Responsibility for warranty lies with the manufacturer, and failure to involve the manufacturer in a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act can lead to dismissal of the complaint.

ORDER :

Surjit Singh, President

Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed.

2. Appellant purchased a mobile telephone set of Micromax Make for Rs. 2,300 from the respondent on 16.9.2011, with one year warranty. Phone developed some snag on 6.11.2011. It was taken to the work place of the respondent, who removed the defect. Again, within warranty period, mobile phone developed some defect. Respondent was again approached, when the set was retained by the respondent with the assurance that it will be repaired soon, but till the filing of complaint, it had not been delivered back to the appellant. So, the appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of the price of the phone as also compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 and litigation expenses.

3. Respondent contested the complaint and pleaded that defect in the telephone set had occurred due to its mishandling by the appellant and that the appellant had tried to get the mobile phone repaired from some unauthorized mechanic. Also, it was pleaded that despite the aforesaid act of violation of warranty, telephone set was got repaired free of cost by the respondent, but the appellant did not turn up to collect the same inspite of repeated attempts made to contact him telephonically.

4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, holding that warranty was given by the Micromax Corporation and not by the respondent and the appellant having not approached the said Micromax Corporation for repair of the mobile phone and also having not impleaded the said Corporation as a party to the complaint, his complaint was liable to be dismissed. Learned District Forum has also observed that during the course of hearing, repaired telephone set was produced by the respondent, but the appellant refused to accept the same. Learned District Forum also observed that a new set of Nokia Make of the same value as the alleged defective mobile set was offered by the respondent, but the appellant did not accept that too.

5. Counsel representing the appellant does not deny the aforesaid observations appearing in the order of learned District Forum (see para-9 of the impugned order). Also, we find in zimni order dated 11.3.2013 of the record of learned District Forum that the appellant turned down the offer by the respondent to give a new Nokia mobile phone set to the appellant, free of cost, in lieu of the set, in question, but he refused the offer. Learned District Forum recorded the refusal of the appellant in the form of his statement. The same is available on record of learned District Forum at page-28.

6. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

7. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.