H.M.P. ENGINEERS LTD. vs Rallis India Ltd.

THIS appeal is by the 2nd opposite party. There are four opposite parties in the O.P. The complaint was filed alleging that a washing machine was purchased from the 4th opposite party dealer by paying a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. It would appear that though the machine was manufactured by the 3rd opposite party it was marketed by the 1st opposite party as if it was manufactured by them. According to the complainant only because he thought that the machine had been manufactured by the 1st opposite party he has purchased it and otherwise he would not have. Even though the machine was repaired 7 times it was still defective. The further case of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party has taken over the rights and liabilities of the 1st opposite party by an agreement. Alleging these things the complaint has been filed impleading all the opposite parties.

OPPOSITE parties 1 and 3 remained ex-parte. The 2nd OPPOSITE party has filed a version denying their liability. The 4th OPPOSITE party has not filed any version but however it was being represented by a Counsel. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the 4th opposite party is not liable but the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable and it passed a decree directing these opposite parties to pay the price of Rs. 8,000/- of the machine with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. and also another sum of Rs. 2,000/- for expenses incurred by the complainant. It further ordered these opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 500/- as costs.

Earlier the 1st opposite party filed an Appeal No. 1097/95 and that appeal was dismissed: Now this appeal is by the 2nd opposite party. On going through the papers we are of the view that the 2nd opposite party cannot be held liable. It is the case of the complainant that the machine was manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. But it was being sold by the 1st opposite party as if it was manufactured by them, and the 4th opposite party was the dealer from whom the machine was purchased. As regards the 2nd opposite party the case of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party by an agreement with the 1st opposite party had taken over the rights and liabilities of the 1st opposite party. The machine was in fact sent to the 1st opposite party for repair and they also did some repair. But the defects still continued and therefore according to the complainant the 2nd opposite party also is liable. According to the 2nd opposite party the agreement between them and the 1st opposite party does not include this particular machine and the rights and liabilities regarding this machine have not been transferred to the 2nd opposite party and therefore they are not liable to pay anything to the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. The only case of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party having obtained the rights and liabilities of the 1st opposite party under an agreement they are liable to make good the defects in this machine. As stated above it is case of the 2nd opposite party that this particular machine is not included in the agreement between the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Even otherwise inasmuch as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party the complainant cannot allege any deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Thus the complaint cannot be maintained against the 2nd opposite party.

IN this view of the matter the order of the District Forum as against the 2nd opposite party is set aside and the complaint as against 2nd opposite party is dismissed. The appeal is thus ordered. There will be no order as to costs. Order against O.P. No. 2 dismissed.