SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1186

ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Rajeev Hitendra Pathan – Appellant
Versus
Achyut Kashinath Karekar – Respondent


JUDGMENT:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short National Commission) holding that the State Commission has the power to restore the complaint which was dismissed for default. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion the National Commission relied upon the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan (2000 (3) SCC 242).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view contrary to what has been stated in New India Assurances case (supra) has been taken in Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah and Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust (1999 (4) SCC 325). Further, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) was amended in 2003 and by the newly introduced Section 22A, National Commission was given power of restoration but no such power has been conferred on the State Commission.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the National Commission has referred the case to the factual position and, therefore, held that restoration was permissible.

5. In Jyotsanas case (supra) it was observed at para 7 as follows:

"We h



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top