IMPORTANT POINT
Question of liability of manufacturer is a matter between manufacturer and trader.

Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President—Learned Advocate appearing vice counsel for the appellant, prays for adjournment. Respondent, who is present in person, opposes the request and her contention is that she has been postponing a surgery operation of herself, which has been advised by the doctors, because of the pendency of this appeal. So, the request for adjournment is turned down and we proceed to dispose of the matter.

2. We have heard Advocate appearing vice counsel for the appellant as also the respondent, who is present in person.

3. Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.2.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent Adubala Vijaylakshmi, has been allowed and it (the appellant) has. been ordered to refund the price of defective jacket (amounting to Rs.1,871) and also to pay Rs. 1,000 as damages and Rs.500 as litigation expenses.

4. Respondent purchased a jacket for her daughter on 31.1.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,871. A few days later, when the daughter of the respondent went to the market wearing the said jacket, it started drizzling, as a result of which the jacket got wet and its colour faded. Respondent visited the shop of the appellant, accompanied by her husband on 21.2.2011 and brought it to the notice of the person at the counter that the colour of the jacket had faded. Respondent was advised to wash the jacket with ‘gentle’ brand soap. She acted as per advice of the appellant but the colour of the jacket further faded. She again went to the appellant’s shop to seek refund of money or the replacement of the jacket but the appellant did not oblige her. She, therefore, sought issuance of a direction to the appellant to replace the jacket or to refund its price and also to pay damages and litigation expenses.

5. Appellant contested. the complaint and pleaded that the same was bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer of the jacket. Competence of the District Forum to adjudicate the matter was also challenged. It was, however, admitted that the respondent had purchased a jacket, as alleged in the complaint. It was stated that she visited the shop of the appellant on 21st February, 2011, with the complaint that the colour had faded and during such visit she mis-behaved with the staff, despite the staff having told her to handover the jacket, so that the same could be sent to the manufacturer for removal of defect. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order directing the appellant to refund the price of the jacket and to pay damages and litigation expenses, as aforesaid.

6. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that since the colour of the jacket is alleged to have faded, the manufacturer of the jacket is a necessary party and on account of non-impleadment of the manufacturer complaint is liable to be dismissed. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. A consumer has nothing to do with the manufacturer of an article, when he or she purchases the article from a trader, without any intimation about the manufacturer of the article, as in the present case. The question of liability of the manufacturer is a matter between the manufacturer and the trader.

7. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant was prepared to get the defect in the jacket removed and made an offer to this effect to the respondent, when she visited the shop on 21st February, 2011, but instead of cooperating with the appellant, she mis-behaved with the staff members of the appellant. There is no evidence in support of this plea. Affidavit of none of the staff members of the appellant has been filed in support of the aforesaid plea. So the same is rejected.

8. As a result of the above discussion, appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000.

9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rul