Summary
Where consumers specifically applied for permission to bring a joint complaint and the National Commission heard that application, admitted the case and issued notice, permission was inherent in the admission order despite the absence of express words granting it. The Supreme Court set aside the later rejection of that application and consequent dismissal of the complaint, and remitted the case for decision on its merits.
Issues
- Whether permission for a joint consumer complaint was implicit in the admission order made after hearing the specific permission application.
Held
- In the particular procedural setting, admission and issuance of notice after hearing the application under Section 12(1)(c) necessarily incorporated permission to bring the joint complaint. The Commission ought not subsequently to have rejected that application and dismissed the complaint. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Restoration of the complaint required a fresh decision on its merits; the Court did not decide the alleged deficiency in service or award substantive consumer relief. (¶ 4)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside. Matter remitted to the National Commission to consider afresh and dispose of the complaint on its own merits.