K.D.SHAHI,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the learned Forum has directed the appellant to change the generator or to refund a sum of Rs. 27,000/ - along with interest @ 15% to the complainant and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ -.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a generator from the opposite party No. 1, manufactured by opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 27,000/ - on 4.7.1996. The warranty was for a period of one year. It is alleged that after only 2 -3 days the generator became defective. The opposite party sent mechanic and got it repaired. Again after 15 days it became defective. The opposite party No. 1 got the generator at his shop on the pretext that he will repair it but he neither repaired the generator nor returned it. It is not written in para 2 of the complaint on what date the appellant got the generator from the complainant? Verbally it was argued that the generator is still with the appellant. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the generator is still with the appellant but in para 2 of the complaint why it has been written "(Hindi matter omitted)" has not been explained? It is alleged that on 26.2.1998 the appellant refused to check the generator, therefore, she claimed for a new generator or refund of Rs. 27,000/ -. In para 3 of the complaint it is further said that "(Hindi matter omitted)" When again it was called by the appellant has not been explained?
(3.) THE opposite party filed written statement and denied the allegations. However, it is admitted that the generator was purchased by the complainant with a warranty of one year and it is further alleged that entire servicing has been done within a period of one year. It is specifically alleged in para 8 of the written statement that it is wrong to allege that the generator has been removed by the appellant. The generator is still in possession of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has used the generator for 2 years with full satisfaction. There is no question of its change. The learned Forum heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after narrating the entire evidence without giving any finding allowed the complaint. There is absolutely no finding of fact in the judgment. Merely there is one line decision, "(Hindi matter omitted)". There is absolutely no finding that there was any manufacturing defect, there is absolutely no finding that there was any defect in repair, there is absolutely no finding how the Forum has got the conclusion that the generator is in possession of the appellant. Without any finding the complaint could not have been allowed. When the appeal was filed before the Honble Lucknow Commission, there was discussion on these points and on 15.11.1999 there was an interim order that "keeping in view the facts of the case, it is directed that the appellant shall repair the generator within 15 days after the receipt of the generator from the complainant. The appellant shall send a copy of this order along with a request for bringing the generator at his workshop at Roorkee. The complainant shall present the generator before the appellant on the date fixed by the District Forum concerned. The complainant shall be informed by the appellant to be present before the District Forum on 24.12.1999. The District Forum shall fix a date for handing over the generator by the complainant to the appellant at his workshop, and after repair a date shall be intimated by the District Forum to complainant to take back the generator. The cost of the repair shall be produced by the appellant before the Commission on the date fixed. The complainant shall also present on the date fixed for which notice shall be issued to the complainant." There is nothing on record to show that this part of order has been complied by the appellant. Even on 30.8.2000 both the parties appeared before the Honble Commission and the complainant prayed for vacation of the order. Date of 22.9.2000 was fixed. On 22.9.2000 Counsels boycotted the Court and 20.10.2000 was fixed. On 20.10.2000 Mr. R.K. Gupta, Counsel for the complainant stated that the generator is lying with the appellant and the same has not been returned to her after repair. Thus there was a confusion whether the generator is with the complainant or with the appellant. The Honble Commission, therefore, ordered that let this matter be decided by the District Forum concerned and the District Forum shall get the generator repaired from the appellant and after the generator is repaired, the learned Forum will inform the Commission and date of 2.3.2001 was fixed for hearing. Both the parties slept over the matter, at least the record does not show that the compliance of this order was made by either of the parties by approaching the District Forum.;