ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The only question that has arisen in this appeal is whether a second complaint to the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default or non- prosecution.

4. The National Commission has taken the view in the impugned order that the second complaint would not be maintainable.

5. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Srinivasan [(2000) 3 SCC 242] wherein this precise question had arisen as mentioned in paragraph 5 of this decision. It is mentioned in that paragraph that the only question is that in view of the dismissal of the first complaint filed by the respondent therein, a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action would not lie and it ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. While dealing with this issue, this Court held in paragraph 16 as follows:-

“This Rule [Rule 9(6) of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Rules, 1988] is in identical terms with sub-rule (8) of Rule 4 and sub-rule (8) of Rule 8. Under this sub-rule, the appeal filed before the State Commissi