Dr. Muhammad Ahtisham Qamar Vs Sapphire Industry etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 65575/2026

Dr. Muhammad Ahtisham Qamar Versus Sapphire Industry etc. S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of Proceeding Proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary. 27.10.2026 Mr. Ameer Abdaal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called into question the legality and validity of order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class- I, Lahore (returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for its presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction) and judgment dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore (whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the conclusion drawn by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Lahore was dismissed).

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that the learned courts below failed to appreciate the distinction between a claim for damages under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 2005”) and an independent claim for general damages maintainable before the Civil Court under Section 9 CPC. It has been contended that the petitioner’s claim relates to mental torture, agony and humiliation arising out of the cancellation of an online transaction and, therefore, could not have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court merely on the ground that the petitioner falls within the definition of a “consumer”.

Writ Petition No. 65575/2026

Reliance has been placed upon Millat Tractors Ltd. Sheikhupura Road, Shahdra, Lahore and others v. Mst. Farkhanda Jabeen (2025 MLD 889).

3.Heard. Record perused.

4.While having a bird’s eye view of the record, it depicts that the petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of damages arising out of an online transaction whereby he had purchased two clothing articles against payment of Rs.6,480/-. According to the petitioner, the articles were not delivered within the stipulated period and the transaction was subsequently cancelled by the defendants, whereafter he claimed damages on account of mental agony, humiliation and other alleged losses. The respondents sought return of the plaint on the ground that the matter fell within the ambit of the Act 2005.

5.The learned appellate court, while examining the definition of “consumer” contained in Section 2(c) of the Act 2005, observed that the statutory definition includes online transactions and receipt of the purchased articles is not an indispensable condition for attracting the definition. The learned appellate court, while maintaining the order of learned trial court qua return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, concluded that the petitioner’s transaction fell within the scope of the Act 2005.

6.To delve into the controversy, Section 2(c)(i) of the Act 2005 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Consumer” means any person who--

(i)buys goods for a consideration which has been paid or partly paid and partly promised to be paid or under any system of deferred payment or hire purchase and includes any

Writ Petition No. 65575/2026

user of such goods but does not include a person who obtains such goods for re-sale or for any commercial purpose.”

7.Keeping in view the afore-referred provision, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the purchased items were never delivered, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of a “consumer”, is misconceived.

8.A bare reading of Section 2(c)(i) of the Act 2005 reveals that a person who buys goods for consideration, whether paid, partly paid or promised to be paid, falls within the definition of a “consumer”, subject to the statutory exclusions.

9.In the present case, the petitioner, admittedly, placed an order for the purchase of two clothing articles and paid Rs.6,480/- through his credit card. Thus, the transaction squarely falls within the ambit of the aforesaid provision and the subsequent non-delivery of the goods or cancellation of the transaction does not exclude the petitioner from the definition of a consumer.

10.In paragraphs No.4 and 5 of the suit for recovery of refund and damages amounting to Rs.2,116,480/- instituted by the petitioner against respondents No.1 and 2, the petitioner/plaintiff averred as under:-

4)That it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff paid-in-advance the said amount of Rs.6,480/ through HBL Credit Card (4902 **** **** 5059). Copy of amount transfer detail is attached herewith as Annexure-B.

5)That it is further potent to note here that the local order delivery time mentioned on defendant's website's FAQs is 1-5 working days. It is reproduced hereunder:

Writ Petition No. 65575/2026

Local order delivery can take between 1-5 working days, and international delivery can take between3- 7 working days; depending on size and availability of the product. Orders are processed within 24 hours and are generally scheduled for delivery the following working day. Timely delivery is subject to availability of stocks and payment authorizations. In certain cases, we might request for some form of payment verification or source to process working days.

Regrettably, in instant matter, the defendants intimated the plaintiff about order cancellation on 23-05-2020 with a delay of 17 days, in other terms which were 408 hours on grounds of COVID-19 pandemic. Needless to mention here that “orders are processed within 24 hours...” according to defendant’s policy. Copy of Order Cancellation E- mail is attached here is Annexure-C.

11.In paragraph No.4 and 5 of their written statement, respondents No.1 and 2/defendants firstly denied the factum of online transaction but later on, admitted the receiving and subsequent return of the amount to the petitioner/plaintiff. They responded to the contents of the plaint in the following way:-

4)It is incorrect.

5)Denied being incorrect, it is a fact that when booking was made the stock was finished and thereafter it was intimated to the plaintiff that the stock has been finished therefore, he may approached to other stall of the company to purchase dresses. It is pertinent to mention here that amount received by the defendants was also returned to the plaintiff which fact is admitted by the plaintiff.

12.A perusal of the pleadings of the parties, particularly paragraphs No.4 and 5 of the plaint and written statement, respectively, reveals that the petitioner allegedly placed an online order for the purchase of clothing articles against payment of Rs.6,480/- in advance.

Writ Petition No. 65575/2026

Although respondents No.1 and 2 initially denied the transaction, yet they subsequently admitted that the booking had been made but the stock was unavailable and the amount received was returned to the petitioner. These facts establish the existence of a “consumer-seller relationship” and the controversy essentially emanates from the alleged failure of the seller to deliver the purchased dresses after receiving full price thereof. After placement of order of purchase, receipt of the entire amount and subsequently return of the amount upon non- delivery of the clothing articles does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court to examine the claim in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2005.

13.It would be significant to observe here that the veracity of the respective claims and the factual controversy arising therefrom are to be examined by the Consumer Court. This Court deliberately refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the factual assertions of either party, lest the same may prejudice their case.

14.In the wake of above, it can be construed that forum is to be determined with reference to “triggering of cause of action” rather than merely the terminology or quantum of the relief claimed. The petitioner, being a “consumer”, merely by mentioning the term “general damages”, cannot alter the nature of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction upon the Civil Court.

15.If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is adopted, it would permit a litigant to forum shopping, notwithstanding the fact that the grievance originates from a consumer transaction and the alleged default falls under

Writ Petition No. 65575/2026

the special law. Such an interpretation would also risk conferring an unintended advantage upon a service provider or seller who has allegedly received full payment but failed to perform the corresponding obligation to deliver the items.

16.It would not be out of place to observe that the present case is distinguishable from those cases where a prospective purchaser merely pays a booking amount. In the instant case, respondent No.1 had made a general offer through its online platform for the sale of clothing articles, which was accepted by the petitioner by placing an order while paying the entire sale consideration online. The receipt of the said amount was also not disputed by respondents No.1 and 2 in their written statement. Hence, the transaction was complete to the extent of acceptance of the offer and payment of the entire consideration, thereby establishing the relationship of consumer and seller between the parties.

17.The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. In the instant matter, the petitioner admittedly entered into an online transaction for the purchase of clothing articles against payment of the whole consideration amount. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner arises directly out of a transaction taken place as a “consumer” and is required to be examined within the framework of the special law i.e. Act 2005. The mere fact that the petitioner has also claimed general damages is not sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court as it is for the Consumer Court to determine whether the claimant is entitled to any relief and, if so, to what extent.

Writ Petition No. 65575/2026

18.Since learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to highlight any illegality, legal infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order and judgment, therefore, no ground for interference is made out, as a sequel to which this constitutional petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine.

Signed (MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN)

02.11.2026 JUDGE

Abis Ali

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

JUDGE