Asha, J.

1. The issue raised in both these Writ Appeals, at the time of hearing, is regarding competence of single Member to decide disputes before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of the State (hereinafter referred to as `State Commission'). Since we are only called upon to decide the legal issue involved with respect to the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Rules, 1998 and the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act', `the Rules' and `the Regulations' respectively for short), we are not referring to the factual background arising in these cases. The appellants herein were respondents in a complaint and in an appeal respectively before the State Commission.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in W.A.No.488 of 2013 considering the various provisions contained in the Act, Rules and Regulations, and upheld the competence/jurisdiction of single Member to decide the complaints/appeals/proceedings before the State Commission.

3. We have considered W.A.No.25 of 2014 along with W.A.No.488 of 2013 on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the only issue raised is relating to the jurisdiction/competence of the single Member of the Commission. In this context we notice that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in W.A.No.25 of 2014 was disposed of, reserving his liberty to approach the National Tribunal. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of single Member is not seen considered in the judgment. It is seen that contentions regarding the jurisdiction of the Commission was raised in grounds B, C, G and H of the Writ Petition and in grounds C to H of the Appeal.

4. We heard Sri Devan Ramachandran and Sri R.Ramadas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.488 of 2013 and 25 of 2014 respectively, Sri P.Padmalayan, the learned Senior Government Pleader as well as Smt.Preetha Anil Ravindran and Sri P.T.Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. In order to consider the issue raised by the appellants, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions occurring in the Act, Rules and Regulations.

5. Section 2(e) of the Act defines “Consumer Dispute” as a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. The “complaint” is defined under Section 2(c) as any allegation in writing made by a complainant. The definition of a “Member” is given under Section 2(jj) is as follows:

“(jj): `Member' includes the President and a member of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as case may be.” “State Commission” is defined under Section 2(p) as “State Commission means Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established in a State under clause (b) of Section 9.”

Relevant portion of Section 9(b) reads as follows:

“9: Establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies:- There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, the following agencies, namely:-

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(b): A Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the “State Commission” established by the State Government in the State by Notification;

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Section 16 provides for the composition of the State Commission, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“16. Composition of State Commission:-- (1) Each State Commission shall consist of ;

(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President;

[Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court;]

(b) not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely:--

(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age; ii) pos