Brief facts of the case are that on 1-10-04, the petitioner purchased Life Insurance Policy No.109837/0391P from respondents on biannual payment of premium. The petitioner allegedly kept on making payment of premium through respondent's employee, Kashif Yaseen. It was on 20-10- 08, the petitioner received intimation from respondent about non payment of premium for a period of one year. On this, the petitioner got worried and contacted said Kashif Hussain who satisfied the petitioner stating that payment by the petitioner is regular, therefore, respondent's letter dated 20- 10-08 was dispatched through an oversight Kashif Yaseen received further premium due on 1-4-09 which he also claimed to have deposited which he did not. In order to further satisfy himself, the petitioner established contact with higher officers of respondent company who promised to take disciplinary action against through agent, Kashif Yaseen. When petitioner's repeated demands for redressal of his grievance, he issued them legal notice on 8.10.10 but still they did not respond positively, hence, this petition for award of Rs.20,00,000/- as damages on account of physical and mental torture caused to the petitioner due to respondent / their staff member's defective service.
The petitioner also sought directions for respondent company to continue his life policy as well as take strict legal action against their agents like Kashif Yaseen.
2. Petitioner's claim was contested by the respondent mainly on the objection about jurisdiction of Consumer Court. They filed the instant application for return of petition under order 7 rule 11 CPC.
Application was opposed by the petitioner.
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 two interpretations, one consistent with the smooth working of statute and elimination of uncertainly, confusion and contradiction, should be adopted. It is pertinent to note that impugned policy was purchased in October 2004 i.e. Even before proclamation of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, therefore, petitioner's claim is also found not maintainable on this score too.
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.