District Consumer Forums Qualified To Issue Commissions For Local Inspection: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is empowered to issue commissions for local inspection as vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice P.B Suresh Kumar while dismissing a plea that challenged an order issued by such a Commission, remarked:

"Merely for the reason that the powers as vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure to issue a commission for local inspection have not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings before the Commission on a complaint, according to me, it cannot be said that the Commission is precluded from exercising that power."

However, the Court clarified that except for powers mentioned in Section 38(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, other provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings before the Commission. This is to achieve the object of the statute, viz, timely and effective disposal of consumer complaints. 

Background:

The Court was adjudicating upon a matter whereby the petitioners were the opposite parties in a consumer complaint filed by the respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The respondent had approached the Commission alleging deficiency in service from the first petitioner in the sale of ceramic floor tiles. 

In the course of the proceedings, the respondent preferred an application for issuance of a commission for local inspection. 

The petitioners objected to this prayer on the ground that the Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 did not have jurisdiction to issue a commission for local inspection.

However, the Commission repelled the petitioners' objection and allowed the application by an order holding that in the light of Section 38(6) of the Act, it has jurisdiction to issue a commission for local inspection.

This order of the Commission was challenged in the writ petition as one passed without jurisdiction.

Observations of the Court 

The significant question before the Court was whether a Commission constituted under the Act is empowered to issue commissions for local inspection. 

To decide the matter, the Single Judge examined Section 38 of the Act which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Commission while resolving the dispute in a complaint.

The Court noted that to facilitate adjudication of a dispute, Section 38(9) conferred on the Commission, the powers vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit, in respect of the matters specified therein.

For this purpose, it was found that Section 38(8) conferred on the Commission power to pass interim orders as well, as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court also looked into the object of the Consumer Protection Act and found that it was to protect consumers from all kinds of exploitation by providing a summary mechanism for timely and effective settlement of consumer complaints, for which, if not for the Act, the aggrieved persons had to approach a civil Court.

Therefore, it was observed that although Section 38(9) did not specifically confer on the Commission powers to issue commission for local inspection as are vested in a civil Court, in the light of the objective of the CPA, Commission was not precluded from issuing such a commission in proceedings initiated on a complaint.

"Merely for the reason that the powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure to issue a commission for local inspection have not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings before the Commission on a complaint, according to me, it cannot be said that the Commission is precluded from exercising that power."

However, the Court clarified that except for powers mentioned in Section 38(9), other provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings before the Commission. This is to achieve the object of the statute, viz, timely and effective disposal of consumer complaints. 

"Needless to say, insofar as the Commission is conferred in terms of the provisions of the Act with the powers to adjudicate complaints and insofar as power is conferred on it to pass any order during the pendency of the proceedings as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should necessarily have all the incidental powers for adjudication of consumer disputes, for otherwise, the Act would not secure its objective, especially when no one can dispute that complaints in the nature of one on hand cannot be resolved effectively based on the oral and documentary evidence alone."

Relying on N.K.Dharmadas v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal of Kerala, and Ors. [AIR 1963 Kerala 73], the Court also observed that even otherwise, it was trite that a forum constituted to adjudicate a dispute is presumed to have the necessary powers to do so and it can exercise all such powers except the powers, the exercise of which are expressly prohibited in terms of the provisions of the Act.

Finding no merit in the case put forward by the petitioners that the Commission constituted under the Act does not have jurisdiction to issue commission for local inspection, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: P And N Ceramics & Ors v. Issac Sebastian

Click Here To Download The Order