- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. By the order passed on 18th September, 2000 in this case, notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why the matter should not be remanded to the National Commission for considering the question of liability of the carrier of goods by sea (respondents herein) , as distinct from liability of the buyers.
(2.) This appeal filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 5th July, 2000 of the national Consumer Disputes Redressal commission (for short 'the Commission') , dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to inform the Commission about the outcome of the decision of the foreign court before which certain dispute was pending. The order, which is a short one, reads : "It has been stated on behalf of the complainant that they are unable to inform about the outcome of the decision of the foreign Court about the dispute. The counsel for the complainant was specifically asked this question on the various dates of hearing. It has been informed by the Counsel appearing for the complainant that their client is not in touch with them. In that view of the matter, the complaint is dismissed. "
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that due to a communication gap between the appellant and its Counsel, the requisite information could not be placed before the commission when the case was taken up. He further submits that in the meantime, the requisite information has been received and indeed it is a part of the record in this case.;