S.K.M. Lodha, President - The opposite party before the District Forum has filed this appeal against two orders dated 907.1990 and 4.2.1992 passed by the District Forum, Kota in Complaint Case No. 763/89 and Case No. 17/92.

One appeal has been filed against both the aforesaid orders. The complainant-respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kota on 26.10.1989 praying that House No. MPB 103 in o Periphery Scheme of Mahavir Nagar, Kola may be directed to be handed over and the opposite party-appellant should be ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- which she has spent unnecessarily towards the rent. After trial the District Forum ordered on 9.7.1990 that house No. MPB 103, Periphery scheme in Mahavir Nagar, Kota be handed over to the complainant-respondent within a period of one month. The District Forum also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant-respondent on the ground that the possession of the house was unnecessarily delayed. This order was passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 763/89 on 9.7.1990.

2. The opposite party did not file any appeal against the order under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986("the Act" herein). The opposite party, however submitted an application for review on 10.9.1990 which was registered as Case No. 17/92. The District Forum by its order dated 4.2.1992 dismissed the application for review on the ground that there is no provision in the Act for reviewing the order. It also observed that the District Forum has passed the order within its jurisdiction and, therefore no question arises for reviewing it. Against both the orders a common appeal as stated above has been filed. Service was presumed to be sufficient on the respondent vide order sheet dated 12.8.1992. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. We heard Mr. M.L. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant and considered the orders filed with the memo of appeal and the record of case No. 17/92 in the light of the submissions made by him. The order awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- was passed on 9.7.1990 on the ground that there was delay in giving the possession of the house. The opposite party-appellant did not prefer the appeal and submitted an application for review of the order on 10.9.1990. The complainant did not file any reply to the review application. She, however, submitted to the District Forum that the review application was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and that there is no provision for reviewing the order. The District - - Forum held that the review application was presented more than two months after the order dated 9.7.1990 and that there is no provision for reviewing it and the order so pass is proper. It was put to the learned counsel for the appellant whether this appeal against the order dated 4.2.1992 is maintainable under section 15 of the• Act. To this learned counsel submitted that even if this appeal is not maintainable under section 15 of the Act, this may be treated as a revision. He has, however, argued that the appeal is maintainable against the order dated 9.7.1990. It may be stated that no appeal was filed against the order dated 9.7.1990 under section 15 of the Act within the prescribed time and that order has become final. The present appeal against the order dated 9.7.1990 was filed on 3.3.1992 and it is barred and the order dated 9.7.1990 has become final. The review application was submitted on 10.9.1990 which was decided by the District Forum, Kota on 4.2.1992 as not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not point out any provision in the Act under which a review lay against an order passed under section 14(1) of the Act. It is firmly established that barring aside correction of clerical mistake, accidental slip or omission the redressal forum under the Act cannot exercise the power of review. It was held that the power to review must be conferred by a law either specifically or by a necess