IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that even if a party fails to file their version within the statutory time frame, as long as they continue to represent their case in any manner, they cannot be subjected to an ex-parte order under Section 38(3)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. I am considering these two writ petitions together because, though not involving the same parties, they impel identical issues for forensic consideration.

2. The short question involved in these cases is whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (‘District Commissions’ for short) can set opposite parties ‘ex-parte’ and then proceed to dispose of the complaint in their absence, refusing them permission even to participate in the proceedings.

3. The controversy in these cases has its genesis in the fact that the opposite parties, namely the petitioners herein, did not file their counter pleadings within the statutorily stipulated time, thus forfeiting their right to do so; but the ‘District Commissions’ then went on to pass impugned orders, setting them ex-parte, so as to mean that they will not be permitted to participate in the proceedings thereafter, including to cross-examine the witnesses.

4. The petitioners assert that the impugned proceedings are illegal and unlawful because, it is beyond the statutory Scheme, for the ‘District Commissions’ to keep parties away from the proceedings, solely for the reason that they did not file their counter pleadings within the statutorily fixed time.

5. Sri. V. Krishna Menon - learned counsel for the petitioners in both these cases, relied upon various judgments of this Court, as that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and in particular, the order dated 04.09.2023 in Civil Appeal Diary No. 31182/2023 between ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. Hara Prasad Ghosh, to argue that, even though the ‘District Commissions’ may be authorized, under the statutory matrix, not to permit an opposite party to file their counter pleadings if it had not been done within the statutory time frame fixed, it does not vest them with any competence to set them ‘ex-parte’ so as to then deny them opportunity to participate in further proceedings, including for cross-examination of witnesses. He thus reiterated that the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions, to the extent to which the Commissions have set the petitioners ‘ex-parte’ be declared to be illegal and unlawful, especially when they obtain no such power under any of the applicable Statutes and Regulations.

6. Sri. P.M. Satheesh - learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 28138/2023, however, opposed the afore contentions of the petitioners, saying that, when they have not filed their counter pleadings, it can only be presumed that they have nothing to offer in opposition to the claim and hence that their further participation in the proceedings, including to cross-examine the witnesses, becomes untenable and redundant.

7. Sri. P.M. Satheesh then added that the petitioners could not have approached this Court through these Writ Petitions because, their proper remedy is to move the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’ for short) by way of a statutory appeal against the impugned orders. He thus prayed that these Writ Petitions be dismissed.

8. I have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the various materials produced on record.

9. Upfront, it is indubitable that this Court will have to first answer the submissions of Sri. P.M. Satheesh that, these Writ Petitions are not maintainable because the proper remedy of the petitioner, at least in W.P. (C) No. 28138/2023, is to approach the ‘State Commission’ through a statutory appeal.

10. That said, it is pertinent that, in the case of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29387/2023, they did invoke their alternative statutory remedy by filing a Revision, numbered R.P. No. 43/2023, which ended in Ext.P6 produced therewith, whereby, the ‘State Commission’ held that the ‘District Commission’ was justified declining to permit the petitioner therein to take part in the proceedings by filing their version. The opinion of the ‘State Commission’ is, therefore, that, if a party does not file a counter version within