J U D G M E N T

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