ISLAMABAD: The Consumer Court Islamabad has partly allowed a complaint filed by the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan against Leopard Courier Service and its officials, directing them to pay Rs3 million in compensation over failure to properly deliver 13 consignments containing computers and other office equipment.
The court held that the courier service, after accepting the consignments for transportation against payment, was responsible for providing the transport service and could not avoid liability merely by referring to a later customs seizure.
The decision was announced on September 22, 2026, by Raja Asif Mahmood, Additional District Judge and Consumer Court Judge West Islamabad, in Complaint No. 157862 of 2025.
The complaint was filed by IPO 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.
IPO Pakistan had originally claimed Rs17,933,400 in damages under different heads, including loss linked with the equipment, operational disruption, administrative difficulties, financial loss, reputational harm, travel expenses, litigation expenses and inconvenience caused to the organisation.
The dispute related to 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 was owned by IPO Pakistan.
The record showed that Leopard Courier accepted the consignments for delivery, but they did not reach the intended destination. IPO Pakistan repeatedly contacted the courier company to seek information about the consignments and also sent a written request on February 12, 2025.
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. The Additional Collector Customs later passed a confiscation order on February 28, 2025.
IPO Pakistan challenged the confiscation order before the Customs Appellate Tribunal in Karachi through Appeal No. K 1563 of 2025.
The court noted that IPO Pakistan was not informed in time about the proceedings before the customs authorities. As a result, the organisation had to take further steps to protect and recover its property, including travelling to Karachi and spending money on related legal proceedings.
The consumer complaint was formally filed on November 26, 2025. The respondents appeared through counsel and filed a written reply. They argued that the equipment had been seized because IPO Pakistan allegedly failed to provide proof of lawful ownership and payment of customs duties and taxes. They also claimed that their representative had repeatedly asked IPO Pakistan to provide the required documents.
The respondents denied mishandling the consignments and stated that they had made a transport arrangement with Mian Coach Service. They asked the court to dismiss the complaint, describing it as false, frivolous and without a proper cause of action.
Majid Rashid Khan appeared for IPO Pakistan, while Malik S. Khurram Bashir represented the respondents. IPO Pakistan argued that Leopard Courier had accepted the consignments in return for payment but failed to provide the service for which it had been engaged. The respondents maintained that they were not responsible for the non-delivery and had not committed any deficiency in service.
The court first examined whether IPO Pakistan could bring the complaint under the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995, as the respondents had challenged its maintainability.
Rejecting the objection, the court held that Section 8 of the Act allows a consumer to file a complaint regarding services, including transport services, and that the definition of services is broad enough to cover the courier service involved in the case.
The court also observed that the law covers unfair trade practices involving conduct that causes loss or injury to a consumer, including false representations or failure to meet promised standards. It held that the complaint was maintainable even though the complainant was a statutory organisation.
The court found that the relationship between IPO Pakistan and Leopard Courier was clear. The consignments had been booked and accepted for transportation against payment, and the respondents did not seriously dispute the service relationship. Records also showed acceptance of the consignments for delivery to Karachi.
A key issue before the court was what happened to the consignments after they were accepted by Leopard Courier. The court found that the equipment did not reach Karachi as intended and was later intercepted and seized by the Pakistan Coast Guards.
The respondents attempted to place responsibility on IPO Pakistan by arguing that the organisation had not produced proof of ownership and customs duty or tax payments before the customs authorities. However, the court held that this argument was not sufficient to release the courier company from its obligations as a service provider.
The court observed that once Leopard Courier accepted the consignments for transportation after receiving consideration, it had an obligation to handle and transport them according to the terms of the service and with due care.
It further held that no material evidence had been produced to show that Leopard Courier had informed IPO Pakistan at the time of booking that the documents in question were mandatory for acceptance and transportation, or that it had refused to transport the consignments because such documents were missing.
The court also examined the conduct of the respondents after the consignments failed to reach their destination. IPO Pakistan had written to the courier company on February 12, 2025, seeking information. According to the order, the respondents did not provide a response until around four months later, when they informed the organisation on June 18, 2025, about the interception and seizure by the Pakistan Coast Guards.
The court found the delay significant, noting that the consignments had already been 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.
The court said this evidence required the courier service, as the party entrusted with transporting the equipment, to properly explain how the consignments were handled and how they came to be intercepted during transit. It held that the respondents could not simply shift responsibility back to IPO Pakistan.
After considering the non-delivery, interception of the consignments and delayed communication, the court found a deficiency in the service provided by the respondents. It held that their conduct caused loss and injury to IPO Pakistan and came within the protection of the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act.
The court noted that under Section 9(3) of the law, it has the power to award compensation where a consumer has suffered 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, rather than merely returning the amount paid for the service.
IPO Pakistan had claimed Rs17,933,400 under several heads, including the value of the missing equipment, operational disruption, administrative delay and reputational harm. However, the court said the full amount could not be awarded merely because separate figures had been mentioned in the complaint. Each claimed loss had to be linked to evidence showing that it resulted from the unfair or deficient service.
The court specifically considered that the equipment had been intended for official work at the Trademarks Registry and Patent Office in Karachi. Since the equipment was not delivered, the organisation’s work was interrupted and delayed. IPO Pakistan was also forced to deal with the customs matter in Karachi, resulting in additional travel, expenses, administrative work and loss of official time.
The court also took into account the stress and inconvenience caused by the prolonged dispute and the disruption to the normal work of a public statutory organisation. It observed that these consequences could not be ignored while assessing compensation.
At the same time, the court refused to award the entire amount claimed by IPO Pakistan. It held that the evidence did not provide enough basis to award every individual amount claimed, including all amounts linked with reputational harm and administrative and operational losses.
After considering the nature of the service, the length 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 concluded that substantial compensation was justified.
The court awarded Rs3,000,000 to IPO Pakistan as consolidated compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995. The order made clear 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.
The Rs3 million compensation covers operational and administrative disruption, loss of official time, travel and litigation-related expenses, and inconvenience and stress arising from the prolonged failure to deliver the consignments.
The court separately rejected the claim for future markup. It also declined to award a separate Rs5 million claimed for reputational harm, holding that these claims had not been independently established through sufficient evidence. No separate amount was awarded for litigation costs because the consolidated compensation already took litigation-related expenditure and inconvenience into account.
The complaint was, therefore, 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 given period, the complainant may seek execution and enforcement of the order in accordance with law.
The decision provides a clear message that courier and transport companies may be held responsible under consumer protection law when they accept goods for payment but fail to handle and deliver them with proper care and do not promptly inform the customer when a serious problem occurs.
