VOLTAS LTD Vs. PUSHPA BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of District Forum, Gurgaon dated 6th March, 1995 by which the appellant has been directed to replace the refrigerator of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant had not been coming present for the last three hearings. Therefore, on 22nd April, 1996 arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent alone were heard. However, thereafter on 30th April, 1996 the learned Counsel for the appellant filed an application for submission of his written arguments, which was allowed and written arguments on his behalf were taken on record.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint filed by the respondent. District Forum, Gurgaon vide its order dated 20th May, 1994 had directed the present appellants to remove the defects in the refrigerator sold to the respondent within 10 days to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. However, the respondent filed another application before the District Forum on 25th January, 1995 alleging that the said order of the District Forum had remained uncomplied with and requested for action initiated against the present appellants under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act. On notice being received by the present appellants, they appeared before the District Forum and stated that the refrigerator had been repaired and rendered perfectly alright and subsequent check-ups were also carried on its performance through their Service Engineer on 28th May, 1994, 16th June, 1994 and 23rd June, 1994 and on all these occasions it was found in proper working order. Thereafter no complaint was received by them and when on receipt of the notice of this application they sent the Mechanic to check-up the refrigerator, it was found burnt due to electrical fault at the residence of the respondent. It was also pointed out that this fact was not mentioned in the application by the respondent. The District Forum after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the present appellants had failed to put the refrigerator in order and therefore, directed the present appellant to replace the refrigerator.

(3.) The main point raised in the appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the District Forum has no powers to modify the original order while proceeding under Sec.27 of the Act. In this case, the original direction was only regarding the repair of the refrigerator and now the District Forum had directed the appellants to replace the refrigerator without any fresh complaint having been filed in this regard. The learned Counsel for the respondent had earlier pointed out that the District Forum had clearly stipulated that the repair should be carried out to the entire satisfaction of the respondent and inspite of the fact that their Mechanic had carried out some repairs the respondent was not satisfied and had also recorded this fact on both the occasions when repairs were carried out. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the earlier order passed by it had not been complied with and had, therefore, rightly directed the appellant to replace the refrigerator.