Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in Suresh Nathan v. The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, WP(C) No. 2119 of 2025, addressed a crucial issue regarding the powers of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) to dismiss consumer complaints for default or non-prosecution. The case arose when the petitioner, Suresh Nathan, filed a complaint before the Kerala SCDRC against the office bearers of the Sreevalsom Educational Trust on August 14, 2019. The respondents entered appearance and filed their versions, after which the Commission adjourned the matter multiple times—first to April 8, 2020, then to June 4, 2024, and again to October 17, 2024. On the final date, the Commission dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The petitioner filed a review petition, which was also dismissed, prompting him to challenge the dismissal before the Kerala High Court. Justice C.S. Dias, relying on Sections 37-B, 38, and 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ruled that the State Commission does not have the power to dismiss complaints for default and must decide them on merits. The High Court restored the petitioner’s complaint and directed the parties to appear before the SCDRC for its proper adjudication.

Arguments:

The petitioner, represented by Advocates K.R. Arun Krishnan, Deepa K. Radhakrishnan, Sanal C.S., Vishak K.V., and Anu T.H., argued that the dismissal of his complaint for non-prosecution was legally unsustainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He contended that Section 38(c) of the Act mandates that even if a complainant fails to appear on the hearing date, the Commission is still required to decide the case on its merits. The petitioner further emphasized that the law does not empower consumer forums to dismiss cases for default, unlike civil courts, which have the inherent power to do so under the Civil Procedure Code. He argued that the State Commission’s dismissal was arbitrary, especially given that the matter had been adjourned multiple times, and it was unjust to penalize him for non-appearance on a single date. The petitioner also pointed out that the review petition was dismissed without proper consideration of the statutory provisions and established judicial precedents. Citing a co-joint reading of Sections 37-B and 38, he asserted that consumer fora are meant to ensure justice for consumers and should not rely on technical grounds like default dismissal, which would defeat the purpose of consumer protection laws.

The respondents, represented by Advocate C.V. Dinesh and Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose, defended the State Commission’s decision to dismiss the complaint. They contended that procedural discipline is necessary for the effective functioning of consumer fora, and complainants should ensure their presence or proper representation on scheduled dates. The respondents argued that repeated adjournments burden the Commission, and allowing cases to proceed despite non-prosecution would set a precedent that could lead to unnecessary delays in justice delivery. They further claimed that the petitioner had ample time to follow up on his case, and his failure to appear demonstrated a lack of diligence. The respondents emphasized that while consumer protection laws are meant to safeguard consumer rights, they should not be misused to delay proceedings indefinitely. They requested the court to uphold the Commission’s decision, asserting that dismissing cases for non-prosecution serves as a deterrent against frivolous litigation.

Judgement:

The Kerala High Court, after hearing both sides, ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the dismissal of his complaint for non-prosecution was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Justice C.S. Dias noted that Section 38(c) explicitly mandates that a consumer complaint must be decided on merits even if the complainant is absent. The court also interpreted Section 37-B, which states that the Commission must hear all issues involved in the dispute when mediation fails. Further, the court referred to Section 49, which extends the procedure under Section 38 to the State Commission, thereby reinforcing the obligation to decide complaints on merits. The High Court observed that a combined reading of these provisions clearly establishes that consumer complaints cannot be dismissed for default or non-prosecution. The bench criticized the SCDRC for failing to adhere to statutory mandates and ruled that the dismissal order, as well as the subsequent rejection of the review petition, was legally unsustainable. The court restored the complaint to the file and directed the parties to appear before the State Commission for adjudication as per law, reaffirming that consumer disputes must be decided on their merits to uphold the spirit of consumer protection legislation.