Prestige HM-Polycontainers Ltd. Vs. American President Lines Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4916 of 2000
Petitioner: Prestige HM-Polycontainers Ltd.
Respondent: American President Lines Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4916 of 2000
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 09, 2001
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 23 – Appeal – National Commission dismissing complaint as outcome of proceedings in foreign court, not intimated – Communi-cation gap – Requisite information supplied and made part of the record. Held, requisite information not relevant. Order not on merit. Order set aside and
remitted for decision on merits. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
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 commu-nication 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.
4. From the order under challenge, it is clear that the Commission has not considered the case on merits. It is also not stated in the order how the information regarding outcome of the decision of the foreign court is relevant for adjudication of the dispute raised in the case. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the matter should be decided on merit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed on 5th July 2000 in Original Petition No. 279 of 1992 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for disposal in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
5. Since the matter was delayed before the Commission on account of the default committed by the appellant in furnishing the requisite information, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) as costs to the respondent no. 1.
6. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 says that the said amount may be paid to the Fund set up by the High Court of Gujarat for providing relief to the victims of the recent earthquake in the State.
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 commu-nication 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.
4. From the order under challenge, it is clear that the Commission has not considered the case on merits. It is also not stated in the order how the information regarding outcome of the decision of the foreign court is relevant for adjudication of the dispute raised in the case. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the matter should be decided on merit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed on 5th July 2000 in Original Petition No. 279 of 1992 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for disposal in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
5. Since the matter was delayed before the Commission on account of the default committed by the appellant in furnishing the requisite information, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) as costs to the respondent no. 1.
6. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 says that the said amount may be paid to the Fund set up by the High Court of Gujarat for providing relief to the victims of the recent earthquake in the State.
