AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD learned Lawyers for both sides. Vide order dated 9/14.12.1998 the Forum directed the opposite party No. 1 to repair the Xerox machine in question free of cost including replacement of parts, if any to the full satisfaction of the complainant. Besides, the Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the complainant. Being aggrieved thereby the dealer of the machine has appealed. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the manufacturer of the machine has not been made a party to the proceeding. He submits further that the liability for repair of the machine is that of the manufacturer, and the dealer cannot be fastened with the liability. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that they have made the manufacturer a party to the proceeding. But the Forum deleted its name of its own. It is accepted that in the case of manufacturing defect it is the manufacturer alone who can set right the machine. Therefore, we think that the Forum was not justified in deleting the name of the manufacturer. It is not clear whether the manufacturer has been made a party to the proceeding and whether any order for deletion has been passed by the Forum. If it be a fact that the manufacturer of the machine is a party to the proceeding, the Forum would do well to serve notice upon the manufacturer and determine the dispute in its presence. In that view of the matter we think that the dispute requires fresh adjudication after notice to the manufacturer is served. Accordingly we deem it proper to remit the case back to the Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law and keeping in view the observation made above. Since the dispute is very old, the Forum would do well to dispose of the matter within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of the order. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum within 17.4.2001 to seek instruction for further hearing of the matter. The appeal be disposed of. Appeal disposed of.