AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD learned Lawyers for both sides. This revision petition is directed against order of the Forum dated 28.11.1994 dismissing the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant could not be regarded as consumer. It appears that the complainant approached the Forum for a direction upon the manufacturer/dealer for replacing the fridge by new one. Initially, an order was passed in favour of the complainant on 23.3.1994 allowing the prayer of the complainant. Subsequently, the opposite party filed a petition praying for calling the order dated 22.3.1994 for affording an opportunity to him of being heard. This prayer of the opposite party was entertained and the Forum by order dated 8.4.1994 vacated earlier order dated 22.3.1994. Thereafter the matter was heard in presence of both sides on merit. After hearing the parties at length, the Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant does not come within the definition of the word ''consumer'' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This order of the Forum dated 28.11.1994 has been challenged in revision. But earlier order of the Forum dated 8.4.1994 has not been assailed by the complainant whereby the first order dated 22.3.1994 was recalled. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn our attention to a case reported in 1999 (1) Supreme 303 to contend that a State Consumer Redressal Forum has no power to set aside its own ex parte order. Nevertheless, the facts remain that the order dated 8.4.1994 vacating the earlier order dated 22.3.1994 has not been challenged before this Commission. It was allowed to stand till the matter was finally decided by the Forum on 28.11.1994. With regard to the legal provision that a State Consumer Redressal Forum has no power to set aside its own ex parte order, there cannot be any dispute. But in course of hearing it has been suggested by the parties that all the orders culminating in order dated 28.11.1994 to set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Forum for fresh decision after allowing opportunity to the parties to advance their contention. In view of the submission made at the Bar we think it just and proper to set aside the order dated 22.3.1994, 8.4.1994 and 28.11.1994 and remit back the case to the Forum for adjudication on merit afresh after allowing an opportunity to the parties for hearing. In that view of the matter the revision petition succeeds.
SEND down the record if called for, at once. The parties are directed to appear before the Forum within two weeks from the date of the order for further instructions regarding hearing of the matter.
Since the matter is very old the Forum is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months.
WITH this observation the revision petition is disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.