Jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine has to be exercised by the Commission on having regard to the fact of each case. However, it also applies to in the appropriate case.

The Supreme Court had observed that the Consumer forums has the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine and to decline the admission of it without notice to the opposite party.

The bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, taking note of the amendment which is brought to the Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, observing that the jurisdiction has to dismiss the complaint in limine which is exercised by the commission having regard to the facts of each suit.

In Anjaneya Jewellery V. News India Assurance Co. Ltd., it was held that the question for consideration was whether the national Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was justified in dismissing a complaint in limine. The Presiding Member of the Commission had already dismissed the Anjaneya Jewellery’s complaint.

 

On bringing it to the notice of the bench that the provision of Section 13 of the Act has undergone a change in the amendment of w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Earlier, it had the words containing “Procedure on receipt of the complaint” which were substituted.

In this regard the Court of Law observed that: There is no dispute with the legal proposition which is urged by the learned counsel for the respondents which in the light of amendment were made in section 13 of the Act. In other words, the commission does not have the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine and to decline the 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 the facts of each case. On instance, the complaint does not appear to be of nature which deserved the dismiss of the limine.

Stating the view with regard to the nature of the dispute which is raised by the appellant in their complaint, the same prima facie has to be replied by the respondents and on the disposal of its merits.

The bench then remanded the case back to the commission of consumer protection

LEGAL NEWS WRITER- VIJAYLAKSHMI RAJU.

Categories: News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!