AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
A consumer complaint against the petitioners was instituted by the respondents. Vide its order dated 03.02.2017, the State Commission noted the objections of the petitioners that the complaint was not maintainable since the complainants had no permission from the court as provided under section 12 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The contention was rejected with the following order:
" There is no merit in the above contention. It is not stated in Section 12 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, when the permission has to be obtained. It can be granted at any time. Further, the complainant association is a registered association as seen from the certificate of registration produced by the complainant. Therefore, petition is allowed permission is being granted for the complainants to file the complaint in their representative capacity".
The order dated 03.02.107 was not challenged by the petitioner before this Commission.
The petitioner filed an application being IA no. 365 of 2017 challenging the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2019 which to the extent relevant reads as under:
" We notice that, as per order dated 03.02.2017 in IA no.352 of 2017 passed in this case, the above aspect has been decided by this Commission and permission has been granted to the complainant to pursue the complaint in representative capacity. In the above circumstances we do not find any grounds to reconsider the question again. This petition is dismissed."
The above referred order dated 11.06.2019 was also not challenged before this Commission.
The petitioner then filed an IA no. 579 of 2019 disputing the maintainability of the complaint. This complaint was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2019 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"This petition has been filed by opposite parties raising the question of maintainability of the complaint, and requesting that the question be heard as a preliminary issue. We notice that a similar petition filed in this case has been disposed of by the Commission on an earlier occasion. Another petition filed raising the very same question has also been dismissed. It, therefore, that this present petition is filed. We are not satisfied that the question requires to be reconsidered. This Commission has already found that the complainant is maintainable, as per the earlier order. Therefore, this petition is dismissed".
The consumer complaint instituted against the petitioner is still pending before the State Commission. The State Commission way back on 03.02.2017 took the view that the complaint was maintainable. The said order, however, was not challenged before this Commission. Instead of challenging the said order before the State Commission, the petitioner filed an IA no.365 of 2017 seeking dismissal of the complaint. The said application was dismissed by the State Commission by referring to the earlier order dated 03.02.2017. Even the order dated 11.06.2019 before this Commission was not challenged rather, a new application being IA no.579 of 2019 was filed seeking dismissal of the complaint.
In my view, the maintainability of the complaint need not be examined by this Commission at this stage, considering the fact that the order dated 03.02.2017 passed more than 2 ½ years ago was not challenged before this Commission and the petitioner will get an opportunity to agitate this plea before this Commission, in case the consumer complaint is ultimately allowed and the order was passed by the State Commission as challenged before this Commission. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with liberty to the appellant to raise the issue of maintainability of the complaint before this Commission, if the consumer complaint is ultimately allowed and the order allowing the consumer complaint is challenged by this Commission by way of an appeal.