CLASSIC ELECTRONICS-/Opp. Party vs Parwati

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hisar directing the appellant to return the price of the defective refrigerator to the complainant in consonance with Clause ''C of Section 14 of the Act.

THE facts lie in a narrow compass and particularly in view of the solitary argument raised on behalf of the appellants, these merit notice with brevity. THE respondent had purchased one Voltas refrigerator, 165 liters for Rs. 7,950./- from the appellants on the 17th of May, 1991. A seven years guarantee with regard to its components in particular the compressor was admittedly given. THE complainant''s case was that from the very day of delivery the refrigerator did not work well and despite repeated repairs by the appellant''s mechanic, the same could not be made functional. THE complainant by way of relief sought the refund of the price with interest apart from compensation for the loss incurred by her because of the persistent mal-functioning and the virtual nonfunctioning of the refrigerator. On notice being issued the appellants admitted the factum of the sale of the refrigerator to the complainant and clarified that the guarantee of seven years was only with regard to the hermetically sealed refrigeration system (i.e. the compressor, condenser and evaporator) etc. As regards the other parts, the guarantee was only for one year. It was admitted that even after 10 days of the purchase, the complainant had made a complaint which was attended to and again the complainant had brought the unit to the workshop of the appellants on the 3rd of June, 1991 and on checking it was found that the compressor was not working properly and, therefore, the appellants had undertaken to replace the same in a few days. However, the complainant requested that the unit may be set right temporarily and it was suggested that it worked satisfactorily but the complainant rushed to the District Forum for redress.

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the appellants, the District Forum passed an interim order directing the appellants to collect the refrigerator from the complainant''s house and to keep it under test and observation and to report compliance by the 6th of February, 1992. It would appear that the said direction of the District Forum could not be complied with strictitude in view of the non receipt thereof by the complainant. Consequently, later on the 20th of May, 1992, the District Forum passed the order under appeal granting relief in the terms noticed at the out-set.

MR. K.L. Malhotra, the learned Advocate for the appellants who projected the case with ability and commendable fairness had submitted that only issue that now arises is that the order under appeal has been passed as if in review. It was contended that as a matter of law, the District Forum and indeed all the redressal agencies under the Act have no inherent power to review their earlier orders. Primal reliance was placed on the observation in II (1991) CPJ 87 ''Usha Rani Gupta v. The General Manager''. In the present case no quarrel needs to be raised with the legal proposition that the power of review is not an inherent power at all and that it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. It suffices to mention that the decision aforesaid relied upon'' was with regard to the final order of the Commission and expressly a review application, therefor, had been moved. On those facts, the Commission had observed that the application for review is not maintainable and dismissed the same. It is somewhat manifest that no such situation at all arises here.

EVEN accepting the stand taken by the appellants, the crucial question herein is whether the order under appeal is one passed in review. We regret our inability to subscribe to the submission that it is so. An examination of the record would indicate that earlier the District Forum had passed the patently interim order in the following terms: "At this stage, we direct the respondent to collect the said freeze from complainant''s house against a receipt if necessary and keep it under test and observation at the shop and carry out the repairs including replacement of compressor and report the compliance by 6.2.1992 for further necessary action in the matter."

A Plain reading of the above would make it manifest that it is plainly an order interim in nature. The District Forum did not in any way come to any conclusive finding or to finally dispose of the complaint. In terms it was stated that the order was being passed "at this stage alone" and further necessary action in the matter was contemplated. Consequently, this order cannot possibly be construed as an order which had achieved any degree of finality, which cannot be reviewed. Obviously enough, it was an interlocutory order alone. Once it is held as above, then the primal and indeed the only argument raised on behalf of the appellants must fail. The order under appeal cannot possibly be construed as a review of any earlier concluded order. It has been passed on its own merits and as noticed already is in total confirmity with Clause (c) of Section 14 of the Act. For the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, since no appearance on behalf of the respondent-consumer has been made, we decline to burden the appellants with any costs. Appeal dismissed.