Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's deceased husband, Muhammad Tahir purchased Insurance Policy from respondent No.2 through respondent No.1 Standard Chartered Bank. He also paid Rs.3000/- through the said Bank on 31-5-08. Unfortunately, on 7-5-08 petitioner's husband died of brain hemorrhage. After the death of husband, the petitioner demanded insurance claim from respondents but they did not redress her grievance. Hence, this claim for recovery of insurance claim in respect of policy No.16276.
2. Petitioner's claim was contested by the respondents. The instant application was also moved for return / rejection of petitioner's claim.
3. Arguments heard on objection of jurisdiction of Consumer Court and record / case law perused.
4. While supporting his objection, respondent's learned counsel drew the attention of court to sec 122 (3) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 whereby jurisdiction of this court is expressly barred. Sec 122(3) ibid 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 Tribunal is presently presided over by a learned Addl District & Sessions Judge which is empowered to entertain, hear and decide Insurance claims. On the other hand, petitioner's learned counsel relied on Sec 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.
6. It is true that u/s 3 ibid, jurisdiction of this court is prima facie is 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, the latter should prevail over the Provincial statute. It is also a 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.
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 adjudicate on parties' controversy. After due completion, file be consigned to record room.