- (1.) THE National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for brevity, 'the National Commission') disposed of the complaint filed by the appellant by the following order: "Having considered all aspects of the case, we are of the view that the Complainant's remedy lies in a Civil Court. This is not a dispute which can be decided by this Commission. Hence, the Original Petition is dismissed."
(2.) THE appellant filed a complaint on 18th November, 1995 before the National Commission seeking direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 55,71,687.68p. as compensation including the price of the goods with interest, and cost of litigation on account of deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. The respondents resisted the complaint raising various grounds, including that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; the appellant is not a consumer; having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, the National Commission could not expeditiously dispose of the complaint; and that the claim made by the complainant is untenable. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the appellant has got a good case on merits and the dispute could be decided without requiring much evidence inasmuch as the dispute could be examined and decided on the correspondence made between the parties and the documents. The Learned counsel also submitted that between the same parties on similar controversy, a subsequent complaint filed in the year 1996 was entertained in Original Petition No. 121 of 1996. Further, the National Commission did not record reasons in the impugned order to say as to why that dispute could not be decided by the National Commission and for what reasons, the appellant should be driven to civil court.
(3.) IN opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, though the impugned order is not an elaborate one, it certainly indicates that having regard to the nature of the dispute, the National Commission felt that this dispute could be properly decided by the civil court and it is not a dispute which could be decided by it. He added that when the appellant is not a consumer, examining the other contentions raised by the complainant may not arise. Merely because the National Commission has not given elaborate reasons, that itself may not be a good ground to disturb the order, if otherwise that order can be supported and sustained. The learned counsel made few more submissions touching the merits of the contentions behalf.;