Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 26

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
M/s. Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondent
NC/TA/7/2025 | NC/IA/14062/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate, Mr. Sahil Paul, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Dayal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kishore, Advocate

Due process mandates notice to parties before dismissal based on jurisdiction; a valid complaint deserves opportunity for resolution on merits, aligning with legislative intent under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 34 and 47 - Complaint dismissed in limine by State Commission for want of jurisdiction - Issues of unfair contract and due process discussed - Court held that a valid conclusion on merits requires notice to the respondent unique to jurisdictional facts without the distinction of pecuniary limits at dismissal. Observations made on consent letter expunged - Complainant granted liberty to approach appropriate forum. (Paras 14-20)

(B) Jurisdiction - Pecuniary jurisdiction criteria established and acknowledged - There was no legal basis for summary dismissal without notice as contrary to the proceedings and practices of adequate consumer protections under law. Dismissal of the complaint should not reflect upon merits or complexities when jurisdictional ambiguity arises. (Paras 10-19)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, having paid insurance premiums but suffered flooding damage, was denied a claim. Complaint dismissed without hearing respondents. New complaint filed not promptly disclosed, evidencing procedural complications contributing to ongoing legal hardships.

Findings of Court:
State Commission was maintained on pecuniary jurisdiction; dismissal in limine affirmed but predicated on expunging the statutory remarks while adhering strictly to correct jurisdictional determinations across consumer protection principles and matters. Resultantly, entitlement to refile at an appropriate District Commission as confirmed by legislative dictates over jurisdictional limits found.

Issues: Jurisdictional limits of Consumer Protection Act examined in conjunction with fairness in legal proceedings - Dismissal of case addressing a valid complaint without notice; implications of consent agreements and procedural legitimacy challenged.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the necessity of adhering to due process prior to dismissing complaints, asserting jurisdictional competence should extend before restriction, ensuring judicious access to redressal mechanisms for consumers ensues appropriately without undue prejudgment. Any adverse remarks made under incorrect assumptions must be corrected.

Result: Appeal allowed; complaint admissible before the appropriate forum.

Table of Content
1. details of the insurance complaint process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding the dismissal in limine. (Para 7)
3. issues related to the consent letter and jurisdiction. (Para 8)

ORDER

1. This is a Transfer Application that has been moved in very peculiar circumstances. We have noted facts extensively in our order dated 08.12.2025 which is extracted hereinunder:

1. The applicant is a complainant, who aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim on 30.03.2021 by the OP National Insurance Company, filed CC No. 16 of 2021 before the State Commission of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The State Commission dismissed the complaint vide an order dated 02.07.2021 without issuing notice to the respondent on the ground of want of jurisdiction, but while dismissing the complaint, the State Commission made certain observations regarding the consent letter dated 19.11.2019.

2. It may be pointed out that the complaint had been filed on the ground of the terms of the policy being an unfair contract but it was not entertained by the State Commission due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. As a consequence of the said order, the complainant had to approach the District Commission, but instead it challenged the order dated 02.07.2021 before this Commission in First Appeal No. 879 of 2021.

4. While the appeal was pending, the applicant complainant seems to have been advised to file a complaint afresh and accordingly CC No. 89 of 2022 was filed before the DCDRC, UT, Chandigarh. The complaint was admitted on 07.02.2022 and the following was passed:

"Heard. Be registered. Admit. Notice be issued to OP(s) through registered A.D Cover for 20.05.2022.‖"

5. On issuance of notice, the matter proceeded and replies were filed as well as evidence was also exchanged. The Miscellaneous Applications were also filed on which dates were fixed. The OP-2 in the complaint namely the Regional Manager of National Insurance Company at Ludhiana did not file any written statement, as a result whereof its right to file a WS was struck off on 29.11.2022 and then the matter proceeded for miscellaneous hearings on the applications that were pending. The OPs namely the Insurance Company had taken a plea of the maintainability of the complaint and prayed for dismissal thereof. On 29.05.2023, orders were passed by the District Commission that the miscellaneous applications would be decided along with the main complaint. Opportunity was given to file replications to the written versions filed on behalf of the contesting OPs – 1, 3 and 4 and the case proceeded and was fixed on various dates, when on 06.12.2023 a request was made for filing of written arguments.

6. In between on 17.11.2023, First Appeal No. 879 of 2021 was decided by this Commission. The order is extracted hereinunder:

1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 51 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act‖) against the Order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as ―the State Commission‖), in Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2021, wherein the Complaint filed by the Appellant was dismissed in limine for want of jurisdiction.

2. For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the matter being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. ―M/s. Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.‖ is identified as the Complainant/Appellant. "National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." are referred as the Respondents/Opposite Parties in this matter.

3. There was a delay of 127 days in filing the Appeal. The State Commission passed the impugned order on 02.07.2021. While the period for filing Appeal lapsed on 31.07.2021, the present Appeal was filed on 06.12.2021. In adherence to orders of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court‘s Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation the present Appeal is treated as having been filed within limit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 26

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONA.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, MemberM/s. Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusNational Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – RespondentNC/TA/7/2025 | NC/IA/14062/2025

Due process mandates notice to parties before dismissal based on jurisdiction; a valid complaint deserves opportunity for resolution on merits, aligning with legislative intent under the Consumer Protection Act.

Cases Referred (1)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
M/s. Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondent
NC/TA/7/2025 | NC/IA/14062/2025