RAJENDRA PUROHIT Vs. DAULAT ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the order of the District Forum, Jodhpur dated 14.12.92 awarding a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to the Complainant as against M/s. Daulat Electronics, Jodhpur only. The respondent remained absent despite service of notice of the appeal by registered post. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant-appellant and perused the record of the District Forum.

(2.) It appears that the Complainant-appellant had filed a complaint in District Forum, Jodhpur as against Expo Machinery Ltd. , Alpine Agencies and the present appellant Daulat Electronics, Jodhpur alleging that a Kelvinator refrigerator which was sold to him, had manufacturing defect. In the said complaint the District Forum, Jodhpur passed an interim order directing M/s. Daulat Electronics to remove the defects within 20 days of the date of the order. It was also mentioned that if the defect is not removed, the Complainant will be entitled to move the District Forum and the question of compensation will be decided after the defect is removed. The Complainant thereafter moved an application on 29.12.90 before the District Forum stating that defect was removed in October, 1990. He made a claim for compensation of Rs.4980/-. This claim for compensation was decided on 21.1.91 by the two members of the District Forum and they awarded a sum of Rs.2580/- as compensation to the Complainant. M/s. Daulat Electronics filed Appeal No.129/ 91 before the State Commission. The State Commission by its appellate order dated 24.10.91 set aside the order of the District Forum, Jodhpur dated 21.1.91 on the ground that the two members did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim for compensation. The matter was remanded to the District Forum.

(3.) It appears that after the remand, the District Forum sent a notice to M/s. Daulat Electronics only by registered post and it was served on 16.11.92. The acknowledgement receipt is on the file of the District Forum. However, it appears that on 14.12.92 Mr. Akshai Parakh. Advocate appeared for M/s. Daulat Electronics, but he represented that he does not want to conduct the case on behalf of the said Opposite Party for the reason that he previously given advise to the Complainant on the subject of this complaint. The District Forum has mentioned in its order that despite the above application made by Mr. Akshai Parakh, Advocate, it proceeded to do to decide the complaint treating Mr. Akshai Parakh, Advocate to be present on behalf of the said Opposite Party-respondent. When Mr. Akshai Parakh Advocate made an application that he did not want to appear for the Opposite Party-respondent because he has advised the Complainant in the year 1989 on the subject matter of the complaint, the District Forum should not have treated Mr. Akshai Parakh as having appeared for the Opposite Party-respondent.