LIGHT HOUSE Vs. GAYATRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred against two orders of March 17, 2004 and August 27, 2004, passed by District Consumer Forum, Ballia. Whereas by virtue of the former order of the complaint of the respondent Smt. Gayatri Devi for repair/refund of the price of the refrigerator was allowed ex parte, the latter order appears to indicate that the restoration application moved subsequently by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant, feeling aggrieved of these orders filed the present appeal challenging the validity of both the orders.

(3.) A perusal of the order dated 17.3.2004 would reveal that the appellant who is the dealer of Kelvinator Refrigerator Agency was served with a notice of the complaint yet he had preferred to remain absent and not to contest the allegations levelled by Smt. Gayatri Devi as regards the defects in the refrigerator she had purchased. As a consequence the District Forum proceeded to hear and decide the complaint ex parte. By virtue of the judgment in appeal it was held that there was a serious defect in the functioning of the refrigerator which came to light during the subsistence of guarantee period of four years. On the basis of its finding the District Forum directed for repairs of the refrigerator by replacement of its compressor and in default for refund of the price of the refrigerator. The appellant then moved restoration application which was held to be devoid of merit and dismissed on 27.8.2004. So far as the judgment dated 17.3.2004 is concerned, it is obvious that it cannot be challenged in time barred appeal. The instant appeal was filed on 15.9.2004 i.e., more than six months after the date of the judgment. No explanation for condonation of delay has been offered. Mere contention that the appellant was wrongly advised to prefer the restoration application and not the appeal is of no avail as it appears to be a pretext. If the appellant had chosen to move a restoration application, there was no logic not to avail the right of appeal. Even in the restoration application no convincing plea has been pressed into service as a result of which the District Forum was inclined to reject the restoration application. Since the appellant had been served with the notice in the complaint we are in full agreement with the order of the District Forum whereby restoration application of the appellant was turned down.