This revision is directed against the order No. 30 dated 28.01.2020 in CC No. 38 of 2018 pending before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one Dipankar Das registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur to the affect that he purchased a Mobile phone of VIVO from one B. Singh proprietor of Mobile shop at Kaliaganj at the price of Rs. 19,000/- on 09.06.2017 and since the purchase he was using the said Mobile phone for his day-to-day need. On 14.06.2018. while, he kept the said Mobile set in the pocket of his trouser, the Mobile set was blown with a huge sound and the trouser of the complainant caught on fire and he received serious injury. He was medically treated at Government Hospital and he informed the incident to the local Police Station on 15.06.2018. Further, case is that the Mobile phone had manufacturing defect and the quality of the phone was very poor and for that reason it was exploded which caused serious injury and loss to the person and day to day business of the complainant and for that reason he has claimed the compensation against VIVO Communication Device Private Limited and the dealer Bablu Singh as O.P. No. 1 to 4. The O.P. No. 4 has filed the Written Version before the Ld. Forum after receiving the notice. The VIVO Communication Device Private Limited also filed the Written Version. The evidence of complainant and the evidence of O.P. NO. 1 to 3 was already completed and thereafter the complainant filed a petition before the Ld. Forum on 17.01.2020 with a prayer to add VIVO Mobile India Private Limited as parties to this case on the ground that VIVO Mobile India Private Limited was the necessary party. The O.P. No. 1 and 2 filed W.O. against the said party add petition which was heard on 28.01.2020 and Ld. Forum after hearing both sides came to a conclusion that while the O.P. No. 1 to 3 have denied themselves as manufacturer of the said VIVO Mobile set and for that reason it was imperative on the part of the complainant to add VIVO Mobile India Private Limited as the necessary party and for that reason the petition of the complainant dated 17.01.2020 was allowed. Being aggrieved with the order this revision follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularity as because the petition of the complainant dated 17.01.2020 was not maintainable due to misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. The revision was admitted in due course before this Commission and the contesting Opposite Parties was served notice and the Consumer complainant was served notice, he did not come to contest the revisional application and for that reason the revisional application was placed for hearing Ex-parte. The Ld. Advocate of the revisionist has conducted the hearing.

Decision with reasons

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of the revisionist. It appears to us that the complainant of the original case has purchased the said Mobile set on 09.06.2017 from the authorized dealer Mr. B. Singh at the price of Rs. 19,000/-. The copy of Police information report dated 15.06.2018 speaks that the said Mobile set was blast on 14.06.2018 and the Kaliaganj, P.S. has registered a GDE No. 517 dated 15.06.2018. The tax invoice produced by the complainant in the original case also disclosed the fact that it was purchased from the Mobile shop at the price of Rs. 19,000/- on 09.06.2017. Admittedly, the proprietor of Mobile shop Mr. B. Singh was the authorized dealer from whom it was purchased. The revisionist that is Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 in the original case has categorically denied that they were the manufacturer of the said Mobile set and for that reason they were not liable for any damage or breakage. So, in order to, implead the manufacturer of the Mobile set the Consumer complainant was compelled to file the petition dated 17.01.2020 by which he has intended to implead VIVO Mobile India Private Limited and Ld. Forum after a thorough hearing considered the position that VIVO Mobile India Private Limited should be impleaded as necessary party to this case and for that reason the petition dated 17.01.2020 was allowed. After consulting of the necessary documents and after hearing the argument of the Ld. Advocate of the revisionists. It appears to this Commission that no irregularity could be detected in the instant order of the Ld. Forum as the matter has been very judiciously disposed of which does not require any interference. Accordingly, the revisional application has got no merit at all.

Hence, it is ordered

That the instant revisional application is hereby dismissed on merit without any cost.

Let the order of this Commission be communicated to the Ld. Forum through e-mail with a request to dispose of the instant Consumer case within three months as per provisions of law.