JUDGMENT : P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. Petitioners are opposite parties in a consumer complaint filed by respondent before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam. complaint aforesaid is one filed against petitioners alleging deficiency in service in matter of first petitioner selling ceramic floor tiles to respondent. case set out in complaint in essence, is that ceramic floor tiles delivered by first petitioner to respondent were not tiles shown to him and purchased by him. petitioners refuted allegation in complaint in their versions filed in proceedings. In course of proceedings, respondent preferred Ext.P4 application for issuance of a commission for local inspection. petitioners objected to prayer in application mainly on ground that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( Commission) constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( Act) does not have jurisdiction to issue a commission for local inspection. Commission repelled objection of petitioners and allowed Ext.P4 application by Ext.P6 order holding that in light of sub-section (8) of Section 38 of Act, it has jurisdiction to issue a commission for local inspection. Ext.P6 order is under challenge in writ petition as one passed without jurisdiction. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 3. Placing reliance on sub-section (9) of Section 38 of Act, it was argued by learned counsel for petitioners that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, except those which are specifically mentioned in sub-section (9) are not made applicable to proceedings before Commission and that in terms of said provision, Commission is empowered to issue commissions only for examination of witness or document. It was also argued by learned counsel that had intention of legislature been that Commission should have authority to issue commission for local inspection, same would have certainly been mentioned in sub-section (9) of Section 38. According to learned counsel, insofar as power to issue commission for local inspection has not been conferred on Commission in terms of provisions of Act, order impugned is liable to be treated as one passed without jurisdiction. learned counsel has relied on decisions of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yogendra Builders (M/s.) and Another v. Vidya Paradise Owners' Welfare Association and Another, 2008 KHC 7403 and Sivashakthi Builders, Hyderabad and Another v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and Others, 2009 KHC 6391, in support of said contention. 4. I have examined arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners. 5. 4. I have examined arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners. 5. short question that falls for consideration is as to whether Commission constituted under Act is empowered to issue commissions for local inspection. 4. I have examined arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners. 5. short question that falls for consideration is as to whether Commission constituted under Act is empowered to issue commissions for local inspection. Subsection (5) of Section 2 of Act which defines “complainant” reads thus: (5) "complainant" means— (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for time being in force; or (iii) Central Government or any State Government; or (iv) Central Authority; or (v) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having same interest; or (vi) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legal representative; or (vii) in case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian; Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of Act which defines “complaint” reads thus: (6) “complaint” means any allegation in writing, made by a complainant for obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act, that— (i) an unfair contract or unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider; (ii) goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects; (iii) services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from any deficiency; (iv) a trader or a service provider, as case may be, has charged for goods or for services mentioned in complaint, a price in excess of price— (a) fixed by or under any law for time being in force; or (b) displayed on goods or any package containing such goods; or (c) displayed on price list exhibited by him by or under any law for time being in force; or (d) agreed between parties; (v) goods, which are hazardous to life and safety when used, are being offered for sale to public— (a) in contravention of standards relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for time being in force; (b) where trader knows that goods so offered are unsafe to public; (vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of public when used, are being offered by a person who provides any service and who knows it to be injurious to life and safety; (vii) a claim for product liability action lies against product manufacturer, product seller or product service provider, as case may be; A perusal of definitions aforesaid would show that any allegation made by a person falling within scope of definition of 'complainant' for obtaining any relief provided by or under Act that goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects or that services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from any deficiency would constitute a complaint in terms of provisions of Act. 6. Section 38 of Act dealing with procedure to be followed by Commission in matter of resolving dispute in a complaint reads thus: 38. Procedure on admission of complaint (1) District Commission shall, on admission of a complaint, or in respect of cases referred for mediation on failure of settlement by mediation, proceed with such complaint. 