Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2.                  None appears for the respondent on call.   

3.            This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.       

4.         Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant allegedly purchased  Room Heater from OP No.1 on 22.07.2019 for Rs.995/-. There was warranty for two years. The complainant alleged inter-alia that after few days of purchase on 01.11.2019 he felt experience of  defect in the room heater. Complainant alleged that he has brought  the matter to the notice of Ops but  no action was taken. So, he filed the complaint case.

5.           Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that notice was not duly served on the Ops. During pandemic period the Ops were set-ex-parte  and ex-parte order was passed.

6.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the DFR because DFR never shows service of notice upon the Ops. However, learned District Forum passed the ex-parte order against the OP No.2 but exonerated the OP No.1.  in the following manner:- 

        Xxx                        xxx                           xxx

 “ Hence, it is ordered that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is allowed in part and the OP No.2 being liable is hereby directed to refund the cost of the heater and to pay compensation of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which Rs.100/- will be charged per day till the realization of the awarded amount. “

7.         Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Learned District Forum has erred in law by not exonerating OP No.2 from liability because the OP No.1 has sold the heater to complainant but not by OP No.2.

8.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has erred in law by not giving opportunity to OP No.2 to adduce evidence to get ready for filing of written version and  hearing of the matter. If the opportunity  was given then the appellant could have placed the matter to defeat the case of the complainant. So, he submitted to allow  the appeal  and the matter  may be remanded  for denovo hearing in accordance of provisions of law.

9.    Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.             It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the room heater from OP No.1. It is not in dispute that OP No.2 is the manufacturer but the OP No.1 is the dealer.

 11.         On perusal of the impugned order  it appears that the Ops have been set ex-parte but the service of summon on the Ops in record is lacking. When the Ops have been set ex-parte it is a fit case for remanding  of the matter for fresh hearing. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the matter  is remanded to the learned District Commission for disposal of the complaint by hearing both the parties at length. It is also made clear that the Ops would be allowed to file written version after which  both the parties are allowed to file evidence, if any and learned District Commission would  dispose of the matter  in accordance with law  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Free copy of the order be supplied to both the parties to appears before the learned District Commission on 01.06.2021 and take further instruction from the learned District Commission. It is made clear further that this Commission has not expressed any opinion about the merit of the case.  

                 DFR be sent back forthwith.

               Statutory amount may be refunded.