R.N. Mittal, President - This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 16.7.1991.

2. Briefly the facts are that the District Forum vide order dated 20A.1990/14.5.1990directed the respondent to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 15% p.a. from 22.2.1982 till the date of payment within a fortnight. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the State Commission. An application was filed by the complainant before the District Forum under Section 25/& 27 of the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) to take action against the respondent as the amount was not paid by them to the complainant.

3. The learned District Forum ordered that the record of the case alongwith a copy of the order be sent to the Administrative Sub-Judge, Delhi under Section 25 of the Act for execution of the order. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that an appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable before the Commission under the Act. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Sections IS, 17, 19, 21 and 23 of the Act and decision of Haryana State Commission in Kohinoor Carpects. Panipat & others v. Mr. Rajinder Arora.

5. On the other hand the agent for the appellant has argued that Section-IS of the Act gives very wide powers to the State Commission to hear appeals against all the orders of the District Forum and therefore, an appeal is maintainable against the impugned order.

6. We have duly considered the arguments of the learned counsel. Section 14 deals with the findings of the District Forum and Section 15 with the appeals. The relevant parts of both the sections read as follows:

"14(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things, namely:

(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;

(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;

(c) to return to the complainant the price. or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant;

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.

(2) xxxx xxxx xxxx

(3) xxxx xxxx xxxx

15. "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed;

Commission are to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees ten lacs. Thus the powers of appeal against the orders of the State Commission, conferred on the National Commission conferred on the Supreme Court are similar. While interpreting Section 15 it is advisable to take into consideration the provisions of Sections 19 & 23. If section 15 is given wide meaning that would lead to absurdity, as it could not be the intention of the Legislature that right of appeal against an order under Section 27 passed by the District Forum should be granted to an aggrieved party but no such right against such an orders of the State Commission and the National Commission should be conferred on him. It is relevant to mention that under Section 27, sentence of fine or imprisonment or both can be awarded by the Courts under the Act. It is well settled that the Commission Forum can discover from the language of an enactment, the true intention of the Legislature. Normally the Court has no power to give to the languag