##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/353/2019

M K BALAN PRESENT ADDRESS - SREENILAYAM,SIDDHA SAMAJAM(PO),VADAKARA,KOZHIKKODE-

673104,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

VADAKARA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY PRESENT ADDRESS - NUT STREET,VADAKARA,KOZHIKKODE-673104,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO

DATED: 23/03/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 353/2019

ORDER DATED: 23.03.2026

(Against the Order in C.C. 255/2015 of DCDRC, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. M.K. Balan, S/o Kanaran, Sreenilayam, Siddha Samajam P.O., Vatakara, Pin-673

104

2. M.K. Santha, W/o Balan, Sreenilayam, Siddha Samajam P.O., Vatakara, Pin-673

104

(Party in person)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Vatakara Co-operative Housing Society, L.L. 140, Vatakara, Nut Street, Vatakara P.O., Pin-673 104

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the complainants in C.C. No. 255/2015 on the files of the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (for short, ‘the District

Commission’).

2. The District Commission dismissed the complaint for default as per order

dated 29.07.2019, against which this appeal has been filed.

3. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the

respondent.

st

4. Heard the 1 appellant in person. Perused the records.

5. It appears that the complaint was dismissed by the District Commission as

per order dated 29.07.2019 for default. As per the provisions of Section 13(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Commission had the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for default, if the complainant failed to appear before the District Commission on a particular date. However, Section 38(3)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that the complaint shall be decided on merits even if the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing. It is clear that Section 13(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 38(3)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, in view of Section 107(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the provisions under Section 38(3)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is to be followed even if the complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This being the position, the District Commission had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint even if the complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For the said reason alone, the order passed by the

District Commission cannot be sustained.

6. On facts also, we are of the view that it is only just and proper to grant one

more opportunity to the complainants to contest the complaint on merits. For the said reason also, the order passed by the District Commission, dismissing the complaint for

default, cannot be sustained.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the

District Commission, dismissing the complaint for default, stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint afresh, in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to substantiate their contentions. The proceedings before the District Commission shall stand relegated to

the stage prior to the dismissal of the complaint on 29.07.2019.

The complainant shall appear before the District Commission on 18.05.2026

without further notice.

Needless to state that the District Commission shall issue notice to the opposite

party before proceeding with the complaint.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

jb K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER ..................

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

PRESIDENT

..................J

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R

MEMBER