M/s Greenseas Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank, (SC) BS895722

M/s Greenseas Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank, (SC) BS895722 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M. Jagannadha Rao and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 12223 of 2000. D/d. 25.09.2000.

M/s Greenseas Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant

Versus

Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank and Ors. - Respondents

For the Appellant:- P.S. Mishra, S. Chandrashekhar, T. Swarupa Reddy, Vishnu Sharma, Upendra Mishra and Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates.

For the Respondents:- Balraj Dewan, Advocate.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Before dismissing claims by dubbing it as non-consumer dispute - A more detailed order referring to contentions and dealing with each of items with regard to which relief was claimed should have been passed - Commission has to give reasons which of those claims falls within provisions of Act and which falls within provisions of Act and which falls outside - Dismissal not proper.

[Para 3]

ORDER

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - We have heard learned senior counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1.

2. A claim was filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by the Appellant claiming US $ 36,638,884 comprising items Nos. 1 to 16 mentioned in the relief portion. This petition was filed by the Appellant before the National Commission in the year 1996. After the matter remained pending for four years, the National Commission has now passed the following order.

"We have heard the case, we are satisfied that it is not consumer dispute. The original petition is dismissed."

3. This is an original petition filed in the National Commission. A more detailed order referring to the contentions and dealing with each of the items with regard to which relief was claimed should have been passed. The Commission has to give reasons as to which of these claims falls within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and which falls outside the Act. Dismissal of the matter, without considering which of the item falls within the Act and which of the items is not within the Act, appears to us to be not correct.

4. We therefore, set aside the order dated 27.4.2000 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Original Petition No. 264 of 1996 and remit the said original petition to the National Commission to deal with each of the claims made by the Appellant and decide whether each of the items comes within the purview of the Act. The Appeal is allowed accordingly and the matter remitted to the National Commission. No costs.