R.B.Singh vs NOVEX ENGINEERING COMPANY

THIS is an appeal filed by Dr. R.B. Singh complainant before the. District Forum in case No. 245/90 decided on 22-1-92. The appellant purchased an automatic machine SUMEET K-30 from M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Private Limited being the. authorised distributor of the said machine in Delhi on 20-2-88 for Rs. 10,066/- with two years'' guarantee. The appellant lodged a complaint before the District Forum on 6-2-90 against M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Private Limited alleging that the washing machine was defective and prayed that they should replace the machine, with two years further guarantee, and assure, its performance upto expectations for its full service life and they be directed to pay compensation for harassment and physical torture caused due to unsatisfactory performance of the machine.

THE District Forum by its order dated 22-192 directed the respondent M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Pvt. Ltd. to replace the machine with the new automatic machine as is being manufactured these days or to refund the cost of the machine to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as damages within 60 days from the date of the order. THE complainant has come up in appeal before us. The complainant had not impleaded the manufacturer M/s. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Limited in his complaint dated 6-2-1990. The order dated 22-1-1992 passed by the District Forum is only against respondent No. 1, the respondent impleaded by complainant i.e. M/s. Novex Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. However, in his appeal dated 19th Feb., 1992 the appellant (complainant in the District Forum) has impleaded both M/s. Novex Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No. 1 and M/s. Sumeet Machines (Pvt.) Ltd. as respondent No. 2.

The appeal has been contested by both the respondents Respondent No. 1 has filed counter objection to the appeal dated 8th May, 1992 and prayed that the impugned ex-parte order of the District Forum dated 22-1-1992 be set-aside against respondent No. 1 as respondent No. 1 was no longer the agent of the manufacturer, M/s. Sumeet Machines, Pvt. Ltd. and was no longer responsible and liable to render further service during the guarantee period issued on behalf of their erstwhile principals. They are also not liable to pay any cost or damages. These facts are corroborated from the record of the District Forum where in the order sheet dated 18-7-91, it is stated that M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Pvt. Ltd. are no longer dealing in these machines. Respondent No. 1 has further pleaded that their guarantee card issued by them was on behalf of its erstwhile principals M/s. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. who were necessary party to the proceedings. The expart order passed by the District Forum was against respondent No. 1 and inspire of letter dated 18-7-91 their erstwhile principals were not impleaded who intact are the main party to the proceedings for a fair trial to the dispute between the parties.

THE appeal has been contested by respondent No. 2 Sumeet Machines, Private Limited manufacturer of the machine. In their reply dated 25th March, 1992, they have contended that the appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 wherein the order has been passed by the District Forum only against opposite party No. 1 and therefore, the appeal is untenable. THEy have further pleaded that in case the appellant wants to proceed against opposite party No. 2, he has to get the order of the District Forum dated 2nd Jan. ''92 suitably amended/reviewed/revised, as otherwise no cause of action lies against opposite party No. 2. It is further stated that in view of several wrong statements and insinuations made by the appellant against the reply of the opposite party which appear to be motivated, opposite party No. 2 would be compelled to make a counter appeal against the aforesaid order of the District Forum dated 22.1.92. However, it is unable to do so as the order of the District Forum is not directed against opposite party No. 2. THE complainant had not made Sumeet Machines, Private Ltd. a party in his complaint before the District Forum. Thus the order of the District Forum is against opposite party no. 1 only, and opposite party No. 2 came to know of it only when the notice of the appeal was received by it, thus, appeal of the appellant is not entertainable both on facts and on merits. We have heard the parties and duly considered the counter objections dated 8.5.90 filed by respondent No. 1 M/s. Novex Engineering Private Limited and reply of respondent No. 2 M/s. Sumeet Machines, Private Limited dated 25th March, 1992. For fair trial of the case it is necessary that the ex-parte order dated 21st Jan., 1992 be set aside and both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be given opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence.

WE accordingly set-aside the order passed by the District Forum and remand complaint no. 245/90 to the District Forum for being disposed of afresh on the merits in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity to opposite parties 1 and 2 to file their written statement and also an adequate opportunity to the opposite parties adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 20th July 1992. The parties will bear their respective costs. Case remanded.