AIRLINK 175.65 Decreased By ▼ -1.91 (-1.08%)
BOP 11.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.36%)
CNERGY 8.33 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (1.96%)
FCCL 47.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.46%)
FFL 16.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.62%)
FLYNG 27.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-1.21%)
HUBC 142.45 Decreased By ▼ -4.46 (-3.04%)
HUMNL 13.37 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.04%)
KEL 4.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.11%)
KOSM 5.91 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 61.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.52 (-0.84%)
OGDC 226.31 Decreased By ▼ -8.37 (-3.57%)
PACE 5.80 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PAEL 44.79 Decreased By ▼ -1.62 (-3.49%)
PIAHCLA 17.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-1.05%)
PIBTL 10.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.14%)
POWER 12.10 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.92%)
PPL 185.99 Decreased By ▼ -5.81 (-3.03%)
PRL 37.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.19%)
PTC 24.14 Increased By ▲ 0.94 (4.05%)
SEARL 99.95 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-0.93%)
SSGC 38.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.31 (-3.3%)
SYM 14.89 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.93%)
TELE 7.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.15%)
TPLP 11.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.09%)
TRG 66.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.29 (-1.92%)
WAVESAPP 11.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-3.08%)
WTL 1.36 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
YOUW 3.82 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (1.33%)
BR100 12,826 Increased By 19.4 (0.15%)
BR30 38,861 Decreased By -842.2 (-2.12%)
KSE100 118,792 Decreased By -146.5 (-0.12%)
KSE30 36,779 Increased By 22.6 (0.06%)

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.