The Kerala High Court has clarified a critical procedural aspect of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, holding that challenges to interim orders must be pursued through revision petitions under Section 47(1)(b), not appeals. This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the statutory remedies available to aggrieved parties in consumer disputes, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in multi-tiered redressal mechanisms.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sudha P, filed a consumer complaint (Exhibit P1) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (3rd respondent) against Kerala House Canteen, New Delhi, alleging deficiencies in service. The dispute centered on interim orders passed by the District Commission in two interlocutory applications (Exhibits P6 and P7), which the petitioner sought to challenge.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following key stages:
- 27.01.2025: Original complaint filed before the District Commission
- 26.05.2025: Petitioner filed two interlocutory applications (IAs) seeking interim relief
- 04.08.2025: District Commission passed interim orders in both IAs
- 17.09.2025: Petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission against the interim orders
- 18.09.2025: State Commission returned the appeals, stating no revision petition was submitted
Relief Sought
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking:
- Directions to the State Commission to number and entertain her appeals against the interim orders
- A declaration that appeals were maintainable against interim orders under the Consumer Protection Act 2019
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether an appeal or a revision petition is the appropriate remedy against interim orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Specifically, the Court had to determine the correct interpretation of Section 47(1)(b) and its applicability to interim orders.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that:
- The Consumer Protection Act 2019 provides for appeals against all orders of the District Commission, including interim orders
- The State Commission erred in returning her appeals without numbering them
- The statutory scheme does not restrict appeals to final orders only
For the Respondents
While the respondents did not formally appear, the Court noted that:
- The statutory language of Section 47(1)(b) explicitly refers to revision petitions against orders of the District Commission
- The procedural history demonstrated that the State Commission had correctly identified the proper remedy as revision, not appeal
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a textual and purposive interpretation of Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which provides:
"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer a petition to the State Commission within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order."
The Court observed that:
- The term "order" in Section 47(1)(b) is unqualified and encompasses all orders, including interim orders
- However, the provision specifically uses the term "petition" rather than "appeal," indicating the legislature's intent to provide for revisionary jurisdiction
- The statutory scheme distinguishes between appeals against final orders (Section 38) and revision petitions against other orders (Section 47)
The Court relied on established principles of statutory interpretation, noting that:
"When the legislature uses different terms in different provisions of the same statute, it must be presumed that different meanings were intended. The use of 'petition' in Section 47(1)(b) as opposed to 'appeal' in other provisions clearly indicates that revision, not appeal, is the intended remedy against interim orders."
The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in consumer disputes, stating:
"The multi-tiered redressal mechanism under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is designed to provide expeditious justice. Allowing appeals against every interim order would clog the system and defeat the legislative intent of providing a speedy remedy."
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that:
- The proper remedy against interim orders of the District Commission is a revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, not an appeal
- The petitioner was permitted to convert her appeals into revision petitions without prejudice to her rights
- No interference was required as the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy available
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revision Petition Is The Exclusive Remedy Against Interim Orders
The judgment establishes that:
- Section 47(1)(b) provides the sole remedy against interim orders of the District Commission
- Practitioners must carefully distinguish between appeals (for final orders) and revision petitions (for interim orders)
- Filing an appeal where revision is required may result in dismissal or return of the petition
Procedural Compliance Is Mandatory
- Parties must strictly adhere to the statutory remedies prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 2019
- The judgment reinforces that procedural missteps can lead to dismissal, even if the substantive grievance is valid
- Legal practitioners should:
- Verify whether the order being challenged is final or interim
- Choose the correct remedy (appeal or revision) accordingly
- Ensure timely filing within the prescribed limitation period
Forum Shopping Is Discouraged
The Court's emphasis on the statutory scheme indicates:
- Attempts to bypass the prescribed revisionary jurisdiction by filing appeals will not be entertained
- Consumer forums are likely to scrutinize the maintainability of petitions more rigorously in light of this judgment
- Parties should be prepared to justify their choice of remedy with reference to the specific provisions of the Act
