LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a person who pays for goods through an online transaction remains a ‘consumer’ under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, even if the goods were never delivered.
Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan dismissed a writ petition of Dr Muhammad Eihtesham Qamar against a known clothing brand.
The petitioner had sued before a civil court for refund and damages of over Rs2.1 million after buying two clothing articles online for Rs6,480, paid throughcredit card.
He said the seller cancelled the order 17 days after the purchase, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, although its website promised delivery within one to five working days. He claimed damages for mental agony and humiliation.
The defendant initially denied the transaction but later said the stock had run out and that the amount had been refunded.
The civil court returned the plaint for presentation before the competent forum, and an additional district judge also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
Before the LHC, the petitioner argued that the courts below ignored the difference between aclaim under the 2005 Act and a separate claim for general damages maintainable in the civil court under Section 9 CPC.
He also said since the goods were never delivered, he was not a consumer.
However, Justice Awan rejected both contentions.
He held that as per the law anyone who buys goods for a consideration paid, partly paid or promised is a consumer and that nondelivery or cancellation does not take a buyer out of the definition.
The judge noted that the petitioner placed an order and paid in full online and the respondents admitted the booking and the refund, which established aconsumer-seller relationship.
The judge observed merely describing the relief as ‘general damages’ cannot confer jurisdiction on the civil court.
The judge said accepting the petitioner’s argument would encourage forum shopping and could favour a seller who has taken full payment but failed to deliver.
He distinguished cases involving only a booking amount and refrained from commenting on the merits, leaving the factual dispute for the consumer court to decide.
The judge dismissed the petition challenging the damages suit to be filed before the consumer court.