IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Provision of cross-objection seems to be a convenient method of consolidating different appeals filed by different respondents, against the same impugned order.
2. Cross-objection needs to be decided on merits.
3. It is necessary that the question of manufacturing defect or any defect within the warranty period is decided after hearing the complainant as well as the dealer.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Laxman A.Tekwani against the order dated 27.7.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.839 of 2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant on 29.11.2014 purchased a fridge wide receipt no.343 for an amount of Rs.13,700/- from the petitioner manufactured by respondent No.2. It was told to the complainant that it had two years’ warranty. On 8.11.2015, the complainant’s fridge suddenly exploded and blasted with a huge sound. After giving information about the incident to fire brigade and police station Beed, they tried to extinguish the fire. After the incident, the police officer, Tahsildar, Gramsevak, Talathi have prepared panchnama. On 09.11.2015, the panchnama was drawn in presence of the Technician of the respondent company. On 17.11.2015, the respondent company prepared job sheet and issued report thereof along with photographs of the refrigerator showing the compressor intact. On 01.12.2015, lastly the complainant issued notice to the respondent No.2 and the petitioner through his advocate. On 02.01.2016, the complainant has filed the present complaint and claimed the loss of Rs.7,00,000/- caused due to the blast alongwith18% p.a.interest thereon. The District Forum, Beed allowed the consumer complaint No.2/2016 by judgment and order dated 13.07.2016. On 16.08.2016, the respondent No.2 company filed first appeal No.839 of 2016 before the State Commission. On 18.01.2017, the petitioner filed cross-objection before the State Commission. On 27.07.2017, the State Commission dismissed the cross-objection and allowed the appeal of the respondent No.2/ the manufacturer company.

3. Hence the revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the provision of warranty is there because if there is any manufacturing defect or if any defect develops within the warranty period, the manufacturer has to remove the defect. Basically warranty is a provision of a liability on the part of the manufacturer. Petitioner is only the dealer whose primary responsibility is to sell the product as received from the manufacturer. Thus, if the fridge performed well for about a year and then there was sudden blast, then there was either a manufacturing defect or some defect developed during the period of use. Therefore, if there is any shortcoming in the fridge, it is the manufacturer who is responsible for removing the defect and not the dealer.

5. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- based on the report of panchnama. On the day of arguments before the State Commission, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner was present nor the learned counsel for the complainant was present. The State Commission heard only the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 herein (appellant before the State Commission) and decided the appeal by allowing it. The petitioner could not get any opportunity to put forward its case before the State Commission though the petitioner had filed cross-objection before the State Commission. Learned counsel mentioned that the order dated 27.7.2017 passed by the State Commission is liable to be set aside not only on the ground of not giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, but also on the ground that the State Commission did not consider the points raised in the cross-objection filed by the petitioner. The State Commission has dismissed the cross- objection of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner did not file any appeal against the order of the District Forum. The learned counsel mentioned that there is a provision of filing cross- objection by respondents in an appeal under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This provision gives an alternative to the resp