As per case facts, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company for vehicle damage, but the complaint was dismissed for default. An application for restoration was also ... rejected. Subsequently, the respondent filed a fresh complaint for the same cause of action with a different forum. The appellant contested, arguing that the fresh complaint was not maintainable due to the dismissal of the previous complaint and the non-restoration application. The question arose whether a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, given that the first complaint was dismissed for default and its restoration was denied, and whether Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC applies to Consumer Protection Act proceedings. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC do not automatically apply to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, as the Act's rules do not contain a similar prohibition against filing a second complaint after a default dismissal. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure serve the ends of justice and should not defeat it on technicalities, especially when the merits of the claim are not disputed and the respondent suffered a covered loss. While acknowledging the potential for harassment through repeated filings, the Court found no merit in the appellant's contention in this specific case, as the claim was not challenged on merits, and dismissed the appeal.