6. Section 38 of Act dealing with procedure to be followed by Commission in matter of resolving dispute in a complaint reads thus: 38. Procedure on admission of complaint (1) District Commission shall, on admission of a complaint, or in respect of cases referred for mediation on failure of settlement by mediation, proceed with such complaint. (2) Where complaint relates to any goods, District Commission shall,-- (a) refer a copy of admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from date of its admission to opposite party mentioned in complaint directing him to give his version of case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it; (b) if opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes allegations contained in complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within time given by District Commission, proceed to settle consumer dispute in manner specified in clauses (c) to (g); (c) if complaint alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods, obtain a sample of goods from complainant, seal it and authenticate it in manner as may be prescribed and refer sample so sealed to appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory to make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to District Commission within a period of forty-five days of receipt of reference or within such extended period as may be granted by it; (d) before any sample of goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause (c), require complainant to deposit to credit of Commission such fees as may be specified, for payment to appropriate laboratory for carrying out necessary analysis or test in relation to goods in question; (e) remit amount deposited to its credit under clause (d) to appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out analysis or test mentioned in clause (c) and on receipt of report from appropriate laboratory, it shall forward a copy of report along with such remarks as it may feel appropriate to opposite party; (f) if any of parties disputes correctness of findings of appropriate laboratory, or disputes correctness of methods of analysis or test adopted by appropriate laboratory, require opposite party or complainant to submit in writing his objections with regard to report made by appropriate laboratory; (g) give a reasonable opportunity to complainant as well as opposite party of being heard as to correctness or otherwise of report made by appropriate laboratory and also as to objection made in relation thereto under clause (f) and issue an appropriate order under section 39. (3) District Commission shall, if complaint admitted by it under sub-section (2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be followed, or if complaint relates to any services,— (a) refer a copy of such complaint to opposite party directing him to give his version of case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by District Commission; (b) if opposite party, on receipt of a copy of complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes allegations contained in complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within time given by District Commission, it shall proceed to settle consumer dispute— (i) on basis of evidence brought to its notice by complainant and opposite party, if opposite party denies or disputes allegations contained in complaint, or (ii) ex parte on basis of evidence brought to its notice by complainant, where opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within time given by Commission; (c) decide complaint on merits if complainant fails to appear on date of hearing. (4) For purposes of sub-sections (2) and (3), District Commission may, by order, require an electronic service provider to provide such information, documents or records, as may be specified in that order. (5) No proceedings complying with procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on ground that principles of natural justice have not been complied with. (6) Every complaint shall be heard by District Commission on basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record: PROVIDED that where an application is made for hearing or for examination of parties in person or through video conferencing, District Commission may, on sufficient cause being shown, and after recording its reasons in writing, allow same. (6) Every complaint shall be heard by District Commission on basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record: PROVIDED that where an application is made for hearing or for examination of parties in person or through video conferencing, District Commission may, on sufficient cause being shown, and after recording its reasons in writing, allow same. (7) Every complaint shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide complaint within a period of three months from date of receipt of notice by opposite party where complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months if it requires analysis or testing of commodities: PROVIDED that no adjournment shall ordinarily be granted by District Commission unless sufficient cause is shown and reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by Commission: PROVIDED FURTHER that District Commission shall make such orders as to costs occasioned by adjournment as may be specified by regulations: PROVIDED ALSO that in event of a complaint being disposed of after period so specified, District Commission shall record in writing, reasons for same at time of disposing of said complaint. (8) Where during pendency of any proceeding before District Commission, if it appears necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in facts and circumstances of case. (9) For purposes of this section, District Commission shall have same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witness and examining witness on oath; (b) requiring discovery and production of any document or other material object as evidence; (c) receiving of evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning of report of concerned analysis or test from appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (e) issuing of commissions for examination of any witness, or document; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed by Central Government. (10) Every proceeding before District Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within meaning of sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code, and District Commission shall be deemed to be a criminal court for purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (10) Every proceeding before District Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within meaning of sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code, and District Commission shall be deemed to be a criminal court for purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (11) Where complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (5) of section 2, provisions of Order I Rule 8 of First Schedule to Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply subject to modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or order of District Commission thereon. (12) In event of death of a complainant who is a consumer or of opposite party against whom complaint has been filed, provisions of Order XXII of First Schedule to Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply subject to modification that every reference therein to plaintiff and defendant shall be construed as reference to a complainant or opposite party, as case may be. provision aforesaid would show that in event of a dispute as regards allegation made in a complaint, Commission is bound to adjudicate same in manner provided for in Section 38. It can also be seen from extracted provision that in order to facilitate said adjudication, sub-section (9) of Section 38 confers on Commission, powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit, in respect of matters specified therein. It can also be seen from extracted provision that for purpose aforesaid, sub-section (8) of Section 38 confers on Commission power to pass interim orders also as is just and proper in facts and circumstances of case. 7. True, sub-section (9) of Section 38 does not specifically confer on Commission powers to issue commission for local inspection as are vested in a civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure. object of Act is to protect consumers from all kinds of exploitation by providing a summary mechanism for timely and effective settlement of consumer complaints, for which, but for Act, aggrieved persons had to approach a civil Court. object of Act is to protect consumers from all kinds of exploitation by providing a summary mechanism for timely and effective settlement of consumer complaints, for which, but for Act, aggrieved persons had to approach a civil Court. It is seen that it is having regard to said objective that provisions in Code of Civil Procedure, except those mentioned in sub-section (9) of Section 38, which if made applicable would delay disposal of complaint, have not been made applicable to proceedings before Commission. pointed question is whether Commission is precluded from issuing a commission for local inspection in a proceedings initiated on a complaint without there being a provision in sub-section (9) of Section 38 conferring on Commission power to issue a commission for local inspection as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure. Merely for reason that powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure to issue a commission for local inspection have not been specifically made applicable to proceedings before Commission on a complaint, according to me, it cannot be said that Commission is precluded from exercising that power. As noted, provisions of Code of Civil Procedure except those which are mentioned in sub-section (9) of Section 38 have not been made applicable to proceedings before Commission on a complaint to achieve object of statute, viz, timely and effective disposal of consumer complaints. Needless to say, insofar as Commission is conferred in terms of provisions of Act with powers to adjudicate complaints and insofar as power is conferred on it to pass any order during pendency of proceedings as is just and proper in facts and circumstances of case, it should necessarily have all incidental powers for adjudication of consumer disputes, for otherwise, Act would not secure its objective, especially when no one can dispute that complaints in nature of one on hand cannot be resolved effectively based on oral and documentary evidence alone. Even otherwise, it is now trite that a forum constituted to adjudicate a dispute is presumed to have necessary powers to do so and it can exercise all such powers except powers, exercise of which are expressly prohibited in terms of provisions of Act [See N.K.Dharmadas v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal of Kerala, and others, AIR 1963 Kerala 73 and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nemmara v. K.S.Sarojini, AIR 1981 Kerala 44]. Identical is view taken by Madras High Court in Ramaniyam Real Estates Ltd. v. Triveni Apartments Owners Welfare Association, AIR 1999 Madras 24 in context of identical provision contained in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 8. It is seen that in Yogendra Builders and Sivashakthi Builders, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has construed strictly corresponding provisions in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to hold that forums under said statute cannot exercise power to issue a commission for local inspection in absence of said power as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure being not specifically conferred on it. With due respect, I disagree with view aforesaid. That apart, even in Yogendra Builders, Court observed that having regard to object of statute, there will be cases where noting down of physical features may be very essential and interpretation given to provision in said case will not preclude forums in calling for report from experts, specialists, skilled persons or any other persons for purpose of taking an appropriate decision in matter. relevant portion of judgment reads thus: “24. x x x x x It is pertinent to note that if object of Act be carefully examined, there may be cases where noting down of physical features may be very essential and any amount of oral evidence may not be able to replace such noting down of physical features by a competent person. O.26, R.9 of Code of Civil Procedure, as such, may not be applicable but if Consumer Fora, State Commission or National Commission as case may be, these are satisfied that opinion of an expert, specialist, skilled person or any other person of a like nature and their opinion may be essential for proper adjudication of dispute, definitely, they can exercise such powers for purpose of appropriate decision making in relation to disputes.” In light of discussion aforesaid, there is no merit in case put forward by petitioners that Commission constituted under Act does not have jurisdiction to issue commission for local inspection. writ petition is therefore, without merits and same is, accordingly, dismissed.