Point of law : Statute cannot exercise power to issue a commission for local inspection in absence of said power as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure being not specifically conferred on it.

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, it has jurisdiction to issue a commission for local inspection. Ext.P6 order is under challenge in writ petition as one passed without jurisdiction.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

3. Placing reliance on sub-section (9) of Section 38 of Act, it was argued by learned counsel for petitioners that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, except those which are specifically mentioned in sub-section (9) are not made applicable to proceedings before Commission and that in terms of said provision, Commission is empowered to issue commissions only for examination of witness or document. It was also argued by learned counsel that had intention of legislature been that Commission should have authority to issue commission for local inspection, same would have certainly been mentioned in sub-section (9) of Section 38. According to learned counsel, insofar as power to issue commission for local inspection has not been conferred on Commission in terms of provisions of Act, order impugned is liable to be treated as one passed without jurisdiction. learned counsel has relied on decisions of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yogendra Builders (M/s.) and Another v. Vidya Paradise Owners' Welfare Association and Another, 2008 KHC 7403 and Sivashakthi Builders, Hyderabad and Another v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and Others, 2009 KHC 6391, in support of said contention.

4. I have examined arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners.

5. short question that falls for consideration is as to whether Commission constituted under Act is empowered to issue commissions for local inspection. Subsection (5) of Section 2 of Act which defines “complainant” reads thus:

(5) "complainant" means—

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for time being in force; or

(iii) Central Government or any State Government; or

(iv) Central Authority; or

(v) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having same interest; or

(vi) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legal representative; or

(vii) in case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian;

Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of Act which defines “complaint” reads thus:

(6) “complaint” means any allegation in writing, made by a complainant for obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act, that—

(i) an unfair contract or unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;

(ii) goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects;

(iii) services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from a