Case: M/S ANJANEYA JEWELLERY REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. VENKATA RAO VADLAMUDI Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.3. By impugned order, the Presiding Member of the Commission dismissed the appellants complaint in limine. It is against this order, the complainant has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?).

Reasoning:
5. We have perused the appellant?s complaint so also the impugned order which resulted in its dismissal. Having gone through the same, we are of the considered opinion that notice of the complaint should have been issued to the respondent for being tried on merits.6. In other words, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the appellant did not deserve its dismissal in "limine? but the complaint deserved admission for its disposal on merits after giving notice to the respondents (opposite party).We do not agree with this submission. In our view, having regard to the nature of the dispute raised by the appellant in their complaint, the same prima facie needed a reply from the respondents and then its disposal on merits.There is no dispute with the legal proposition urged by the learned counsel for the respondents in the light of amendment made in Section 13 of the Act.12. In other words, the Commission does have the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine and decline its admission without notice to the opposite party. However, such jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine has to be exercised by the Commission having regard to facts of each case, i.e., in appropriate case.13. As held above, the facts of the case at hand do not appear to be of the nature, which deserved the dismissal of the appellants complaint in limine.