Supreme Court clarifies the power of the National Consumer Commission to dismiss complaints in limine: M/s Anjaneya Jewellery vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (07 March 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 07 March 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 202
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismiss a consumer complaint right away without even hearing the other side? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this important question in a case involving a jewelry business and an insurance company. The Court clarified that while the NCDRC has the power to dismiss complaints at the initial stage, it should only do so in appropriate cases, and not as a routine practice. This judgment emphasizes the importance of giving both sides a fair chance to present their case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

M/s Anjaneya Jewellery (the appellant) filed a consumer complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC dismissed the complaint at the initial stage without issuing notice to the other side, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (the respondents). The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against this dismissal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the appellant’s complaint at the initial stage. The Presiding Member of the Commission dismissed the complaint in limine. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court noted that Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended with effect from 15.03.2003. Prior to the amendment, Section 13 used the words “procedure on receipt of complaint.” After the amendment, the words “on admission of a complaint” were substituted. The amended Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 allows the Commission to dismiss a complaint at the admission stage.

The Court observed that the amendment to Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 gives the Commission the power to dismiss a complaint at the initial stage without issuing notice to the opposite party. However, the court clarified that this power should be used carefully and only in appropriate cases.

Arguments

The counsel for the respondents argued that the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the complaint because the impugned order contained reasons for the dismissal. They also pointed out that Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was amended on 15.03.2003. The counsel submitted that the amendment substituted the words “procedure on receipt of complaint” with “on admission of a complaint.” This, they argued, gave the Commission the power to dismiss a complaint at the initial stage without issuing notice to the opposite party.

The counsel for the appellant contended that the complaint should not have been dismissed in limine and deserved to be admitted for disposal on merits after issuing notice to the respondents.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Commission was justified in dismissing the appellant’s complaint in limine.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the amendment made to it with effect from 15.03.2003.

Judgment

The Court held that while the Commission has the jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint in limine, this power should be exercised judiciously, considering the facts of each case.

The Court observed that the facts of the present case did not warrant the dismissal of the complaint in limine.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that consumer complaints are given a fair hearing. The Court emphasized that the power to dismiss complaints at the initial stage should be used sparingly and only in cases where it is clear that the complaint is without merit. The Court was of the view that the complaint deserved to be admitted for disposal on merits after issuing notice to the respondents. The Court wanted to ensure that the consumer has a fair chance to present their case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of natural justice, which requires that both sides be given a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court also noted that the power to dismiss complaints at the initial stage should be used sparingly and only in cases where it is clear that the complaint is without merit. The Court held that in this case, the complaint deserved to be admitted for disposal on merits after issuing notice to the respondents.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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).”

“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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has the power to dismiss consumer complaints at the initial stage.
• This power should be used judiciously and only in appropriate cases.
• Complaints should not be dismissed in limine as a matter of routine.
• Both sides should be given a fair opportunity to present their case.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, admitted the appellant’s complaint under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and granted one month’s time to the respondents to file their reply to the complaint. The Court directed the Commission to decide the complaint on its merits in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that while the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has the power to dismiss complaints at the initial stage, this power should be exercised judiciously and only in appropriate cases. This judgment reinforces the principle that consumer complaints should be given a fair hearing and not dismissed without proper consideration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Anjaneya Jewellery vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. clarifies the scope of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) power to dismiss complaints at the initial stage. While the NCDRC has this power, it should be exercised judiciously and only in appropriate cases. The judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case before the Commission.

Category

• Consumer Law
  • Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  • Section 13, Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  • National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
  • Dismissal of Complaint
  • Consumer Rights
• Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  • Section 13, Consumer Protection Act, 1986

FAQ

Q: Can the National Consumer Commission dismiss a complaint immediately?
A: Yes, the National Consumer Commission has the power to dismiss a complaint at the initial stage, but this power should be used carefully and only when necessary.

Q: What does “dismissal in limine” mean?
A: “Dismissal in limine” means dismissing a case at the very beginning, without a full hearing or considering evidence.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the National Consumer Commission should not have dismissed the complaint immediately and should have given the other party a chance to respond.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment is significant because it ensures that consumer complaints are not dismissed without proper consideration, and both parties have a fair chance to present their case.

Q: What should a consumer do if their complaint is dismissed at the initial stage?
A: A consumer can appeal against the dismissal of their complaint to a higher court, such as the Supreme Court.