Summary
The Supreme Court admitted a consumer complaint dismissed at the threshold and remitted it for a decision after reply. The Commission retained power to reject an appropriate complaint without notice, but the nature of this dispute required the opposite parties’ response and merits consideration.
Issues
- Whether this complaint warranted dismissal without notice despite the Commission’s admission-stage jurisdiction.
Provisions considered
- Section 13, as amended from 15 March 2003, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The Commission could decline admission in appropriate cases, but that power had to be exercised on the particular facts. Here the complaint was admitted and reply directed. (¶ 9–14)
Held
- The amended procedure did permit dismissal in limine without notice. That jurisdiction was case-dependent; the dispute raised here prima facie required a reply and consideration on merits. (¶ 5–13)
- Neither the impugned reasoning nor the remand order was to influence merits disposal. The Court deliberately refrained from detailed factual observations to avoid prejudice. (¶ 14–15)
Result
Appeal allowed; dismissal set aside and complaint admitted. Respondents given one month to reply; National Commission to decide merits according to law uninfluenced by the earlier order or this judgment.