2000 (2) TMI 838 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a second complaint after the dismissal of the first complaint for default.
2. Applicability of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
3. Powers of the District Forum and State Commission in dismissing complaints for default and entertaining fresh complaints.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of a Second Complaint:
The primary issue raised was whether a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action would lie after the first complaint was dismissed for default and not restored. The appellant contended that the second complaint should be dismissed as not maintainable due to the dismissal of the first complaint and the rejection of the restoration application. The respondent argued that the second complaint was maintainable as it was filed against different parties (Divisional Manager and Regional Manager instead of the Branch Manager) and that the rule of prohibition in Order 9 Rule 9 CPC does not apply to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Applicability of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC:
The Court examined whether the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, which prohibits filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action after dismissal for default, apply to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court noted that the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is applied to consumer protection proceedings only to a limited extent, specifically enumerated in Section 13(4) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the Legislature did not intend to apply the rule of prohibition in Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to consumer protection proceedings, as it was not explicitly provided in the Act.

3. Powers of the District Forum and State Commission:
The Court highlighted that the District Forum and State Commission have the inherent power to dismiss complaints for default and to restore them upon showing good cause for non-appearance. The relevant rules (Sub-rule (8) of Rule 4 and Sub-rule (8) of Rule 8) allow the dismissal of complaints for default or deciding them on merits. The Court also acknowledged the potential for abuse of process if complainants repeatedly file and dismiss complaints to harass the opposite party. In such cases, the authorities can invoke the principles of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to prevent abuse.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the second complaint was maintainable as the rule of prohibition in Order 9 Rule 9 CPC does not apply to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are intended to serve the ends of justice and not to defeat it. Since the respondent's claim was not disputed on merits and the claim amount had already been paid, the Court found no merit in the appellant's contention and dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.