In cases of defective goods, the manufacturer is a necessary party and must be given an opportunity to answer the charges in relation to the goods which they have manufactured.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection - Defective Goods - Manufacturer as Necessary Party - The court found that in cases of defective goods, the manufacturer is a necessary party and must be given an opportunity to answer the charges in relation to the goods which they have manufactured. The court set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and remitted the complaints back for fresh adjudication after adding the manufacturer as a necessary party.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a local dealer, sold defective deep freezers manufactured by Reliance Incorporation to the complainants. The complainants approached the District Forum for refund and compensation, and the Forum allowed the complaints.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the manufacturer, Reliance Incorporation, should have been a necessary party in the consumer dispute, and the orders passed by the District Forum in absence of the manufacturer were set aside. The complaints were remitted back for fresh adjudication after adding the manufacturer as a necessary party.
Issues: Whether the manufacturer is a necessary party in cases of defective goods and whether the District Forum's orders were valid in the absence of the manufacturer.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of defective goods, the manufacturer is a necessary party and must be given an opportunity to answer the charges in relation to the goods which they have manufactured.
Final Decision: Both appeals were allowed, the orders passed by the District Forum were set aside, and the complaints were remitted back for fresh decision after adding the manufacturer as a necessary party.

ORDER

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—Both these appeals are decided by this common order as a common question of law arises in these appeals. We have heard Shri V.V. Marathe, Advocate from Solapur in both the appeals and Shri Satpute, Representative of Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat for both the respondents.

2. Shortly stated, the facts in both the cases are that the appellant Electromek Marketing is the local dealer at Solapur for distribution and sale of “Deep Freezers manufactured by Reliance Incorporation, 26, Appollo Industrial Estate, Ground floor, Mahakali Cross Rd., Chakala, Andheri (E), Bombay. It is the complaint of both the complainants i.e. M/s. Sumadhur Enterprises and Arvind Indapure that the deep freezers purchased by them from appellant Electromek Marketing were defective. Both the deep freezers were manufactured by the Reliance Incorporation, Bombay. The complainant alleged that the Deep Freezers purchased by them were defective goods, and, therefore, they approached the District Forum, Solapur for the refund of the purchase price of the respective deep freezers with interest and also claimed the amount for compensation, as mentioned in their respective complaints appeals. The District Forum allowed both the complaints. In Appeal No. 280/91 arising out the order of District Forum, Solapur passed in Complaint No. 19/90, the District Forum ordered the appellant only to refund the amount of Rs. 16,200/- with compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. The District Forum did not pass the order against the manufacturer ‘Reliance Incorporation’ although it was a party before the District Forum. In Appeal No. 281/91 arising out of the Complaint No. 1 /90. The District Forum ordered the present appellant Electromek Marketing to return Rs. 17,500/- with compensation of Rs. 1,690/- to the complainant. In this case, the manufacturer ‘Reliance Incorporation’ was not made a party. During the hearing of these appeals, Respondent Arvind Indapure presented an application to add manufacturer ‘Reliance Incorporation, Bombay as a party. The appellant has given his no objection for adding the ‘Reliance Incorporation, Bombay as a party to the consumer dispute.

3. After going through the record we find that the allegations made by the complainant in both the appeals were regarding the defective goods viz. the Deep Freezers sold by the appellant to the complainants which were manufactured by the Reliance Incorporation, Bombay. The complainants claimed to refund of the purchase price with interest and also, claimed compensation. We find that since these two complainants are pertaining to the defects in the goods, the Manufacturer is a necessary party. In fact, in Appeal No. 280/91, Reliance Incorporation—the Manufacturer was a party in the consumer dispute before the District Forum but having reached the finding of defective goods, the District Forum did not pass any award against the manufacturer. The appellant in both the appeals Electromek Marketing is admittedly the selling agent of Deep Freezers manufactured by Reliance Incorporation, Bombay. In our view, if it is the complaint of a consumer as regards the defect in the goods, then the manufacturer should be a necessary party. The Reliance Incorporation was not a party in Complaint No. 1/90 which is required and is the subject matter of Appeal No. 281/91. In order to have the just and final adjudication as regards the defective goods the manufacturer must be a necessary party and must be given an opportunity to answer the charges in relation to the goods which he has manufactured. Under these circumstances, we find that both the orders passed by the District Forum, Solapur in absence of the manufacturer as a party are set aside and the complaints are required to be remitted back to the District Forum, Solapur for fresh adjudication after adding Reliance Incorporation as a necessary party in Complaint No. 1/92. If it is a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer will b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document