ISLAMABAD: The Consumer Court Islamabad has ordered Leopard Courier Service and its concerned officials to pay Rs3 million to the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan after finding deficiency in service over the non-delivery of 13 consignments containing computers and other office equipment.<\/p>\n
The court held that once the courier company accepted the consignments for transportation after receiving payment, it was under an obligation to handle and deliver them with due care. It ruled that the company could not escape responsibility merely by referring to a subsequent seizure of the goods by customs authorities.<\/p>\n
The decision was delivered by Raja Asif Mahmood, Additional District Judge and Consumer Court Judge West Islamabad, in Complaint No. 157862 of 2025. The order was announced on September 22, 2026.<\/p>\n
The complaint had been filed by the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan through its Chairman against Raja Muhammad Zia ur Rehman, Zonal Manager of Leopard Courier Service Islamabad, Haseeb Iqbal, Business Development Manager of Leopard Courier Service Islamabad, and Rizwan Saadat, Chief Executive Officer of Leopard Courier Service.<\/p>\n
IPO Pakistan had sought Rs17,933,400 in damages under several heads, including the value of the equipment, disruption of official work, administrative difficulties, financial loss, reputational harm, travel expenses, litigation expenses and inconvenience caused to the organisation.<\/p>\n
The dispute arose from 13 consignments booked by IPO Pakistan with Leopard Courier Service for transportation from its head office in Islamabad to the Trademarks Registry and Patent Office in Karachi. The consignments contained laptops, desktop computers and LCDs. According to the court record, the equipment had been lawfully purchased and belonged to IPO Pakistan.<\/p>\n
The court noted that Leopard Courier accepted the consignments for delivery, but they did not reach the intended destination in Karachi. IPO Pakistan repeatedly contacted the company to seek information about the consignments and also sent a written request on February 12, 2025.<\/p>\n
The courier company later informed IPO Pakistan through a reply dated June 18, 2025 that the consignments had allegedly been intercepted and seized by the Pakistan Coast Guards in Karachi on suspicion of violation of the Customs Act, 1969. An Additional Collector Customs had already passed a confiscation order on February 28, 2025. IPO Pakistan challenged that order before the Customs Appellate Tribunal in Karachi through Appeal No. K 1563 of 2025.<\/p>\n
The court observed that IPO Pakistan was not informed in time about the proceedings before the customs authorities. Due to this delay, the organisation had to take further steps to safeguard and recover its property, including travelling to Karachi and incurring expenses on related legal proceedings.<\/p>\n
The consumer complaint was formally filed on November 26, 2025. The respondents appeared through counsel and submitted their written reply. They took the position that the equipment had been seized because IPO Pakistan allegedly failed to provide proof of lawful ownership and proof of payment of customs duties and taxes. They also claimed that their representative had repeatedly asked IPO Pakistan to provide the required documents.<\/p>\n
The respondents denied mishandling the consignments. They stated that they had made a transport arrangement with Mian Coach Service and requested the court to dismiss the complaint, describing it as false, frivolous and without a proper cause of action.<\/p>\n
Majid Rashid Khan represented IPO Pakistan, while Malik S. Khurram Bashir appeared for the respondents. IPO Pakistan argued that Leopard Courier had received payment and accepted the consignments but failed to provide the service for which it was engaged. The respondents, however, maintained that they were not responsible for the non-delivery and had committed no deficiency in service.<\/p>\n
The court first examined whether IPO Pakistan could maintain a complaint under the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995. The respondents had objected to the maintainability of the complaint.<\/p>\n
Rejecting the objection, the court held that Section 8 of the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act allows a consumer to file a complaint regarding services, including transport services. It further held that the definition of services under the law was wide enough to cover the courier service involved in the dispute.<\/p>\n
The court also noted that the law covers unfair trade practices where a consumer suffers loss or injury due to conduct such as false representations or failure to meet promised standards. It held that the complaint was maintainable even though the complainant was a statutory organisation.<\/p>\n
The court found that the service relationship between IPO Pakistan and Leopard Courier was clearly established. The consignments had been booked and accepted for transportation against payment, and the respondents had not seriously disputed the existence of the service arrangement. The record also supported the fact that the consignments were accepted for delivery to Karachi.<\/p>\n
A central issue before the court was what happened after Leopard Courier accepted the goods. The court found that the equipment did not reach Karachi as intended and was later intercepted and seized by the Pakistan Coast Guards.<\/p>\n
The respondents attempted to shift the responsibility to IPO Pakistan by arguing that the organisation had not produced proof of ownership and customs duty or tax payments before customs authorities. The court, however, held that this argument was not enough to release the courier company from its obligations as a service provider.<\/p>\n
