STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/15/2024 IN SC/32/CC/16/79 FAIZAL HUSSAIN PRESENT ADDRESS - PALAMKAKKADA HOUSE KAVARATTI U T L PIN 682555 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 27/1038 B PANAMPILLY NAGAR ERNAKULAM 682036 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW APPLICATION No. 15/2024 in C.C. No. 79/2016 ORDER DATED: 17.03.2025 PRESENT:

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

Faizal Hussain P.K., S/o Shahool Hamed, Palamkakkada House, Kavaratti, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Pin-68255.

(By Adv. Yash Thomas Mannully)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Lakshadweep Development Corporation Limited, represented by the Managing Director, 27/1038 B, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam-682 036.

2. British Marine represented by the Director, Plantation Place, 30 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 3BD, United Kingdom.

3. James Mackintosh and Company Private Limited, A-15, Lotus Corporate Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063, Maharashtra.

(By Adv. Adarsh Mathew and Adv. Threya J. Pillai for R2 and R3)

4. The Master, MV Arabian Sea, represented by the Managing Director, Lakshadweep Development Corporation Limited, 27/1038 B, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam-682 036.

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT This review application has been filed by the complainant in C.C. No.

79/2016 on the files of this Commission, challenging the order dated

25.01.2024 passed by this Commission, dismissing the complaint for default.

2. Heard. Perused the records.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner relied on the decision of the High Court in Suresh Nathan Vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram reported in 2025 KHC OnLine 182 and argued that the State Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution and in the said circumstances, the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by this Commission, dismissing the complaint for default is liable to be reviewed.

4. It is true that the High Court in the above said decision stated that the District Commission and the State Commission have no power to dismiss the complaint for default when the complaint is admitted. However, the question to be considered here is whether this Commission has the power to set aside the order of dismissal invoking the power of review under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”).

5. The three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathakj v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, reported in 2011 KHC 4706 : 2011 (9) SCC 541 held in paragraph 36 as hereinbelow:-

“36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised”.

The above settled position would make it clear that the Consumer Commissions, being creatures of the Statute, cannot exercise any power which is not expressly given by the Statute.

6. As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commissions had no power to review the order. However, the power to review was given to State Commissions under section 50 of the Act. However, there is no provision empowering State Commissions under the Act to set aside ex parte orders. In the absence of any provision, the power to review under section 50 of the Act cannot be stretched to the extent of setting aside