The seller of goods to a consumer cannot evade his liability for the defects therein on the ground that the original manufacturer thereof alone is answerable.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Whether the seller of goods to a consumer can evade his liability for me defects therein (under the Consumer Protection Act) on the ground that the original manufacturer thereof alone is answerable, therefore is the solitary, significant question in this appeal.

2. The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellants M/s Subash Chand Ashok Kumar on their own showing are the approved dealers of M/s Binatone Electronics Limited. Shri Anil Kumar, complainant-respondent No. 1 had purchased one Binatone coloured T.V. set from the appellants vide Bill No. 479 dated 23rd of June, 1988. The picture tube thereof carried a guarantee of three years against normal wear and tear. However, about two months prior to the filing of the complaint the said tube suddenly burnt away apparently due to some inherent defect therein. The defect was immediately brought to the notice of the appellants who assured the consumer regarding the replacement of the damaged picture tube on its receipt from their principals M/s Binatone Electronics Limited. Persistent protestations were made by the complainant and it is the appellant’s case that they also, sent reminders to respondent No. 2, but nothing was done to replace the picture tube. Aggrieved thereby the complainant preferred the complaint on the 17th of June, 1991 seeking the replacement of the picture tube and the necessary repairs to the set and also damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- against both the opposite parties.

3. In the somewhat cryptic written reply of the appellant to the complaint they did not at all controvert the facts and merely sought to shift their liability on the ground that the warranty was the responsibility of the manufacturer as also the rendering of after sale-service. It was alleged that the service was transferred to the Chandigarh office of M/s Binatone Electronics Limited.

4. M/s Binatone Electronics in their written statement admitted paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the complaint whilst controverter the other primarily on the ground of want of knowledge. However, the basic stand taken on their behalf was that since April 1991 their manufacturing activities had to be closed down due to severe financial difficulties and the company had reported its sickness to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985. Consequently, the said respondent did not defend the proceedings and were apparently proceeded against ex-parte.

5. In support of his case the complainant appeared as PW-1 and proved on the record Exs. P-1 and P-2 being the cash credit memo and the warranty card respectively. The appellants did not choose to cross-examine the complainant or to challenge the documents placed on the record and reiterated their stand that the liability was that of the original manufacturer and their repair service establishment at Chandigarh. As noticed by the District Forum, the solitary stand taken on behalf of the appellants whilst admitting the fact was that the manufacturer alone was liable for the replacement of the picture tube as there was an inherent defect therein.

6. The District Forum on the basis of virtually undisputed facts came to the conclusion that both the appellants and their principals M/s Binatone Electronics Limited were severally and collectively responsible for the default and directed that the damaged tube must be replaced with a new one within 40 days of the order failing which compliance under Section 27 of the Act would be resorted to.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant somewhat mechanically advocate the identical stand which had been taken on their behalf before the District Forum, without in any way assailing the established fact that the picture tube was inherently defective. It was contended that the sole liability therefore, lay on the shoulders of the manufacturers alone. Reliance was placed on Exhibit P-2, the warrant