A District Forum has the inherent power to set aside an ex-parte order, as it has quasi-judicial functions and trappings of a Court.

R.N. Mittal, President — Briefly, the facts are that K. Kant, complainant now respondent No. 1 purchased a Moped from Himgiri Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd. defendant No. 3 on 4th January, 1989 for a consideration of Rs. 7,805/-. It is alleged by him that since the date he purchased the Moped it did not work satisfactorily. Defendant No. 1 & 2 M/s Hero Honda Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hero Motors Ltd. were stated by him to be the manufacturers of the Moped. He pleaded that defendant No. 3 gave an assurance on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 that in case any defect arose, the same would be rectified, but inspite of his approaching the defendants many times, the defects could not be rectified. He has, therefore, prayed that the defendants be directed to either replace the Moped or refund the amount of Rs. 7,805/- paid by him to defendant No. 3 as its price.

2. Notices were issued to the defendants but no one appeared on their behalf before the District Forum. Consequently, the Forum vide impugned order dated 11.9.90 directed the defendants to replace the Moped within one month of the date of order, and in case it was not replaced, it was directed that they should pay Rs. 7,805/- Rs. 1,173/- to the complainant within that period, failing which the defendants would be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from 4th January, 1989 till the date of payment.

3. In application dated 28th September, 90 was moved on behalf of M/s Majestic Auto Ltd. before the District Forum stating that defendant Nos. 2 & 3 had been duly served for 11th September, 90 and they had engaged Sh. Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Advocate for appearing before the Hon’ble Forum. Defendant No. 2 M/s Hero Motors was a division of M/s Majestic Auto Ltd. and defendant No. 2 was not the manufacturer of the Moped. It was alleged that on 11th September, 90, the Counsel was busy in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and he could not appear before the Forum when the case was called for hearing. However, he had deputed a Clerk to make a request to the Forum to wait for the Counsel, inspite of that the Forum proceeded ex-parte. Consequently, it was prayed that the ex-parte order dated 11th September, 90 be set aside and the said defendants be allowed to file written reply. The counsel also filed an affidavit in that regard. The Court rejected the application and conveyed the order vide letter dated October 17 & 23,1990 to M/s Majestic Auto Ltd. that the application had been rejected. It was stated in the letter that there was no provision in the Act for setting aside the ex-parte orders. M/s Majestic Auto Ltd. & M/s Himgiri Auto Mobiles Ltd. have come up in appeal against both the orders to this Commission.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that M/s Hero Honda, defendant No. 2 had no connection with the appellants but he made them a party as they were made a party by respondent No. 1 before the District Forum. Consequently, he made a statement before the Commission that he gave up respondent No. 2 from the array of respondents. Respondent No. 1 had no objection if the respondent No. 2’s name was ordered to be deleted. Consequently, we ordered the deletion of the name of respondent No. 2 from the array of respondents.

5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the application moved by the appellants for setting-aside of the ex-parte orders could not be dismissed on the ground that the Forum had no jurisdiction to set-aside the ex-parte order. If a Forum had power to proceed against ex-parte against a party it had also right to set-aside the ex-parte order if it was shown that there were sufficient grounds for it not to appear before the Forum.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and respondent. It is true that neither in the Consumer Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as’ the Act’, nor in the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, there is any provision for setting aside the ex-parte fina