JUDGMENT :

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Petitioners are opposite parties in a consumer complaint filed by respondent before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam. complaint aforesaid is one filed against petitioners alleging deficiency in service in matter of first petitioner selling ceramic floor tiles to respondent. case set out in complaint in essence, is that ceramic floor tiles delivered by first petitioner to respondent were not tiles shown to him and purchased by him. petitioners refuted allegation in complaint in their versions filed in proceedings. In course of proceedings, respondent preferred Ext.P4 application for issuance of a commission for local inspection. petitioners objected to prayer in application mainly on ground that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( Commission) constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( Act) does not have jurisdiction to issue a commission for local inspection. Commission repelled objection of petitioners and allowed Ext.P4 application by Ext.P6 order holding that in light of sub-section (8) of Section 38 of Act