The original manufacturer is not a necessary party in a complaint against the trader for the supply of defective goods, and not all defective goods must be referred to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and test under Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.

S.S. Sandhawalia, President—Whether the original manufacturer is a necessary party in a complaint against the trader for the supply of defective goods? Whether all defective goods must be referred to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and test under sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act? This is the twin issue which arises for determination in this appeal.

2. As the questions aforesaid are pristinely legal the facts relating thereto may be noticed with relative brevity. Sh. Anil Kumar, complainant/respondent had purchased one Hero Honda Motor Cycle on the 19th of January, 1990 for Rs. 21,777/50 P. from the appellant concern. According to the complainant the said vehicle consumed inordinately excessive mobil-oil and when the appellant was approached in this behalf, they assured that after some time and use the vehicle would work satisfactorily and would not require any excessive mobil oil. The appellant further undertook to change the vehicle in case the said defect does not disappear. However, a later check on 20th March, 1990 disclosed that the engine of the said vehicle was worthless and then a promise was held out by the appellant that new parts shall be obtained from the manufacturing company and new engine will be fixed without any charges, if necessary by the 1st of April, 1990. The complainant, however, apprehended that the vehicle supplied to him was an accidented one which after unsatisfactory repair had been passed on to him as a new one. As the guarantee period of one year was still subsisting and the motor cycle failed to give satisfactory service, the complainant approached the District Forum for relief seeking inter alia that the vehicle be changed with a new one.

3. As many as three notices were issued to the appellant to come present before the Forum. The last one was issued on 28th of June, 1990. But in the meantime a cryptic letter dated 13 June, 1990 was sent by the appellant to the District Forum seeking dismissal of the complaint and thereafter the appellant contumaciously refused to appear before the same. Treating the said letter as a reply version, and consequent on the absence of the appellant, the District Forum felt compelled to proceed ex parte against them under Rule 4(8) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules. Accepting the testimony of the complainant the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle supplied was a defective one and consequently directed the appellant to supply another new Motor Cycle to the consumer within one month of the date of order. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the appellant had first contended somewhat faintly that the appellant had been denied a full opportunity of hearing by the District Forum and the ex parte proceedings against them were not sustainable. It was submitted that the Forum erred gravely in not affording yet another opportunity to the appellant for presenting his case on merits.

5. The aforesaid argument is only to be noticed and rejected. As the District Forum has recorded in the order (and which is not disputed before us) a notice was first issued to the appellant for giving their version in reply on the 17th of April, 1990 to appear on the 8th of May, 1990 vide Registered Post Office Receipt No. 2370, dated 18th of April, 1990. However, the appellant neither cared to send any reply nor put in appearance. A presumption of the notice having been duly served would thus be legitimate and the appellant must be deemed to be aware of the proceedings, unless he conclusively rebutted the same. Nevertheless, as a matter of abundant caution and indeed as a pure concession the Forum issued a second notice on the 22nd May, 1990 for the 13th June, 1990, but again without any effect. The third notice was issued on the 14th of June, 1990 for the 28th June, 1990. It would manifestly appear that the appellant was aware of the proceedings because meanwhile they forwarde