Fresh consumer complaint maintainable after dismissal for default where no express statutory bar prevents refiling on the same cause of action.

In consumer proceedings, the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to a limited extent, and the specific bar in Order 9 Rule 9 CPC does not extend to complaints under the Consumer Protection Act. Where a complaint is dismissed for default and restoration is refused, the absence of an express statutory prohibition means a fresh complaint on the same cause of action remains maintainable. The principle against abuse of process may be invoked in appropriate cases, but it cannot be used to deny relief merely on a technical objection when the dispute has not been decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second consumer complaint on the same cause of action is barred when the first complaint was dismissed for default and the application for restoration was rejected.

Analysis: The proceedings before the consumer forums are governed only to a limited extent by the Code of Civil Procedure. The specific prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not made applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant consumer rules expressly permitted dismissal for default or decision on merits, but did not create a bar against a fresh complaint after dismissal for non-appearance. A forum may, in appropriate cases, protect itself against harassment and abuse of process, but that principle could not be used to defeat a claim merely on a technical objection where the dispute had not been decided on merits.

Conclusion: A second complaint was maintainable and the technical objection to its maintainability failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory prohibition, the dismissal of a consumer complaint for default does not bar a fresh complaint on the same cause of action, and procedural rules should not be extended so as to defeat substantive justice.

---