STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/58/2023 null SAJIMON PRESENT ADDRESS - BUILDING CONTRACTOR SNEHALAYAM KUMMALLOOR P O KATTACHAL KOLLAM 691573 ,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus P J HAROLD PRESENT ADDRESS - JOE BHAVAN NEAR MOSQUE ALAPPAD KUNDARA KOLLAM ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No. 58/2023 ORDER DATED: 12.05.2025 (Against the Order in I.A.No.486/2022 in C.C.No.118/2022 on the files of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER:

Sajimon, Building Contractor, Snehalayam, Kummalloor P.O., Kattachal, Kollam – 691 573 (by Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh and Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

P.J. Harold, Joe Bhavan, Near Mosque, Alappad, Kundara, Kollam –

691 501

(by Adv. Manju B. and Adv. Lakshmi Rajeev)

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.118/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short, the ‘District Commission’).

2. The opposite party was set ex-parte by the District Commission on

14.10.2022, against which the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.486/2022 for reviewing the said order. The District Commission as per order dated 12.05.2023 dismissed I.A.No.486/2022, against which this revision petition has been filed. During the pendency of this matter, it was reported that the respondent was no more. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has requested to hear the revision petition without the presence of the respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

4. This revision petition has been filed against the order in I.A. No.486/2022 dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner, praying for review of the order passed by the District Commission setting the revision petitioner ex-parte.

5. As per Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commission shall have the power to review any order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

6. Now the question to be considered here is whether the District Commission has the power to set aside the order of ex-parte invoking the power of review under section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, “the Act”).

7. 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”.

8. 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.

9. As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Commissions had no power to review the order. The power to review was given to the District Commissions under section 40 of the Act. However, there is no provision empowering the District Commissions under the Act to set aside ex parte orders. In the absence of any provision, the power to review under section 40 of the Act cannot be stretched to the extent of setting aside ex parte orders in view of the ratio in Rajeev Hitendra Pathakj v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar (supra). This being the position, the order dat