PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. AKAI BARON INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the appellant Shri Pardeep Kumar who is persent in person. We have also perused the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] on 21.3.2001. The order passed by the District Forum-II is based on the offer and acceptance made between the parties before the District Forum-II regarding the repair of the T. V. The District Forum-II has not proceeded to decide the complaint on merit. In order to properly appreciate the order passed by the District Forum-II, it will be useful to refer to the order passed by the District Forum-II, which reads as under : "mr. K. K. Saini, Advocate along with complainant. Ms. Sarika, Representative of the O. P. with Mechanic. This complaint seeks the replacement of T. V. alleged to be defective. To settle the controversy we had directed on the last date that T. V. be brought in the Forum for examination of its reception. The T. V. has been brought before this Forum but is not working. It is admitted by the complainant that when it was being transported to the Forum in a rickshaw, it met with minor accident. The mechanic of the O. P. has examined the T. V. and says that the picture tube of the T. V. has been completely destroyed and it requires replacement. In these circumstances, the performance of the T. V. could not be examined. The picture tube costs Rs.6,000/- and Ms. Sarika, Representative of the O. P. after consulting his seniors says that the Company is ready to bear the 60% cost of the picture tube. The O. P. will provide serial number and warranty of the new picture tube replaced in lieu of old tube. The Representative of the O. P. also says that the said T. V. was examined on 16.3.2001 and receipt was signed by the father of the complainant in token of satisfaction. It is undertaken by the Representative of the O. P. that the preformance of the T. V. after repair would be to the satisfaction of the complainant, the T. V. has been delivered to the agent of O. Ps, they want about two weeks or ten days time to effect the requisite repair. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Announced 21.3.2001 sd/-Member sd/-Member sd/-President" The appellant Mr. Pardep Kumar informs us that in pursuance of the order dated 21.3.2001, the T. V. was taken by the opposite parties who repaired the same and the T. V. is now with the appellant and is functioning. He, however, states that the opposite parties did not provide the serial number and warranty of the new picture tube, which has been replaced in the T. V. and regarding which the direction was issued by the District Forum-II in the impugned order. So far as this grievance is concerned, it may be brought to the notice of the District Forum-II for proper implementation of the order passed by the District Forum-II under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act]. It is sufficient to say that the impugned order has not decided the case of the complainant on merit and the same is as a matter of fact decided on the basis of the adjustment, offer and acceptance which exchanged between the parties before the District Forum-II. Since the order has been passed on the basis of the agreement reached between the parties, the appellant/complainant cannot be held to be a person aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum-II which is the requirement of Sec.15 of the C. P. Act. Resultantly, this appeal lacks merit and it legally not maintainable and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges.