STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/7/2025 IN SC/32/A/141/2018 CORPORATION BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - MANAGER, MALAPPURAM BRANCH. ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus ABDUL LATHEEF PRESENT ADDRESS - KARUVATTIL HOUSE, EAST KODUR, CHATTIPARAMBA.P.O, MALAPPURAM- 676504. ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

CORPORATION BANK, V S SUNILKUMAR (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

ABDUL LATHEEF DATED: 12/03/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW APPLICATION No.07/2025 in APPEAL No.141/2018 ORDER DATED: 12.03.2025 PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVIEW PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

Manager, Corporation Bank, Malappuram Branch presently Union Bank of India (by Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

Abdul Latheef K., Karuvattil House, East Kodur, Chattipparamba P.O., Malappuram - 676 504

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an application filed by the appellant in appeal No.

A 141/2018 under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to review the order of dismissal of the appeal on 11.12.2024.

2. On 11.12.2024 this appeal was dismissed since there was no representation on the part of the appellant for the three consecutive posting dates.

According to the petitioner, originally Advocate P.S. Sunilkumar and T.L. Sreeram were appearing for the appellant. Initially the appeal was filed by the Corporation Bank which was subsequently merged with Union Bank of India. Later the petitioner had filed vakalath for and on behalf of the appellant. The name of the earlier counsel was shown in the cause list. Due to oversight the petitioner thought that the case belonged to the Corporation Bank and hence he need not represent the matter. The order of dismissal is sought to be reviewed.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the records in the appeal.

4. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not authorise the District Commission or the State Commission to set aside the order of dismissal. Such a power is available only to the National Commission as per section 61. So the intention of the statute is clear that the State Commission has no power to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore a case back into its file. When the statute does not permit this Commission to adopt such a step, an order for restoration cannot be implemented under the pretext of the power of review.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a ruling reported in 1999 KHC 1162 in Jyotsana Aravindkumar Sha vs Bombay Hospital Trust had declared in categorical terms that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte order. Though the ruling deals with the 1986 Act, the question of law involved is applicable to 2019 Act also. In the 2019 Act, a provision to review was incorporated, but no power to set aside the order of dismissal is granted to the State Commission. So the power for restoration of the appeal by resorting to Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be ordered. Hence, the request is only to be rejected.

In the result, the review petition is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER SL ..................

SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER