Consumer Protection Act 2019 | State Commission Can't Dismiss Compliant For Non-Prosecution, Obliged To Give Decision On Merits: Kerala HC

Justice C.S. Dias said, “…the State Commission is not empowered to dismiss a complaint for default or non-prosecution, but is obliged to decide the complaint on its merits.”

The order was passed relying upon Sections 37-B, 38 and 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Section 37-B pertains to recording settlement and passing of order. Clause (3) of Section 37-B, states that the Commission shall hear all issues involved in the consumer dispute, when such dispute was not resolved through mediation.

Section 38 pertains to Procedure on admission of complaint. Clause (c) of Section 38 states that the Commission shall decide the case on merits even if the complainant fails to appear on the date of the hearing.

The Court interpreting Section 37-B and Section 38 observed that, “A co-joint reading of the Sections 37-B and 38 of the Act mandates that the District Commission has to hear all issues involved in the consumer dispute and decide the complaint on merits, even if the complainant fails to appear on the hearing date.”

Further, the Court referred to Section 49 which made the procedure under Section 38 applicable to the State Commission.

The Court thus held that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is obliged to decide the complaint on merits, and cannot dismiss it on default or for non-prosecution.

In the facts of the case, the petitioner filed a complaint on August 14, 2019 before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the office bearers of the Sreevalsom Educational Trust. They entered appearance and filed their versions and the Commission adjourned it to April 08, 2020. Again, the Kerala SCDRC adjourned it to June 04, 2024 and then again the Commission adjournment it to October 17, 2024. However, on October 17, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The petitioner filed review petition against the order of dismissal which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The Court noted that the dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution was illegal and erroneous. It also dismissed the order in the review petition.

The Court thus restored the complaint to file and directed the parties to appear before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for its disposal as per law.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates K.R.Arun Krishnan, Deepa K.Radhakrishnan, Sanal C.S, Vishak K.V, Anu T.H.

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate C V Dinesh, Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose

Case Title: Suresh Nathan V The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Case No: WP(C) NO. 2119 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 107