Former District Consumer Commission President Cannot Appear Before Consumer Commissions: Kerala State Commission Cites 2020 Model Rules
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has reiterated that a former President of a District Consumer Commission is prohibited from practicing as an advocate before Consumer Commissions, in view of the statutory bar contained in the Consumer Protection Model Rules, 2020. The Commission, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and...
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has reiterated that a former President of a District Consumer Commission is prohibited from practicing as an advocate before Consumer Commissions, in view of the statutory bar contained in the Consumer Protection Model Rules, 2020.
The Commission, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member), made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by Sunny Antony against an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kottayam.
The appellant was represented by Advocate P. Satheeshchandran Nair. During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Commission that the learned counsel had earlier served as the District President of the District Commission, Pathanamthitta.
Commission's Observations
The Commission noted that the counsel for the appellant was the erstwhile District President of the District Commission, Pathanamthitta. Referring to Rule 11(2) of the Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020, the Commission observed that former Presidents and Members of Consumer Commissions are barred from practicing before Consumer Commissions after retirement.
Rule 11(2) provides that a President or Member shall not practice before the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Commission after retirement from service, as the case may be.
In view of the statutory prohibition, the Commission held:
“The learned counsel Shri Satheeshchandran Nair cannot be permitted to practice before the Consumer Commissions.”
The counsel for the appellant submitted that alternative arrangements for legal representation would be made shortly. Accordingly, the Commission adjourned the matter.
Case Title: Sunny Antony v. The Branch Manager, Indus Ind Bank Co. Ltd.
Case Number: I.A. No. 1134/2025 in APPEAL No. 728/2025