The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has reaffirmed that procedural compliance under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is non-negotiable. An ex-parte order issued on the very last day of the statutory window to file a written version is legally unsustainable, as it deprives the opposite party of a fair opportunity to be heard.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petitioner, Sreejith Sadananthan, proprietor of Team Xpert-Painting Solutions, was named as the opposite party in Consumer Case No. 366/2025 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta. The respondent, Ashish Ravi Koshy, alleged deficiency in painting services rendered by the petitioner. The District Commission issued notice to the petitioner on 15.11.2025, requiring a written version within the statutory period.
Key Facts
- The notice was served on the revision petitioner on 15.11.2025
- The petitioner did not file a written version by 30.12.2025
- On 30.12.2025, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order against the petitioner, citing non-filing of the written version
- The petitioner filed this revision petition on grounds that the ex-parte order was premature
- The petitioner had not been granted any extension, nor was there any record of non-receipt of notice
Procedural History
- 15.11.2025: Notice served on the revision petitioner (opposite party)
- 30.12.2025: District Commission passed ex-parte order after 45 days from service of notice
- 03.01.2026: Revision petition filed before the State Commission
- 23.03.2026: Order passed by the State Commission allowing the revision petition
Relief Sought
The revision petitioner sought setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 30.12.2025, restoration of the right to file a written version, and exclusion of the period from 30.12.2025 to the date of receipt of this order for computing the limitation period.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the District Consumer Commission could lawfully pass an ex-parte order against a party on the 45th day after service of notice, under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, without first confirming that the statutory period had fully expired.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, grants the opposite party 30 days to file a written version, extendable by a further 15 days at the discretion of the Commission. The District Commission’s order dated 30.12.2025 was passed precisely on the 45th day after service of notice on 15.11.2025. Since the statutory period had not yet lapsed at the time of the ex-parte order, the proceeding was premature. Reliance was placed on Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Minati Dei, where the National Commission held that proceeding ex-parte before expiry of the 45-day window violates natural justice.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel opposed the revision petition, contending that the petitioner had wilfully neglected to file the written version despite receiving notice. It was argued that delay itself warranted ex-parte proceedings, and that the petitioner’s failure to act should not be condoned.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the language of Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mirrors Section 13(1)(a) of the 1986 Act. The court noted that the statutory period is not merely a deadline but a guaranteed right to be heard. The District Commission’s order was passed on the 45th day, meaning the final day of the permissible window had just concluded. However, the law requires that the period must have expired before an ex-parte order can be passed. The Commission cannot assume non-compliance on the last day without confirming that the party has failed to act within the full 45-day window.
"The District Forum order dated 28.07.2015 to proceed ex-parte against Petitioner before the expiry of prescribed period for filing written version is premature."
The court held that the National Commission’s reasoning in Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Minati Dei is directly applicable. Even though that case interpreted the 1986 Act, the provisions are pari materia. The 2019 Act did not alter the substantive right to file within 45 days. Therefore, proceeding ex-parte on the 45th day - without evidence that the party had been given notice of the impending ex-parte hearing or that the period had definitively lapsed - is a violation of natural justice.
The court further clarified that the period from the date of the impugned order (30.12.2025) until receipt of this order must be excluded from the computation of the limitation period for filing the written version, to ensure the petitioner is not prejudiced by the Commission’s procedural error.
The Verdict
The revision petition was allowed. The ex-parte order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is set aside. The revision petitioner is granted liberty to file the written version within the remaining statutory period under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The period from 30.12.2025 to the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for computing the limitation period. The case shall be restored to the file of the District Commission for further proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now insist that ex-parte orders are only passed after the 45-day window has fully elapsed, not on the last day
- Courts cannot presume default on the final day of the statutory period without explicit confirmation of non-filing
- Any ex-parte order passed before the expiry of 45 days is void ab initio and subject to immediate setting aside
Natural Justice Trumps Expediency
- The right to file a written version is not a formality but a substantive right under the Act
- Delay by the opposite party does not justify bypassing statutory timelines
- Advocates should file applications for extension well before the 45th day to avoid ambiguity
Exclusion of Time for Procedural Errors
- When a Commission errs by passing an ex-parte order prematurely, the period between the erroneous order and the date of the corrective order must be excluded from limitation calculations
- This principle ensures that litigants are not penalized for judicial missteps
