Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff M/s Honda Centre, Faisalabad got insured 8 motor bikes from respondent No.1 (Universal Insurance Company Ltd) through respondent No.2 (Universal Insurance). When motor bikes were stolen, petitioner approached respondent No.1 to compensate their loss but they refused to pay the insurance claim. As the petitioner allegedly suffered loss of reputation as well as monetary loss, they demanded from respondents to pay them suit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages but they did not responded to legal notice served by the petitioner, hence, this petition for recovery of suit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. The respondent did not appear to contest the petition despite issuance of court process, they were, therefore, proceeded exparte.
3. Petitioner appeared as PW-1 and also placed on record his sworn affidavit Ex-P-1, copy of legal notice Ex-P-2, post office receipt Ex-P-3, loss intimation report Ex-P-4 and copy of schedule Mark P/A?.
4. Ex-parte arguments heard and record perused.
5. It is true that none of respondents appeared to contest the petition yet legal questions like jurisdiction, limitation and maintainability of claim have to be seen by the court before passing a decree. Admittedly, the petitioner has claimed compensation / damages in a case for recovery of insurance claim. Jurisdiction of Consumer Court is expressly barred u/s 122(1) a & 122 (3) of Insurance Ordinance 2000. These provisions are reproduced as follows:- 122(1)a "A tribunal shall in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction have in respect of a claim filed by a policy holder against an insurance company in respect of, or arising out of a policy of insurance, all the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908)"
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."
6. There is no caviled the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 is a Provincial statute while the Insurance Ordinance 2000 is Federal law, therefore, the Insurance Ordinance should prevails over the Punjab Consumer Protection Act (latter being Federal 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, then Federal law should prevail over the Provincial law. It is also a principle of interpretation of statutes that if any law is amenable to two interpretations, one consistent with the smooth working of statute and elimination of uncertainly, confusion and contradiction, should be adopted.
5. 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.