Consumer Commission cannot dismiss a complaint at the threshold [Read the SC Order]

Supreme Court has held that Consumer Commission cannot dismiss a complaint at the threshold and whether the complaint is a consumer or not should be decided only after considering objections.

Order was passed by a bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Rastogi in A K NAZAR & ANR vs THE FEDERAL BANK LTD & ORS on 02.03.2020.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the appellants by its judgment dated 10 October 2017. The claim in the consumer complaint was against Federal Bank Limited and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance in the amount of Rs 1,05,00,000 on which interest was claimed. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint at the threshold, without issuing notice to the respondents on the ground, that as against the bank, the appellants were not consumers under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 19862 and that as against the insurer, the claim has been submitted beyond the period of 15 days spelt out in General Condition 6(1) of the insurance policy.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it set aside the order while observing:

"We find merit in the aforesaid submission. In the complaint, it has been pleaded that the complainants were running the said printing press for earning their livelihood by means of self-employment. Complainant no 1 was employed abroad and the business was being conducted through Complainant no 2, and the intention of the first complainant was to come back to India and join the day to day affairs of the business.

The issue as to whether the appellants are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the 1986 Act could not have been decided in the manner in which it was decided, at the very threshold, by the NCDRC without issuing a notice to the respondents. Merely because the first appellant is stationed abroad cannot be regarded as a conclusive circumstance. Whether or not the appellants are consumers is a matter which has to be decided after the objections, if any, raised on behalf of the respondents are considered. Moreover, even as against the insurer, proper notice ought to have been issued and an opportunity should have been granted to the insurer to file his written statement. We, accordingly, hold that the dismissal of the complaint at the threshold without issuing notice to the respondents was not proper".

Read the Order here: