STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/4/2026 IN SC/32/A/256/2024 DIGIBIZ BUILD ON QUALITY PRESENT ADDRESS - KARIMBANAKKAL MURUVATHUPARAMBU KUNNAMPALLY POST PERUNTHALMANNA 679322,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus ABHAYARAJ K PRESENT ADDRESS - KAILAS BEEMACHI POST SULTHANBATHERY POST WAYANAD

673592,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 APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 10/02/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW APPLICATION No.04/2026 in APPEAL No.256/2024 ORDER DATED : 10.02.2026 PRESENT:

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

1. Digibiz Build on Quality Rating Pvt.Ltd, Door No.1521, 5 Floor, Hilite Business Park, Thondayad, Kozhikode – 673016

2. Business Development Manager of Digibiz Build on Quality Rating Pvt.Ltd, Perunthalmanna (by Adv. Prem Navaz J.R & Geethu Susan Varghese)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Abhayaraj.K, Son of Thankaraj, Kailas Beemachi Post, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad - 673592

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR : PRESIDENT This review application has been filed by the appellants in appeal No.256/2024 on the files of this Commission, challenging the order passed by this Commission, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 11 (6) (a) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions)

Rules, 2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review applicants.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the review applicants that this Commission has the power to set aside the ex-parte order passed by this Commission in view of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence the order passed by this Commission dismissing the appeal is liable to be set aside.

4. 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”).

5. It is true that this Commission has the power to review any order passed by this Commission under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6. 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. 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 analogous to Section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 .

empowering this Commission to set aside an ex-parte order 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 06.01.2026 passed by this Commission dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution cannot be reviewed and set aside invoking the power of review under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 20