EXPO MACHINERY LIMITED vs PRAFULLA KUMAR DHAL

THIS appeal is against the ex-parte judgment of the District Forum, Dhenkanal/Angul in C.D. Case No. 153 of 1994. The complainant filed the aforesaid case alleging that he had purchased a fridge from Ganesh Enterprisers, Angul on 10.11.93 which went out of order after running for two months. The fridge which the complainant purchased was manufactured by Expo Machinery Limited. The complainant filed the aforesaid case praying for a direction to the Expo Machinery Limited, to take back the defective fridge and return back the consideration together with interest and compensation for the suffering and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. The Expo Machinery Limited was the only opposite party in the aforesaid case. Notice being sent to the said opposite party, there was no response and, therefore, the District Forum proceeded to dispose of the case ex-parte directing the Expo Machinery Limited to replace the fridge in question by providing a new one in place of the old or in the alternative to return the consideration of Rs. 8,350/- to the complainant- together with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 100/- towards cost of litigation to be paid within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order. Hence this appeal.

IT has been strenuously argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the fridge in question was admittedly purchased from Ganesh Enterprisers, Angul and there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the present appellant. On receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the present appellant made enquiries from Ganesh Enterprisers as to the correctness of the transaction and before the required informations were gathered, the case was disposed of ex-parte. He has also argued that the District Forum proceeded on the basis of the document which appears to have been manipulated and forged by the complainant. He has produced a document entitled as "Outdoor Service Call" said to be carbon copy of the original in which service rendered by Expo Machinery Limited to the complainant stands recorded through Ganesh Enterprisers. In the said document, it is mentioned that the fridge was repaired to the satisfaction of the customer and there was no defect therein. This document appears to have been signed by the complainant himself. The learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the xerox copy of the said document which was produced before the District Forum by the complainant. In the said xerox copy against the item "Thermostat" the word "Serviceable" has been scored through and the word "unserviceable" has been tick marked as if during service, the Thermostat was found to be unserviceable. The document which was produced before us by the appellant does not contain the scoring through of the word "serviceable" nor the tick mark has been given against the word "unserviceable". Similarly as against the item "Paint", the word "Rust" has been ticked out which is absent in the document produced before us. A date being "9.12.93" has been put below the signature of the complainant in the xerox copy with a tick mark against the words "not verified" but the carbon copy of original does not contain either the tick mark or the date. If the complainant did not verify that the defect has been removed to his satisfaction, he would not have signed the said document. One circumstance to which we attach some importance is that both in the xerox copy filed by the complainant as well as the said original produced before us, the letters "a 1" which signifies "all right" has been noted against all the items printed in the said document by an oblique line drawn against the same. If the Thermostat was not serviceable and the paint too had got rusted, it is inappropriate that the mechanic who had signed therein would have written "a 1" against all the items. This gives rise to some suspicion in our mind about the genuineness of the xerox copy of the document filed before the District Forum. Even if the case of the complainant is that he had purchased the refrigerator from Ganesh Enterprisers who is a dealer of the Company, the Company may be jointly and severally liable for the transaction along with the dealer, but in our opinion, it would be unfair to hold the Company alone responsible for the sale of refrigerator in the absence of the dealer who transacted the business. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was proper on the part of the District Forum to require the complainant to implead the dealer as a party or issue notice to the dealer at the behest of the Forum itself for the ends of justice. In the result, we set aside the impugned order, remand the case for fresh disposal after issuing notice to Ganesh Enterprises and giving opportunity to the present appellant to show cause against the complaint. The document which was produced before us is kept in a closed and sealed cover and be sent back alongwith the L.C.R. The District Forum will deal with the case in accordance with law. Order set aside.