' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The order dated 7-1-2010 by learned Consumer Court is assailed by the petitioner Insurance Company on the ground that a claim under an insurance policy is triable before the learned Insurance Tribunal ("Tribunal") constituted under section 121 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 ("Ordinance") and not before the learned Consumer Court constituted under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 ("Act"). He submits that the subject of insurance is listed in Item No,29 of the Federal Legislative List in the 4th Schedule to the Constitution and therefore it is a matter on which Parliament alone can pass laws. On the other hand the learned Consumer Court is created by a provincial law which cannot confer jurisdiction in respect of the subject of insurance for which Parliament has exclusive legislative competence. He has then read from the provisions of section 122(1)(a) of the Ordinance which outlines the jurisdiction of the learned Insurance Tribunal as follows:-- "(a) 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)". (Emphasis supplied)
2. Learned counsel contends that according to the said provision a claim based on an insurance policy is triable before a learned Tribunal. Furthermore section 122(3) of the Ordinance declares that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is exclusive in matters to which it extends. Therefore on a claim arising from an insurance policy a learned Consumer Court cannot have any jurisdiction to determine a dispute. Such jurisdiction solely vests in an Insurance Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order dated 7-1-2010 on the ground that the respondent No,2 policy holder is a consumer of service provided by the petitioner insurance company. He relies on section 2(c)(ii) of the Act. For committing breach of service, the petitioner is answerable for liability under section 13 of the Act. Consequently, the suit filed by respondent No,2 policy holder before the learned Consumer Court is maintainable.
4. Heard. There is no dispute between the learned counsel on the point that the subject of insurance is dealt with by Item No,29 of the Federal Legislative List and the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 is framed in exercise of authority conferred by the said Item No,29. According to section 122(3) of the Ordinance, the jurisdiction of the learned Insurance Tribunal is exclusive in matters that falls within the ambit of its authority. Under section 122(1)(a) of the Ordinance, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends to "claims filed by a policy holder against an insurance company in respect of or arising out of a policy of insurance". The relief claimed before the learned Consumer Court by the respondent No,2 is in his capacity of a policy-holder of the petitioner insurance company. He alleges breach to have been committed by the petitioner of its obligation to perform duty/service according to the holder's insurance policy. The insured event in the present case is theft of the respondent policy holder's vehicle, on the occurrence of which the petitioner company is allegedly failing to pay the policy proceeds to the claimant.
5. To the mind of this Court, the claim of the respondent No,2 policy holder falls within the ambit of, section 122(1)(a) of the Ordinance. The said provision creates an exclusive remedy in respect of claims based on policies of insurance. The Ordinance as competent federal legislation prevails over conflicting provincial legislation under Article 143 of the Constitution.
6. Even otherwise under the settled principles of I interpretation of statutes, the provisions of a special law on a subject excludes the application of general law to such ID subject as laid down in Inspector-General of Police, Punjab v. Mushtaq Ahmad Warraich (PLD 1985 SC 159). Applying the said principle and on the assumption that the remedy of the respondent policy holder is competent before the learned E Consumer Court, yet such remedy is general in character in comparison to his remedy before the learned Insurance Tribunal.
7. Consequently, for both the reasons discussed above the suit filed by the respondents before the learned F Consumer Court is not maintainable.
8. In the foregoing terms.