Brief facts of the case are that on 20-5-08, the petitioner purchased Life Insurance Policy and kept on making payment regarding his life policy. Thereafter, he landed in financial difficulties and making of payment delayed for some time, however, he made further payment in terms of respondent's letter dated 4-5-10 and became satisfied that his Insurance Policy was still intact but he was surprised when respondent company asked him to undergo fresh medical checkup and also fulfill a few other formalities in order to continue the policy. Petitioner demanded from respondents to keep on offering him proper services as per their policy letter dated 2-4-11 but they did not. He also issued legal notice to the respondent on 1-6-11 but still they did not redress petitioner's grievance. Hence, this petition.
2. Petition was contested by the respondents mainly for want of jurisdiction.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. While supporting his objection on jurisdiction, respondent's learned counsel drew attention of the court to sec 122 (3) of Insurance Ordinance 2000 whereby jurisdiction of this court is expressly barred. This provision reads as under:- 122(3) "No court other than a Tribunal shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of a Tribunal extends under this Ordinance, including a decision as to the territorial limits and the execution of a decree, order or judgment passed by a Tribunal."
Provided that for the purposes of this section a Small Claims Settlement Committee established under section 117 shall not be deemed to be a Court.
5. Learned counsel also referred to Federal Government Notification dated 20-6-06 under which Insurance Tribunal has been set up at Lahore to exercise jurisdiction throughout the province of Punjab. The said Insurance Tribunal is presently presided over by a learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge which is empowered to entertain, hear and decide Insurance claims.
6. On the other hand, petitioner's learned counsel relied on section 3 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 and submitted that jurisdiction of this court is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws whether Provincial or Federal, therefore, this court is also competent to adjudicate on parties' controversy.
7. It is true that u/s 3 ibid, jurisdiction of this court is prima facie not barred but after all the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 is a Provincial statute while the Insurance Ordinance 2000 is Federal law, therefore, the provisions of former law should yield to the provisions of latter law. There also seems force in respondent's contention that when provisions of any provincial law like Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 are in conflict with those of Federal law as the Insurance Ordinance 2000, Federal law should prevail over the former law i.e. Provincial statute. It is also principle of interpretation of statutes that if any law is amenable to more than one interpretations, one consistent with the smooth working of statute and elimination of uncertainly, confusion and contradiction, should be adopted.
8. For what has been discussed above, petition is returned for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction as this court lacks necessary jurisdiction to decide on parties' controversy. After due completion, file be consigned to record room.