STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/46/2024 null THE MANAGER NANDILATH G MART PRESENT ADDRESS - KMC 34/747 KALLOORVILA COOPERATIVE BUILDING KOLLAM ,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus SHYLAJA P PRESENT ADDRESS - SECRETARY SHYALAS GARMENTS AND STICHING CENTRE SHOP NO 10/997 KARAMCODU P O MEENAD VILLAGE KOLLAM 691579 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE PETITIONER:

THE MANAGER NANDILATH G MART, NITHYA S (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SHYLAJA P, In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No. 46/2024 ORDER DATED: 25.02.2025 (Against the Order in I.A.No.64/2024 in C.C.No.454/2023 of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

The Manager, Nandilath G Mart, KMC 34/747, Kaloorvila Co-operative Building, Pallimukku, Kollam – 690 010 (by Adv. K.S. Arundas and Adv. Nithya S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

Shylaja P., Secretary, Shyla’s Garments & Stitching Centre, Karomkode P.O., Kollam Taluk, Meenaad, Kollam – 691 579

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT This revision is the opposite party in C.C. No. 454/2023 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short the ‘District Commission’).

2. The opposite party filed I.A. No. 64/2024, praying for impleading the manufacturer of the product, namely, M/s Bajaj Electricals Limited as the additional 2 nd opposite party. The said application was dismissed by the District Commission.

3. The complainant is present in person. Heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

4. We have gone through the records and we find that there is allegation to the effect that the cooler supplied to the complainant had manufacturing defect. Whether there is manufacturing defect or not is a matter that has to be proved by the party who alleges manufacturing defect. However, if there is any manufacturing defect, the presence of the manufacturer is essential, as the manufacturer alone can replace the defective product. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the view that impleading the manufacturer in the present case is necessary and proper for the just decision of the case, particularly when there is allegation that the cooler supplied to the complainant had manufacturing defect. In the said circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order under revision.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, order dated 21.05.2024 in I.A.

nd No. 64/2024 stands set aside, I.A. No. 64/2024 stands allowed and the additional 2 opposite party stands impleaded in the complaint. The District Commission is directed nd to issue notice to the additional 2 opposite party and proceed with the complaint in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SL ..................

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT