Exparte orders from Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are appealable only to the National Commission, not under Article 227.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the docket order dated 22.01.2025 passed in F.A.Sr.No.2014 of 2024 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai, summarily rejecting the appeal filed by the revision petitioner at the unnumbered stage.

2. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and I have also perused the materials available on record.

3. The order impugned in the present revision is as follows:-

“No representation for appellant. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and for proper compliance or for rejection (finally).

Today when the matter was called at first calling, the appellant was not present, hence, the matter was passed over and called again 2^nd calling also, no representation for the appellant. Hence the matter was kept in pass over till evening 4.30 P.M, still there is no appearance or representation for the appellant. Hence the FASR is rejected.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner/complainant, aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Salem, partly allowing his complaint. He would further contend that, admittedly, the respondents 1 to 4, as well as the dealers/respondents 5 and 6, have already challenged the same order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the appeals are pending. However, as the factum of the order being passed was not brought to the notice of the revision petitioner, there was a delay in filing the appeal, beyond the statutory period of 45 days, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal was therefore filed along with the application for condonation of delay. However, the appeal has been returned for certain compliances and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has granted time to the revision petitioner for complying with the returns and for re-presentation thereafter.

5. Since the said compliances were not made and the appeal papers being not represented and further there being no representation on the date on which the matter was called before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the present impugned order rejecting the appeal in F.A.Sr.No.2014 of 2024 at SR stage itself came to be passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or even under the earlier Act of 1986, where there is a provision for challenging the exparte orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

7. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofJyotsana Arvindkumar Shah and Others Vs. Bombay Hospital Trust reported in (1999) 4 SCC 325 and also the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another reported in(2011) 9 SCC 541, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio that both the District forums as well as the State Commissions do not have power to set aside the exparte orders or exercise the power of review.

8. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of E.K.Mani Vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras and Another reported in1995-1-L.W. 755, where, this Court, held the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to be maintainable and the same was revisable under Article 227 of Constitution o