Consumer Complaint Maintainability: Supreme Court Allows Second Complaint After Dismissal for Default

The case of Indian Machinery Company v. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. revolved around an important legal question: whether a second complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable if the first complaint was dismissed for default or non-prosecution. The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, ruled that a second complaint is permissible under certain conditions.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Indian Machinery Company, had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, but it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant then filed a second complaint on the same cause of action, which the National Commission held as not maintainable. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments by the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued that there is no explicit legal prohibition against filing a second complaint if the first one was dismissed for default.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan [(2000) 3 SCC 242], which permitted a second complaint in similar circumstances.
• The petitioner contended that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not have any provision akin to Order IX Rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, which bars the refiling of a suit on the same cause of action after dismissal for default.

Key Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents contended that allowing a second complaint would lead to misuse of legal provisions and unnecessary litigation.
• They argued that once a complaint is dismissed, it should not be entertained again unless set aside by an appellate authority.
• The National Commission’s order barring a second complaint was justified to prevent multiple litigations on the same issue.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, examined the arguments and legal provisions in depth. The key observations were:

• The Court referred to its ruling in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan case, which clearly allowed a second consumer complaint if the first one was dismissed for default.
• It noted that the Consumer Protection Rules do not contain a provision similar to Order IX Rule 9(1) of the CPC, which prohibits refiling of a suit after dismissal for default.
• The judgment stated: “These Rules do not provide that if a complaint is dismissed in default by the District Forum under Rule 4(8) or by the State Commission under Rule 8(8) of the Rules, a second complaint would not lie.”
• Since the first complaint was not dismissed on merits but only for non-prosecution, the Court held that filing a second complaint was legally permissible.
• Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the National Commission and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces consumer rights by ensuring that procedural lapses do not prevent justice. It establishes that if a complaint is dismissed for default rather than on merits, consumers have the right to refile it, provided they offer a valid explanation.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Indian Machinery Com vs MS Ansal Housing & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-01-2016.pdf