Tribunals and Commissions(2000) 10 NCDRC CK 0039

T.V.Subba Rao vs RELIANCE POLYPROPYLENE LTD.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 13 October 2000 · Citation: 2001 1 CPJ 173

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S.Janarthanam , Banumathi Baskaran J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 229 words
1.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 11th day of October, 1996 in O.P. No. 203/95 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).

2.

THE appellants are the complainants while the respondents are the opposite parties. The Forum below dismissed the complaint in O.P. 203/95 by order dated 11.10.1996 for want of taking steps. This sort of an order of the Forum below is obviously an erroneous one requiring the same to be set aside. In consumer actions/litigation, the National Commission had categorically laid down that notice to the opposite parties must have to be served by the Fora constituted under the Act by themselves incurring such expenditure from the Contingent Fund available at their disposal and not to insist the complainants to incur any expenditure on process. The Forum below without paying heed to a direction of the National Commission on such aspect of the matter dismissed the complaint simply on the ground that steps have not been taken by the complainant and that sort of an order cannot at all be allowed to stand. We, therefore, set aside the order.

In fine, the appeal is allowed; the order of the Forum below is set aside; and the Forum below is directed to take the complaint on file and dispose of it afresh according to the law. No costs. Appeal allowed.