AUTO SKILLS @ RENUKA ENTERPRISES vs YUVA LEKHAK ABHIYAN

IN this appeal the Opposite Party has challenged the order of District Forum, Nagpur directing it to return the prices of defective furniture. Complainant is an institution and had purchased a wooden sofa-set from appellant priced at Rs. 4,800/-. Appellant has a shop at Nagpur styled as ''Renuka Enterprise''. Appellant passed a receipt for Rs. 4,800/- having received the price of sofa-set from complainant.

ACCORDING to complainant the appellant represented at the time of sale that the sofaset would be made of Assam Teak, Tala Foam and Reliance Acrylic furnishing fabric and guaranteed about its quality and durability for a period of 2 years. But after taking its delivery the complainant discovered that the wood of the sofa-set was rotten and infested with termites and insects. Complainant therefore approached the appellant several times and informed the defects noticed by him in the sofa-set. Appellant agreed to remove the alleged defects and took back the sofa-set for effective improvements. After the sofa-set was returned to complainant, he found that the frame and upholstery of sofa-set has gone out of shape. Complainant therefore refused to take back the sofa-set and insisted that his price of the sofa be returned to him. When appellant did not pay any heed to the requests of complainant, he approached the District Forum, Nagpur for refund of the price. The dealer who is appellant in this appeal opposed the claim of complainant on the ground that he is only selling agent of sofa-set and it is manufactured by M/s. Furniturwalla of Gondia and hence not liable for any defect in the goods. The rest of the facts are not in dispute. The learned members of the District Forum rejected the plea of appellant and ordered the return of price of sofa-set to complainant We have heard Shri Marpokwar for appellant and complainant in person. The first contention raised by Shri Marpokwar is that M/s. Furniturewalla is not a party and his application to add him as party was rejected by the District Forum and hence the impugned order is vitiated. According to appellant he is not the manufacturer and hence he is not liable to refund the price to complainant. We have carefully perused the record of District Forum. We find that the cash memo of sale-price is passed by the Renuka Enterprise, Nagpur dated 8.5.1989 and nothing is mentioned therein to indicate that the sofa-set was manufactured by M/s. Furniturewalla of Gondia. The Appellant is not able to show any evidence that the sofa-set was brought from Gondia a Tahsil place which is about 100 K.M. from Nagpur. In absence of any material on record to show that M/s. Furniturewalla is the manufacturer of the sofa set, the question of adding him as a party does not arise at all. In our view on the basis of the facts the appellant falls in the category of the manufacturer, defined in Section 2(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act as he claims the end-product to the goods made as manufactured by himself. Hence he is deemed to be a manufacturer in the eye of law on the point.

The District Forum is therefore correct in rejecting the application of appellant for addition of a party in complaint. No care is taken to add him as party in this appeal also. According to appellant when sofa-set was returned to him for removing defect he had sent it to the manufacturer with the grievance of the complainant, the sofa-set was replaced by the manufacturer. In order to transport the sofa-set for repair to Gondia the appellant must have been required to meet the transportation. But no document about Transportation or any communication from M/s. Furniturewalla from Gondia is placed on record.

SHRI Marpokwar further contended that no guarantee was given by appellant about the sofa-set for 2 years and hence the goods once sold cannot be taken back and hence no price can be returned. There is no force in this argument since the sofa-set was defective at the time of sale. No wooden furniture can get deteriorated within a short period of five months. The sofa-set was sold on 8.5.1989 and the defect was noticed in October 1989 and complaint was filed on 28.12.1989. The fact that the sofa-set was taken back by appellant for removing defect itself makes it amply clear that it was defective. Appellant would not have accepted the sofa-set for repairs unless it was defective. We, therefore, do not accept this argument of SHRI Marpokwar. We find that the sofa-set was purchased by the complainant for the office and hence it cannot be accepted that a false complaint is made.

IN the result we find no substance in this appeal and is hereby dismissed. No costs of appeal. Appeal dismissed.