The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the limitations on the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters related to the Act.

T. V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the State Commission of this State under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") in Appeal No.503 of 2011. By order dated 24th December, 2013, the State Commission dismissed the appeal by making the following order:

"1. Neither appellant nor their counsel Shri. A. S. Shelke is present. On 05.09.2013 none appeared for appellant, therefore matter was adjourned to 24.12.2013. Today also none appeared for appellant. We have perused the impugned judgment and order, same is just and proper. As nobody appeared for appellant, it seems that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed."

2. In view of the objection taken by the learned counsel for Respondent and reliance placed by him on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as, (Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, (2012) 8 SCC 524), the learned counsel for Petitioner was asked to make out a case on tenability of the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for Petitioner took this Court through the scheme of the Act. He took this Court specifically through the provisions of Sections 17, 19 and 21 of the Act. The part of provision of Section 17 of the Act, which is relevant for the present purpose is Section 17(1)(a) and it is as follows:

"17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. -

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-

(a) to entertain-

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and

(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State;"

4. This provision shows that the State Commission has jurisdiction of two different kinds. First jurisdiction is original, to entertain the complaints of a particular value and second jurisdiction is appellate jurisdiction, which is in respect of orders made by any District Forum within the State. In view of this provision, it needs to be presumed that Appeal No.503 of 2011 was filed before the State Commission under this provision.

5. The provision of Section 19 of the Act with regard to appeal is as follows:

"19. Appeals.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less."

This provision shows that if a person is aggrieved by an order made under sub-clause(i) of clause (a) of Section 17 of the Act, he may prefer appeal before the National Commission against that decision. The provision of Section 17 (1)(a)(i) is quoted and it is in respect of original jurisdiction of the State Commission, which is the complaint involving particular value of the thing involved. Thus, this provision is apparently not in respect of the decision given by the State Forum under Section 17 (1)(a)(ii), decision of the appeal. Here only this Court wants to make it clear that the decision is a decision. Appeal may be decided or disposed of in any manner like decision on merits, dismissal for default or dismissal for non-prosecution. In the present matter, in view of the wording of the order of State Commission already quoted, it can be said that the appeal was dismisse