STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/23/2025 IN SC/32/A/113/2024 ABDUL LATEEF PRESENT ADDRESS - RAYYAN KANNOOKKARA THANA KANNUR 12 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SHIHABUDHEEN PRESENT ADDRESS - KHAN BUILDERWS SBV/247 A SOUTH BAZAR KANNUR ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

ABDUL LATEEF, P K NOUSHAD (Advocate)

DATED: 31/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW APPLICATION No.23/2025 in APPEAL No.113/2024 ORDER DATED: 31.07.2025 PRESENT:

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

Abdul Latheef, S/o Ebrahimkutty residing at Rayyan, Kannookkara, Thana, Kannur – 670 012 (by Adv. V.S. Nowshad)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Shihabudheen residing at Khan Builders, SBV/247 A, South Bazar, Kannur – 670 002

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B.SUDHEENDRAKUMAR :PRESIDENT

The review petitioner is the appellant in Appeal No. 113/2024. The above said

appeal was filed along with I.A. No. 245/2024 praying for condoning the delay in

filing the appeal. This Commission dismissed I.A. No. 245/2024 for non-prosecution.

Consequent upon the dismissal of I.A. No. 245/2024, the appeal was also dismissed.

This review application has been filed praying for reviewing the said orders.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner. I.A.No.245/2024 was a petition praying for condoning the delay of 277 days in filing the appeal. Since there was no representation for the petitioner continuously on four occasions, this Commission as per order dated 01.04.2025 dismissed I.A.No.245/2024 for non- prosecution. Consequent upon the dismissal of I.A.No.245/2024, the appeal was also dismissed.

3. 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”).

4. 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”.

5. 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. 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 Commissions to set aside ex parte orders. In the absence of any such provision, the power to review under section 50 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 dated 01.04.2025 passed by this Commission dismissing I.A. No. 245/2024 and the consequent dismissal of the appeal for default cannot be reviewed and set aside invoking the power of review under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In the said circumstances, this review application lacks merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the application.

In the result, this review application stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT

KUMAR AJITH KU