Heard learned counsel for the appellants.None appears for the respondent.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.     Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant has purchased a TV from OP No.1 on paymentof consideration. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that the TV has gone defective after some days for which he approached the OPs but no action was taken. So, he filed the consumer complaint.

4.     Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that they filed written version stating that the defects pointed out by the complainant are clearly beyond the warranty and thereby they have no deficiency in service in attending the work of the complainant.

5.     Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after analysising the case of both parties, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint butpassed the orderwhich is challenged in this appeal. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:-

“xxxxxxxxx

Considering the above all circumstances, the interim order is issued to prevent the further culmination of irreparable loss to be incurred to the petitioner with an eye to the process of natural justice. The OP (one) is hereby directed to substitute a New Sony brand TV of same model, series and specification in case of thedefect one, forthwith in replacement of old one, within two days of this order, failing which a penalty of Rs.500/- per day shall be compensated to the petitioner. This order extend s till disposal of the case.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when the case was dismissed, the further order with regard to interimorder passed is in executable and illegal because when the complaint case  has no merit, the question of  interim order passed that having reached its finality is also not maintainable. Any order passed to implement same is nothing but abuse of power by the learned District Forum. So, he submitted to set aside the same.

7.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.     It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased a LED TV manufactured by the appellant. It is not in dispute that the TV became defective but it does not come under the warranty issued to purchase such TV. As such, the learned District Forum was not convinced with it and dismissed the complaint. It is well settled in law that once the complaint case is dismissed, any interim orderthereof also merged with the final order. In this case without considering the result of merit of the case, the learned District Forum has gone back to the interim order passed on 18.4.2014. For non- compliance of such interim order there could have been execution proceeding but not this original proceeding. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has no locus standi to pass above order and hereby, we have no hesitation to set aside the same.

9.     Accordingly, the impugned order directing the OPNo.1 to pay the fine or any other compliance are hereby unwarranted and hereby set aside. But thedismissal of complaint case stands confirmed.

10.    Thus, The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.