STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/55/2024 IN SC/32/A/98/2019 ROYAL OMANIA TOURS&TRAVELLS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - PALAL TOWERS,RAVIPURAM,MG ROAD,KOCHI ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus M T SUNNY PRESENT ADDRESS - MULAKKAL HOUSE,NAMBAZHIKKADU,MATTAM,THRISSUR ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 23/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW APPLICATION No.55/2024 in APPEAL No.98/2019 ORDER DATED: 23.06.2025 PRESENT:

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

Managing Director, Royal Omania Tours and Travels (Pvt) Ltd., Palal Towers, Ravipuram, M. G. Road, Kochi.

(by Adv. K. J. Kuriachan)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. M. T. Sunny, S/o Thomas, Mulakkal House, Nambazhikkad P. O., Mattom, Thrissur.

2. Rosily Sunny, W/o M. T. Sunny, Mulakkal House, Nambazhikkad P. O., Mattom, Thrissur.

3. Fr. Chacko Cheruvathoor, Pallikkunnu Assumption Church, Varatharapilly, Thrissur.

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B.SUDHEENDRAKUMAR : PRESIDENT This Commission, as per order dated 23.10.2024, dismissed the appeal for default for two reasons, which are:- (1) there was no representation for the appellant and (2) steps were not taken as directed to complete the service.

2. This Review Application has been filed for setting aside the above said order dismissing the appeal for default.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala in Suresh Nathan Vs. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reported in 2025 KHC 182 : 2025 (2) KLT 97 and argued that since this Commission had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for default, this Commission had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default as the appeal is the continuation of the proceedings and hence the dismissal of the appeal by this Commission is liable to be reviewed.

5. It is true that the High Court of Kerala in Suresh Nathan Vs. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (supra) held that this Commission had no authority to dismiss the complaint for default. However, in view of the specific provision under section 13(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission had the authority to dismiss the complaint in this case for default. For the said reason, the argument in this regard advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner cannot be accepted.

6. Now the question to be considered here is whether this Commission has the power to set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal invoking the power of review under section 50 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 State Commissions had no power to review the order. The power to review was given to the State Commissions under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, empowering the State Commis