Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6878 OF 2018
M/s Anjaneya Jewellery ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
& Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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”) in
Consumer Case No.1094 of 2018 whereby the
Presiding Member of the Commission dismissed the
complaint filed by the appellant herein.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.03.07
17:29:16 IST
Reason:
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for
disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.
1
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 Consumer 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 dismissing 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
2
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 dismissal 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 these words, the words "on
admission of a complaint" were substituted.
3
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).
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
4
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 appropriate to make any
observations on factual aspects else it would cause
prejudice to the parties while prosecuting their case
before the Commission on merits.
…………………………………J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....…..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 07, 2019.
5