BML 4.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-2.04%)
BOP 12.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-2.45%)
CNERGY 7.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-1.54%)
CPHL 83.34 Decreased By ▼ -1.31 (-1.55%)
DCL 13.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-3.5%)
DGKC 171.80 Decreased By ▼ -1.54 (-0.89%)
FCCL 46.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.55 (-1.18%)
FFL 15.57 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.83%)
GCIL 26.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.34%)
HUBC 148.14 Decreased By ▼ -2.25 (-1.5%)
KEL 5.31 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.76%)
KOSM 6.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-2.5%)
LOTCHEM 20.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.43%)
MLCF 84.02 Decreased By ▼ -1.42 (-1.66%)
NBP 124.95 Decreased By ▼ -3.90 (-3.03%)
PAEL 40.96 Decreased By ▼ -1.09 (-2.59%)
PIAHCLA 21.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-1.44%)
PIBTL 10.14 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.5%)
POWER 14.00 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.43%)
PPL 163.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.91 (-0.56%)
PREMA 41.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-1.29%)
PRL 31.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-2.56%)
PTC 22.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.76 (-3.23%)
SNGP 115.12 Decreased By ▼ -2.85 (-2.42%)
SSGC 44.06 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-2.63%)
TELE 7.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-3.13%)
TPLP 9.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-2.17%)
TREET 23.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.49 (-2.04%)
TRG 55.84 Decreased By ▼ -1.17 (-2.05%)
WTL 1.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-1.97%)
BR100 14,134 Decreased By -4.9 (-0.03%)
BR30 39,571 Decreased By -563.9 (-1.4%)
KSE100 138,597 Decreased By -68.1 (-0.05%)
KSE30 42,341 Decreased By -12.3 (-0.03%)

LAHORE: A higher appellate forum has set aside a judgment passed by the banking court, ruling that the banking courts lack jurisdiction to entertain claims based on tort. The case involved a customer who had obtained a car finance facility from a bank and later filed a suit against the bank for damages, declaration, and possession.

The bank had repossessed the vehicle due to the customer’s default on repayment obligations. The customer claimed that the repossession was wrongful and caused him mental suffering and loss of reputation.

The banking court had accepted the customer’s claim, but the higher appellate forum allowed the bank’s appeal, holding that the claim was grounded in tort and did not fall within the jurisdiction of the banking court.

It maintained that damages are usually considered under two heads - general or non-pecuniary loss or damages, that is physical injury, pain and suffering, impaired capacity for the enjoyment of life or lessened capacity and special or pecuniary damages that are actual, incidental and direct expense capable of calculation in terms of monetary value, loss in business profit earning or otherwise, in an action for damages either general or special.

In absence of authentic oral and documentary supporting evidence, mere statement of party is not sufficient to establish amount of damages allegedly suffered by him. A person claiming special damages must prove each item of his loss on the basis of evidence. Where a person claims special damages then it is incumbent upon him to show as to under which head of account and how such damages have been sustained. In absence of such proof, special damages cannot be allowed.

The forum further ruled that while the banking court has jurisdiction to entertain claims arising from breaches of contract related to finance facilities, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain tort claims. The court also observed that the customer had failed to provide evidence to support his claim for damages.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

Comments are closed.