The court observed that once Leopard Courier accepted the consignments for transportation after receiving consideration, it was required to handle and transport them according to the terms of the service and with due care. The court found no material evidence showing that Leopard had informed IPO Pakistan at the time of booking that such documents were mandatory for acceptance and transportation, or that it had refused to carry the consignments because those documents were missing.<\/p>\n
The court also examined the company\u2019s conduct after the consignments failed to reach their destination. IPO Pakistan had written to the courier company on February 12, 2025 seeking information, but the respondents did not provide a reply until around four months later, when they informed the organisation on June 18, 2025 about the interception and seizure by the Pakistan Coast Guards.<\/p>\n
The court considered this delay significant because the consignments had already remained intercepted for a considerable period before IPO Pakistan was informed. The order also referred to seizure record Case No. 1038 of 2024, which stated that vehicle No. JB 4311 belonging to Mian Transport Coach had been stopped by the 3rd Battalion Liaquat of the Pakistan Coast Guards at Korangi, Karachi.<\/p>\n
According to the court, this evidence required the courier service, being the party entrusted with transportation of the equipment, to properly explain how the consignments were handled and how they came to be intercepted during transit. The court held that the respondents could not simply shift the responsibility back to IPO Pakistan.<\/p>\n
After considering the non-delivery, interception of the consignments and delayed communication, the court found deficiency in the service provided by the respondents. It held that their conduct caused loss and injury to IPO Pakistan and fell within the protection of the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act.<\/p>\n
The court noted that under Section 9(3) of the law, compensation may be awarded where a consumer suffers damage or loss because of an unfair trade practice. It explained that compensation is meant to make the injured party whole, as far as money can do so, and is not limited to refunding the amount paid for the service.<\/p>\n
While IPO Pakistan had claimed Rs17,933,400, the court held that the entire amount could not be awarded merely because separate figures had been mentioned in the complaint. It said each claimed loss had to be supported by evidence showing that it resulted from the unfair or deficient service.<\/p>\n
The court considered that the equipment was meant for official work at the Trademarks Registry and Patent Office in Karachi. Since the equipment was not delivered, official work of the organisation was interrupted and delayed. IPO Pakistan was also compelled to deal with the customs matter in Karachi, which involved travel, expenses, administrative work and loss of official time.<\/p>\n
The court further took into account the stress and inconvenience caused by the prolonged dispute and the disruption to the normal working of a public statutory organisation. It held that these consequences could not be ignored while assessing compensation.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the court declined to award the full claim of Rs17,933,400. It found that the evidence did not justify awarding every individual amount claimed, including all amounts linked with reputational harm and administrative and operational losses.<\/p>\n
After reviewing the nature of the service, the duration of the dispute, the non-delivery of the consignments, the expenses and inconvenience suffered by IPO Pakistan and the material available on record, the court held that substantial compensation was justified.<\/p>\n
The court, therefore, awarded Rs3,000,000 to IPO Pakistan as consolidated compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995. The order clarified that the amount was not a mechanical acceptance of each individual claim, but a combined and reasonable amount for the losses and inconvenience proved before the court.<\/p>\n
The compensation covers operational and administrative disruption, loss of official time, travel and litigation-related expenses, and inconvenience and stress resulting from the prolonged failure to deliver the consignments.<\/p>\n
The court separately rejected the claim for future markup. It also declined to award a separate Rs5 million claimed for reputational harm, holding that the claim had not been independently established through sufficient evidence. No separate amount was granted as litigation costs because the consolidated compensation had already taken litigation-related expenditure and inconvenience into account.<\/p>\n
The complaint was partly allowed. Raja Asif Mahmood directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs3,000,000 to IPO Pakistan within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of failure to make payment within the stipulated period, IPO Pakistan may seek execution and enforcement of the order in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
The ruling, announced on September 22, 2026, underlines that courier and transport companies may be held liable under consumer protection law when they accept goods for payment but fail to handle and deliver them with proper care and fail to promptly inform the customer when a serious issue arises.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Consumer Court Islamabad partly allowed IPO Pakistan\u2019s complaint and ordered Leopard Courier and its officials to pay Rs3 million over 13 undelivered consignments.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":21288,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-pakistan"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21289\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peakpoint.pk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}