NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J. --- Respondent No. 2 Muhammad Asif Maqsood Sheikh was a consumer of the appellant-bank who obtained a vehicle on lease/instalments from the bank. The said respondent No. 2 repaid all the instalments towards the loan. The appellant-bank who was retaining the registration book of the vehicle in question and had also created an embargo on the further transfer of the vehicle in question in the Excise and Taxation Department where the registration/change of ownership in the documents of the motor vehicles is effected. Inspite of the payment of all the instalments to the appellant-bank the registration book was not cleared and the Excise and Taxation Department was not being directed by the bank to incorporate the ownership rights of the vehicle in question in favour of the respondent No. 2. Consequently he served a legal notice claiming a damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith the counsel fee of Rs.
50,000/- against the appellant-bank.
2. On the failure of the bank to honour the demand raised by the respondent No. 2 through the legal notice a complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 2 before the District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal.
3. This complaint was contested by the appellant- bank. It was contended by the appellant-bank that the complaint lodged is unjustified and was further contended that although the appellant- bank had granted the loan facility to the respondent No. 2 for purchase of the vehicle in question but a clearing certificate was issued after the payment of the loan by the respondent No. 2 and that the registration book of the vehicle was in the name of one Syed Ijaz Hussain Naqvi who had transferred the vehicle in the name of the bank but the appellant bank had no connection with or objection upon the further registration of the vehicle in question in favour of the respondent No. 2 after the clearance of loan.
4. The learned Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately dismissed the complaint of the respondent No. 2 towards the amount of damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- however in the interest of justice an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was granted to the respondent No. 2 for the sufferings he had undergone due to the dilatory tactics of the appellant-bank in effecting the transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant in the Excise and Taxation Department, Sialkot. Para-13 of the judgment dated 22.12.2012 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal is relevant and is reproduced:--- "13. The upshot of the above-said is that in the light of the above-said evidence as well as the statement of the RW. 1 that complainant has paid all instalments of vehicle, vehicle is still in the name of the bank, bank has no objection upon the transferring of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. The respondent bank is directed to get transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant from the ETO office Sialkot and thereafter handover the registration book and original file of the vehicle to. The complainant within 30 days of the passing of this judgment otherwise it shall be proceeded under Section 32 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005."
5. The appellant-bank applied for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment dated 22.12.2012 on 08.1.2013 by wastage of sixteen days' time. The certified copy was made available to the appellant- bank on 26.1.2013 and having only 14 days period of limitation available to the appellant-bank the instant appeal was instituted before this Court on 13.2.2013. The appeal is admittedly barred by time by three days. An application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been preferred through C.M.No. 2-C of 2013 in which it is stated that the appeal is barred by only two days and due to unforeseen circumstances of getting verification, of the appeal from Karachi Headquarter of the appellant- bank the delay had occasioned.
6. Through a C.M. Presented vide Diary No. 19567, dated 28.2.2013 the appellant-bank has placed on record a photocopy of a receipt of Courier Service of consignment No. 15972 whereby it is intended to prove that some consignment from Karachi was sent through the said Courier Service on 07.2.2013. On the basis of this receipt the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the delay of three days in presenting the appeal be condoned. The learned counsel for the appellant was called upon to address the arguments as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 are available to the appellant-bank as per provisions of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The learned counsel for the appellant-bank candidly stated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been excluded from application upon the cases under the special law of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 as per Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, however the learned counsel contends that as the judgment passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal was illegal and without lawful authority, therefore relying upon the judgment reported as HAFEEZ AHMAD AND OTHERS v. CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS (PLD 2012 SC 400) the learned counsel for the appellant-bank has argued that this Court may exercise suo motu powers of condoning the delay as has been held in the reported judgment. The learned counsel far the appellant-bank further elaborated that the claim raised by the respondent No. 2 was based upon a financial facility for which the Special Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 has been constituted and the, jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy vested with the Banking Court and not with the Consumer Court.
7. I have considered the arguments of the !Earned counsel for the appellant.
8. Admittedly the provisions of Section. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 have been excluded from the application to the cases covered by special law and the cases under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 being a special law cannot be governed by the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and the benefits available for seeking condonation of delay u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be extended to the appellant-bank.
9. The reference of the learned counsel for the appellant to reported judgment (PLD 2012 SC 400) is of no help to the appellant as the controversy arising before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said case was under the provisions of Section 115 of CPC which provisions envisage the exercise of suo motu powers by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court u/s. 33 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 has not been given any such suo motu power in respect of matters coming before the Appellate Court under the said statute therefore the judgment reported as PLD 2012 SC 400 cannot be of any assistance to the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of condoning the delay.
10. The contents of the memorandum of appeal do not suggest that the memo. Of appeal was signed by any person at Karachi. It reflects that one Kashif Munir, Manager Legal, NIB Bank Limited, Bank Square Branch, Shahrah-e-Quaid Azam Lahore has signed the memo. Of appeal and the affidavit annexed with the appeal. It is not stated in the memo. Of appeal that any verification was got by the appellant-bank from Karachi Headquarter of the appellant bank.
11. The receipt allegedly produced through a C.M. Vide Diary No. 19567, dated 28.2.2013 cannot be legibly connected with the institution of the instant appeal therefore cannot be considered in support of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The claim raised by the respondent No. 2 before the District Consumer Court was with respect to the recovery of damages on account of the appellant-bank's acts of not issuing the necessary directions to the ETO, office Sialkot for transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent No. 2 and cannot be said to be relatable to a controversy falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Court.
12. From the perusal of the contents of the judgment passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal it can be safely inferred that no such objection was raised before the learned District & Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal by the appellant-bank regarding the lack of jurisdiction as well.
The appellant-bank has not placed on record a copy of the reply submitted to the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2 before the District Consumer Court. The District Consumer Court was vested with the power granting the damages to the respondent No. 2 in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-bank that the learned District & Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sialkot/Narowal was not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy raised before it has no substance and is rejected. The appeal preferred by the appellant is held to be barred by time and is therefore dismissed in limine. .