A.P. Sahi, President

1. The issue involved in the present case appeal is very short and does not require any elaborate hearing for which we had already framed the issue and issued notices vide order dated 23.06.2026.

2. We had issued notices to the respondent and Mr. Govind Narayan Kaushik, learned counsel has appeared today along with Ms. Sheetal Raghuvanshi and Mr. Prabhat.

3. We called upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to address us, keeping in view the observations made in the order dated 23.06.2026, but the learned counsel urged, that the appeal has been filed with incorrect and false averments, and therefore does not deserve to be entertained. He, however, submitted that even if the appeal is being entertained and the matter is being remitted back, then in that event the State Commission should be directed to decide the matter within six months.

4. IA/7340/2026 has been filed along with the appeal praying for condoning the delay of 61 days. We have considered the submissions raised and we have also gone through the cause shown, and we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 61 days, as reported by the office. The application is allowed and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed within time.

5. We have taken up the appeal for hearing, as well as we had already indicated our prima facie observations in the order dated 23.06.2026, which is extracted hereunder:

"Issue notice on delay condonation application IA/7340/2026.

Even though the delay has been prima facie explained yet the response is required keeping in view the merits which have been argued before us pointing out that the State Commission at the outset did not have any jurisdiction to return the complaint applying the principles of Order 7 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. as held by this Commission in the case of Suresh Babu Bollineni & Anr. Vs. M/s Lodha Healthy Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. decided on 20.05.2026. The second contention is that if the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission then it ought to have been dismissed but at the same time the State Commission has erroneously directed the complaint to proceed from the stage at which it had arrived before the State Commission where the right of the appellant to file written statement had been forfeited. He submits that if the complaint is filed afresh before the District Commission then such a right cannot be curtailed by this indirect method. Therefore the impugned order to that extent is erroneous. Both these contentions require consideration.

Issue notice to the respondent to answer the appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant is also permitted to serve the respondent in person and file proof of dasti service.

Learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order will cause serious prejudice to the appellant if the matter is allowed to proceed pursuant to the impugned order. He therefore prays for interim relief. We accordingly provide that until further orders the operation of the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 shall remain stayed, subject to any objections by the respondent.

List on 07.10.2026."

6. The complaint was filed alleging medical negligence against the appellant by the respondent. The respondent is stated to be a practicing lawyer. The State Commission recorded that since the appellant's right to file a written version had been forfeited, and since the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, therefore the same was directed to be returned back for being presented before the District Commission, and the complaint was directed to proceed from the stage it had already reached before the State Commission.

7. Accordingly, the complaint was directed to be dealt with by the concerned District Commission on 04.05.2026 the date was fixed for appearance.

8. It is this impugned order which has been challenged in appeal before this Commission.

9. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the State Commission has not appreciated the fact that there is no provision of the CPC made applicable for returning of a complaint for presenting it before the appropriate Commission, as Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is not applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Needless to point out that the provisions of CPC do not apply, unless specifically applied under the Act. This has been clarified by the Apex Court by a three judges decision in the case of Ethiopian Airlines vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539 and following the same, the issue directly in question in the present case has been answered by this Commission recently in the case of Suresh Babu Bollineni (Supra).

10. If the State Commission was of the opinion that it was lacking in pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint then it ought to have dismissed the same with liberty available to the complainant to approach the concerned District Commission, where it could have prayed for condonation of delay, if necessary. Needless, to mention that the limitation for filing of a complaint under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is two years from the date of cause of action and the law in this regard has also been explained by the Apex Court in the context of Section 24-A of the 1986 Act in in the case of SBI v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121. In our opinion the authority to entertain a complaint is circumscribed by a territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. If the State Commission had no pecuniary then the matter had to be instituted afresh before the concerned District Commission having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

11. The respondent/ complainant therefore could have instituted a complaint before the appropriate Commission where the proceedings have to commence afresh. The filing of a fresh complaint will therefore require putting the opposite party to notice, where the opposite party can exercise a right to file a reply within the procedure prescribed. This right of the opposite party cannot be taken away by this circumvented method, where on the one hand the complaint has been found by the State Commission to be not entertainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and on the other hand the parties have been relegated to the District Commission. This would be putting the appellant to a serious disadvantage and it would not be legally permissible. The statute cannot be avoided by passing an order which otherwise is not sustainable.

12. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondent/ complainant to seek his remedy before the appropriate District Commission. The appeal is accordingly allowed.