C. S. DIAS
Suresh Nathan – Appellant
Versus
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner had filed C.C. No.102/2019 (Ext.P1 complaint) and C.C.No.103/2019 before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘Commission’, for brevity) on 5.8.2019, against the respondents 2 to 6. Respondents 2 to 6 had entered appearance in the two complaints and filed their versions. The complaints were posted together on 8.4.2020. On the said day, the complaints were adjourned to 04.06.2024. On 04.06.2024, the Commission adjourned Ext.P1 complaint to 17.10.2024. However, on the said posting date, by Ext.P3 order, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. Immediately, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘Act’, for short) to review Ext.P3 order. But, by Ext.P5 order, the Commission dismissed Ext.P4 review petition. Exts.P3 and P5 are illegal and erroneous. Hence, the writ petition.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6.
3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 20.1.2025, this Court had called for the proceedings sheet of Ext.P1 complaint from the Commission, which was transmitted to this Court.
4. On a pe
The State Commission must decide consumer complaints on merits, even if the complainant fails to appear, and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution.
Adjudication of consumer complaint – State Commission is not empowered to dismiss complaint for default or non-prosecution, but is obliged to decide complaint on its merits.
Adjudication of consumer complaint – State Commission is not empowered to dismiss complaint for default or non-prosecution, but is obliged to decide complaint on its merits.
The State Commission cannot dismiss a complaint for non-appearance without deciding on merits as mandated by law.
“Since appellant found to has not interested in prosecuting the appeal, the same had rightly been dismissed.”
Jurisdiction of State Commission - State Commission shall have jurisdiction to interfere when it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested ....
The inherent power of the State Commission allows it to stay execution of orders, despite the absence of explicit provisions in the Consumer Protection Acts, provided statutory conditions are met.
Timely disposal of consumer dispute cases is essential for ensuring fair justice in compliance with procedural timelines.
Mandatory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act for filing responses are rigid, and courts cannot extend them beyond stipulated periods.
A writ petition is not maintainable against the State Commission's orders when alternative statutory remedies are available under the Consumer Protection Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.