Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Ria Thomas Daughter Of Mrs Thomas Markose – Appellant
Versus
Tata Realty And Infrastructure Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
The petitioner is the complainant No.9 in C.C. No.9/21 on the files of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said complaint was filed by the petitioner along with respondents 3 to 13, against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Various reliefs were sought in the said complaint against the respondents 1 and 2.
2. The grievance of the petitioner which necessitated the filing of this writ petition is that, as per Ext.P7 order, the complaint submitted by the petitioner and other complainants, was dismissed for non prosecution, without going into the merits of the contentions. The challenge raised by the petitioner is that, as per the statutory stipulations contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly Section 38(2) (c) read with Section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the State Commission could not have dismissed a complaint for non prosecution and it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to decide the matter on merits, even if the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing. It was in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, impleading other complainants as respondents 3
The State Commission cannot dismiss a complaint for non-appearance without deciding on merits as mandated by law.
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.
A writ petition is not maintainable against the State Commission's orders when alternative statutory remedies are available under the Consumer Protection Act.
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 court held that maintainability and entertainability are distinct concepts, and a constitutional remedy under Article 227 can be pursued despite the availability of an alternative remedy under th....
Statutory remedies under the Consumer Protection Act must be pursued instead of writ petitions, reinforcing the necessity of adherence to procedural requirements, including appeal and deposit of awar....
The main legal point established is that the State Commission does not have the power to restore a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution, as settled by the Apex Court and the provisions of the J&K ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
