LexPUNJ LLOYD LIMITED versus CORPORATE RISKS INDIA PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1'~1 S.C.R. 309 PUNJ LLOYD LIMITED A ... "' v. CORPORATE RISKS INDIA PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No.1026 of 2007) DECEMBER 11, 2008 B [T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] -· -r Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - ss. 21 and 12 - Complaint under - Dismissal in limine - National Commission relegating complainant to approach civil court c before issuing notice to respondent and without prima facie. going into meiits of the case - Grounds for rejection being contentious disputes and questions in the CO!J1plaint - Justification of - Held: Not justified - Decision of Commission was premature - It ought to have issued. notice to respondent o· and placed pleadings on record and then form opinion as to ~- nature and scope of enquiry - Thus, order of Commission set _JI aside. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal is whether the National Consumer Disputes E Redressal Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint in limine without issuing any notice to the !._, respondent and prima facie going into the merits of the case on the ground that the appellant had raised disputed questions and contentions which were beyond the F -. +- purview of the Commission. Allo~ing the appeal and remitting the matter, the Court HELD: 1.1. The decision arrived at by the G Commission is premature. The Commission ought to have issued notice to the respo'ndent .and placed the -._, • " pleadings on record. When pleadings of both the parties • were made available before the Commission, only then 309 H 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • I (2008] 17 S.C.R. A the Commission should have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of enquiry, i.e., whether the facts which arose for decision on the basis of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation of facts which was incapable of being undertaken in a B summary and speedy manner, then only the Commission should have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of relegating the complaint to a civil court. That apart, in view of the admitted fact that the respondent was never served with any notice and not present before the c Commission, therefore, it was not known to the Commission, what would be the defence and contentions of the respondenf and what questions and disputes would really arise th~refrom u~til and unless both sides place their respective cases before the 0 Commission. At that stage 1 , it is difficult for the ComR1ission also to hold whett1er the disputed questions and contentions could not be decided by the Commission and the same must be relegated to the Civil Court. [Para 15] [319-F-H; 320-A-C] E 1.2. Every complaint of the consumer is related to a dispute and wilf raise di~puted questions and contentions .. If there was no dispute, then there would be . I no complaint. From a look at the statements made in the complaint, it would be difficult 1 to say that the complaint F has disclosed complicated questions of fact which cannot be gone into by the Commission and the same can. only be gone into by the Civil C9urt before bringing the respondent on record and asking him to file his defence. Therefore, the ground for r~jection of the complaint G namely, "it arises disputed questions and contentions" was definitely irrelevant. In any', view of the matter, it is not evident from the order of the Commission that it had considered the nature of dis~uted questions of fact for which the complainant should be relegated to the Civil Court for decision. Thus, the Commission was; not H ' .... -t PUNJ LLOYD LIMITED v. CORPORATE RISKS INDIA 311 PVT. LTD. justified in rejecting the complaint merely by stating that A the complicated nature of fact and law did not warrant any decision on its part before even issuing notice to the respondent and directing the filing of his defence, which cannot be said to be decisive. The decision of the Commission is set aside and the complaint is sent back B · to the Commission to be heard afresh. [Paras 15 and 16] (319-F-H; 320-A-F] CCI Chambers Coop. HSG, Soci~ty Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 and Dr. J.J. Merchant and others vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC C 635, Relied on Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Others (2002) 2 SCC 1, Referred to I Case Law Reference: (2002) 2 sec 1 (2003) 1 sec 233 Referred to Relied on Para 10 Para 15 (2002) 6 SCC 6
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.