Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
PURAN CHAND WADHWA—Appellant
versus
HANIL ERA TEXTILES LTD.—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2517 of 2001—Decided on 3.4.2001
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21-Revision petition dismissed by National Commission by cryptic order holding that no illegality or jurisdictional error found in order passed by State Commission-Case involved question of jurisdiction of District Forum and State Commission to entertain the matter-National Commission should have decided case on merits-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
On perusal of the records and on consideration of the submissions made by the petitioners, who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the National Commission should have decided the case on merits, since the case involved the question of jurisdiction of the District and State Commission to entertain the matter. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for disposal of the revision petition, R.P. No. 147/2000, on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. No costs.
Leave granted.
1. Petitioner - Puran Chand Wadhwa is present today. We have heard him. We have also heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. By the order passed on 2.1.2001 notice was issued to the respondent to show cause why the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall not be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commission for disposal on merits.
2. The National Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by a cryptic order which reads as follows :
“We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed.”
3. On perusal of the records and on consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner, who appeared in person and the learned Counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the National Commission should have decided the case on merits, since the case involved the question of jurisdiction of the District and State Commission to entertain the matter. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for disposal of the revision petition, R.P. No. 147/2000, on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. No cost.
Appeal allowed.
