2010 while deciding the preliminary objection as raised in Para 2 mentioned above, found the petition/claim maintainable. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for .The petitioner with reference to section 2(j) of the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005 argued that contract between the petitioner and respondent No, 2 was for the supply of chicks which does not fall within the definition as provided under section 2(j) of Act, ibid, a product, as in that definition the product has been assigned the same meaning as has been defined the word "goods" in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and also includes products which have been subsequently incorporated into another product or an immovable but it has specifically been excluded the animals out of this definition. Learned counsel referred different dictionary meanings that the word "animal" is used in its generic sense which includes the birds as well. In the grounds of petition he has referred in this respect the following definitions of animal provided in "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia and Science Dictionary. Grounds (d), (e) and (I) are hereby reproduced:-
(d) That it is also evident from the record which was produced before the learned District Judge Consumer Court that the "Birds are such an animal, especially a chicken or turkey, used as food."
(e) That it is also evident from the definition of bird as mentioned in Colombia Encyclopaedia "bird.
Warm-blooded, egg-laying, vertebrate animal having its body covered with feathers and its forelimbs modified into wings, which are used by most birds for flight".
(f) That it is also evident from Science Dictionary that the Birds are animals as mentioned in Science Dictionary "A Class of Vertebrates distinguished by their feathers and their two legs and two wings, Birds are Warm Blood Animals, and their Young hatch from eggs."
' Further argued that as no specific classification has been made by the legislature while defining the word "animal", therefore, it includes the chicks as well; that learned trial Court in its own wisdom travelled beyond the scope of section 2(j) of the Act, ibid, and only on the basis of further classifications of the species declared that as chicks fall within the definition of birds, therefore, are not animals and found the petition/claim made by respondent No,2 maintainable. It was further argued that as the animal does not fall within the definition of product defined above, therefore, learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim. Prayed that writ petition be allowed while setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No, 2 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the grounds that the learned trial Court has rightly differentiated between the animal and birds as animals are separate category which are "Quadruped", thus learned trial Court rightly overruled the objection raised by the petitioner and found the claim moved by respondent No, 2 as maintainable. Prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6. However, learned counsel for respondent No,3 has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
8. In order to resolve the controversy It is appropriate to reproduce the definition of "product" as provided under section 2(j) of the Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005:-- "Product" has the same meaning as assigned to the word "goods" in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and includes products which have been subsequently incorporated into another product or an immovable but does not include animals or plants or natural fruits and other raw products, in their natural state, that are derived from animals or plants. "(Underlining is mine).
' Bare reading of above mentioned definition clearly shows that "product" has been defined with respect to the definition or word "goods" provided under Sale of Goods Act, .1930. Word "goods" has been defined under section 2(7) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which says:- "Goods" means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes [electricity, water, gas,) stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale."
' The word "product" as already mentioned, if the definition as provided under section 20) of Punjab.
Consumer Protection Act, 2005, is seen, includes all the goods as defined in Sale of Goods Act, 1930 but it has specifically excluded animals or plants or natural fruits and other raw products in their natural state those are derived from animals or plants. Word "animal" has not been defined in the above mentioned enactment.
9. It is now settled rather taken as golden principle of interpretation of statute that firstly if any word, occurring in a statute is to be interpreted, its meaning should be searched and if it is defined in the definition clause or any other part of that statute with reference to that statute and with reference to that subject. If no such definition is provided in that statute/enactment, then its literal/dictionary meanings are to be taken into consideration. The word "animal" as defined in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary wherein at page 47.Is hereby reproduced:-- "1 a any member of the kingdom of organisms that are capable of voluntary movement, have specialized sense organs that allow rapid response to stimuli, and lack chlorophyll and cell walls; b any of these excluding human beings. 2 someone who behaves in a rough uncivilized way. 3 (usually an altogether different animal) a person or thing."
' In Concise Oxford Thesaurus, Third Edition, the word "animal" is defined as under:- "Creature, beast, living thing; wildlife, fauna; brute, monster, devil, demon, fiend, swine, bastard, pig."
' If zoological definition is seen "animals" are species of kingdom of animalia which subsequently further can be bifurcated into different kinds' and birds are one of it. The word "animal" has been defined in Pakistan Penal Code under section 47, which says:- "The word "animal" denotes any living creature, other than a human being."
' No doubt, this definition is with reference to commission of certain offences as provided under Pakistan Penal Code but this is a general definition and animals are defined in contrast of human being. In another legislation in Pakistan i.e. Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 1974 the word "animal" has been indirectly defined under section 2(d) whereby "gamt animals" means a wild animal specified in the first schedule." Under section 2(n)
"Protected animal" means a wild animal specified in the Third Schedule." Under section 2(s) of the same Statute "wild animal" means a wild bird or animal specified in the First and Third Schedules." .To further elaborate the word "animal" reference can be seen in the Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 2 in para 201 wherein under the heading of "Domestic Animals" it is clarified "In law the term "animals" includes all creatures not belongng to the human race, and is so used.
Throughout this ti le except where a specially restricted meaning is appropriate. While further defining the word "animals" with reference to Protection of Animals Act, 1911 para 383, note-9 animals are defined as under:-- "In the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (save in S.11, where "animals" means any horse, mule, ass, bull, sheep, goat or pig; see para. 388, post), "animal" means any domestic or captive animal; "domestic animal" means any horse (defined as including any mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly or stallion), ass, mule, bull (defined as including any cow, bullock, heifer, calf, steer or ox), sheep (defined as including any lamb, ewe or ram), pig (defined as including any boar, hog or sow), goat (defined as including a kid), dog (defined as including any bitch, sapling or puppy), cat (defined as including a kitten), or fowl (defined as including any cock, hen, chicken, capon, turkey, goose, gander, duck, drake, guineafowl, peacock, peahen, swan or pigeon), or any other animal of whatsoever kind or species, whether a quadruped or not, which is tame or which has been or is being sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for man's use; and "captive animal" means any non-domestic animal of whatsoever kind or species, whether a quadruped or not, including any bird, fish or reptile, which is in captivity or confinement or is maimed, pinioned or subjected to any appliance or contrivance for hindering or preventing its escape."
' Now reverting back to the definition as provided under section 2(j) of Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005, the word "animals" has been used in its generic/general sense, the word "plants" or natural fruits and other raw products are also used with same reference. This definition has not specifically been confined nor it is further elaborated whether it applies only to quadruped or birds having two legs and featheRs, As the word "animal" is used in general sense, therefore, as discussed above, birds includes the same and the agreement reached between petitioner and respondent No,2 for the supply of chicks does not fall within the meaning of supply of any product, therefore, while allowing this writ petition impugned order dated 2-11-2010 passed by respondent No, 1 is hereby set aside, thus, the claim submitted by respondent No, 2 under section 28 of the Consumers Protection Act, 2005 is not maintainable before respondent No, 1/learned Presiding Officer District Consumer Court, Multan, which is hereby dismissed. However, respondent No, 2 may agitate his grievance before any other competent forum according to the relevant provisions of law. With this observation this petition stands disposed of.