Supreme Court of India
M/S ANJANEYA JEWELLERY versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS. on 7 March 2019
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 975
M/S ANJANEYA JEWELLERY
v.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6878 of 2018)
MARCH 07, 2019[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDDINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
s.13 – Dismissal of complaint in limine by the NationalCommission – Justification – Held: Although Commission has thejurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine and decline itsadmission without notice to the opposite party, however, suchjurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine has to be exercised bythe Commission having regard to facts of each case, i.e., inappropriate case – In the instant case, the facts do not deserve thedismissal of the appellant’s complaint in limine and, therefore, theimpugned order is set aside – Appellant’s complaint is admitted unders.13 of the Act and one month’s time is granted to the respondentsto file their reply to the complaint to enable the Commission to decidethe complaint on its merits in accordance with law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6878of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2018 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in ConsumerCase No. 1094 of 2018.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Bhabna Das, Krishna DevJagarlamudi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Salil Paul, Sahil Paul, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Advs. for theRespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated22.05.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”)
975
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Ain Consumer Case No.1094 of 2018 whereby the Presiding Member ofthe 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 Commissiondismissed the appellant’s complaint in limine. It is against this order, thecomplainant has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the ConsumerProtection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
B
4. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in thisappeal, is whether the Commission was justified in dismissing theCappellant’s complaint in limine.
5. We have perused the appellant’s complaint so also the impugnedorder which resulted in its dismissal. Having gone through the same, weare of the considered opinion that notice of the complaint should havebeen issued to the respondent for being tried on merits.
D
6. In other words, we are of the view that the complaint filed bythe appellant did not deserve its dismissal in “limine” but the complaintdeserved admission for its disposal on merits after giving notice to therespondents (opposite party).
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued thatEsince the impugned order contains reasons for the dismissal of thecomplaint and hence the impugned order does not call for any interference.
8. We do not agree with this submission. In our view, having regardto the nature of the dispute raised by the appellant in their complaint, thesame prima facie needed a reply from the respondents and then itsFdisposal on merits.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents then argued that Section13 of the Act has undergone amendment w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Learnedcounsel pointed out that earlier Section 13 had the words “procedure onreceipt of complaint”. However, after 15.03.2003, in place of theseGwords, the words “on admission of a complaint” were substituted.
10. It was, therefore, his submission that the Commission hasnow the jurisdiction to dismiss the compliant in limine and decline itsadmission without notice to the respondents (opposite party).
H
11. There is no dispute with the legal proposition urged by thelearned counsel for the respondents in the light of amendment made inSection 13 of the Act.
12. In other words, the Commission does have the jurisdiction todismiss the complaint in limine and decline its admission without noticeto the opposite party. However, such jurisdiction to dismiss the complaintin 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 tobe of the nature, which deserved the dismissal of the appellant’s complaintin limine.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, setaside the impugned order, admit the appellant’s complaint under Section13 of the Act and grant one month’s time to the respondents to file theirreply to the complaint to enable the Commission to decide the complainton its merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observationsmade in the impugned order as also in this order.
15. Indeed, having formed an opinion to remand the case in thelight of our observation made supra, we did not consider it apposite toset out the facts in detail and nor consider it appropriate to make anyobservations on factual aspects else it would cause prejudice to the partieswhile prosecuting their case before the Commission on merits.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H