M/S Anjaneya Jewellery v. New India Assurance CO.LTD. & Ors.
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
22.05.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”)
975
in Consumer Case No.1094 of 2018 whereby the Presiding Member of
the Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant herein.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for disposal of this appeal,
which involves a short point.
3. By impugned order, the Presiding Member of the Commission
dismissed the appellant’s complaint in limine . It is against this order, the
complainant has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Co nsumer
Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
4. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this
appeal, is whether the Commission was justified in dism issing the
appellant’s complaint in limine .
5. We have perused the appellant’s complaint so also the impugned
order which resulted in its dismissal. Having gone through the same, we
are of the considered opinion that notice of the complaint should have
been issued to the respondent for being tried on merits.
6. In other words, we are of the view that the complaint filed by
the appellant did not deserve its dismissal in “ limine ” but the complaint
deserved admission for its disposal on merits after giving notice to the
respondents (opposite party).
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that
since the impugned order contains reasons for the dismissa l of the
complaint and hence the impugned order does not call for any interference.
8. We do not agree with this submission. In our view, having regard
to the nature of the dispute raised by the appellant in their complaint, the
same prima facie needed a reply from the respondents and then its
disposal on merits.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents then argued that Section
13 of the Act has undergone amendment w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Learned
counsel pointed out that earlier Section 13 had the words “procedure on
receipt of complaint”. However, after 15.03.2003, in place of t hese
words, the words “on admission of a complaint” were substituted.
10. It was, therefore, his submission that the Commission has
now the jurisdiction to dismiss the compliant in limine and decline its
admission without notice to the respondents (opposite party).
977
11. There is no dispute with the legal proposition urged by the
learned counsel for the respondents in the light of amendment made in
Section 13 of the Act.
12. In other words, the Commission does have the jurisdiction to
dismiss the complaint in limine and decline its admission without notice
to the opposite party. However, such jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint
in limine has to be exercised by the Commission having regard to facts
of each case, i.e., in appropriate case.
13. As held above, the facts of the case at hand do not appear to
be of the nature, which deserved the dismissal of the appellant’s complaint
in limine .
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set
aside the impugned order, admit the appellant’s complaint under Section
13 of the Act and grant one month’s time to the respondents to file their
reply to the complaint to enable the Commission to decide the complaint
on its merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations
made in the impugned order as also in this order.
15. Indeed, having formed an opinion to remand the case in the
light of our observation made supra, we did not consider it apposite to
set out the facts in detail and nor consider it appropriat e to make any
observations on factual aspects else it would cause prejudice to the parties
while prosecuting their case before the Commission on merits.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
M/S ANJANEYA JEWELLERY v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO.LTD. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]