Argument heard on respondent's application for rejection of petitioner's claim.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he got finance from respondent No.3 for purchase of Honda City Car (Model 2009), he also got insurance cover for car from General Insurance Company under the directions of Faysal Bank. It was in the month of September 2009 that the suit car was stolen for which the petitioner lodged a theft case with police so that his insurance claim is processed. When the petitioner contacted the respondents (Bank and Insurance Company) he was asked to contact Rehan Basan & Company. On latter's demand, he also provided them requisite documents.
Respondent allegedly promised to pay the insurance claim to petitioner within a period of one or two months. It was after paying repeated visits to the Bank and Insurance Company, that the petitioner came to know about payment of insurance claim of Rs.7,50,000/- by the Insurance Company to Faysal Bank against petitioner's total claim of Rs.13,10,000/-. The petitioner contends that the respondents have been puting him off through mutual collusion. Petitioner repeatedly demanded from respondents to pay him the suit insurance claim but they did not respond positively. On this, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent but still the respondents paid no heed. Hence, this petition.
3. Petition was contested by the respondents. They raised a few preliminary objections in their written statement regarding non maintainability of claim and lack of jurisdiction of Consumer Court. The respondent also moved a separate application for dismissal / rejection of petitioner's claim under Order 7 Rule 11 R/W section 151 CPC and 35 of PCPA 2005.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. From the perusal of contents of petition it would appear that the petitioner has in fact demanded payment of insurance claim about his stolen car but the suit claim seems adjudicatable by the Insurance Tribunal set-up under the provisions of Insurance Ordinance 2000 through notification dated 20-6-6. As regards petitioner's contention that Faysal Bank is liable to pay him insurance claim received from General Insurance Company, such contention can only be agitated before Civil Court. Under section 122 (3) of Insurance Ordinance 2000 jurisdiction of others courts (except Insurance Tribunal) is specifically barred. Sub-section 3 of the said section is also produced below for facility of reference:- "No Court other than a Tribunal shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respecto any ratter 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 "
6. As regards provision of section 3 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 it has no over-riding effect on other laws for the time being in force. The application in hand is allowed and the petition of claimant is hereby returned for presentation to the proper forum i.e. Insurance Tribunal set-up under the Insurance Ordinance 2000 through notification dated 20-6-.6, After completion, file be consigned to record room.