Anjaneya Jewellery vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

M/s Anjaneya Jewellery ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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

Signature Not Verified complaint filed by the appellant herein. Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH

2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for Date: 2019.03.07 17:29:16 IST Reason:

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