w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mohini Wheat Products v/s Nalanda Agro Works & Others

    First Appeal No. 338 of 1995

    Decided On, 06 December 1996

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI
    By, PRESIDENT; MR. JUSTICE S.S. CHADHA
    By, MR. JUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY & MR. S.P. BAGLA
    By, MEMBERS

    For the Appellant: Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, K.S. Katari, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President?The complainant in the Complaint No. 109/92 on the file of the State Commission, Patna, is the Appellant before us. It is unnecessary for us to set out the details of the allegations contained in the complaint and the objections raised by the opposite parties in defence to the said complaint because the merits of the complaint/petition have not been gone into by the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that a suit had been filed by tine complainant before the Subordinate Judge-I (Munger) wherein identical reliefs had been claimed against the opposite party by the complainant and since it was not desirable to have concurrent adjudication of the same issues by the State Commission when the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court the complaint was not maintainable. It is now submitted before us by the Counsel for the Appellant that while it is true that a plaint has been filed by the complainant before the Subordinate Judge-I Munger, it had not been numbered and taken on file for the reason that the requisite Court fee had not been remitted by the plaintiff (complainant herein) and the said plaint was rejected subsequently for non-payment of the Court fee by an order of the Subordinate Judge dated 27.4.95. A certified copy of the said order rejecting the plaint has been produced before u s by the Appellant.


2. In the light of the aforesaid development, the sole ground stated by the State Commission for dismissing the complaint no longer holds good. It is, therefore, necessary in the interests of justice to remand the case to the State Commission for adjudication of the case on the merits, after affording a full and fair opportunity to both sides to place their evidence as well as urge all their contentions before it.


3. The order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside and the complaint/petition is remanded to the State Commission as indicated above. The parties shall appear before the State Commission, Patna on 27

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

th January, 1997 for taking orders from the State Commission as to the date on which it would find convenient to deal with the case afresh. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties will bear their own costs.
O R