KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                               APPEAL  NO:67/2010

                              JUDGMENT DATED:07..04..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

Regional Distributor,

View Sonic Corporation,

Reddington India Ltd.,

95, Mount Road, Guindy,                                                  : APPELLANT

Chennai-600 032, Repd. By its

Branch Manager, Rajesh Radhakrishnan,

Branch Manager, Reddington India Ltd.,

Trivandrum-14.

(By Adv:Sri.R.Narayan)

            Vs.

1.Jossy.A.S,

  Ayyarappilliyil, Karakkamala.P.O,

  Mananthavady, Wayanad.

2.Suresh, Boss Systems,                                                 : RESPONDENTS

  Onattuthottathil Building,

  Opposite L.F. U.P.School,

  Mananthavady, Wayanadu.

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party/distributor in CC:133/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad.  The appellant and the 1^st opposite party/shop keeper are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,650/- the price of the LCD monitor and Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.

2. The case of the complainant is that the LCD monitor purchased by him from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.10,650/- was found to be defective.  It was having warranty also.  During the warranty period the equipment became defective after repair at the service centre also.  As directed by the service centre it was produced before the main service centre at Cochin.  After one month he received the same back after repairs.  Again it was found to be not in a working condition. According to the complainant he has spent about Rs.4000/- for sending LCD to various service centers and also Rs.1000/- toward telephone charges.

3. The 1^st opposite party the shop keeper has filed version contending that he cannot be held liable as service centers and the manufacturers are not made parties.

4. The 2^nd opposite party/distributor has also contended that it is the manufacturer or the dealer who should be made liable.

5. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P8 and Ext.C1 the report of the commissioner.  In the report of the commissioner it has been noted that the LCD monitor is defective.

6. The contention in the appeal by the 2^nd opposite party is that in the absence of the manufacturer in the party array the opposite parties cannot be made liable.  We find that the above point raised by the 1^st opposite party it seems, has not been pressed as a preliminary issue.  There is no doubt that it stands not disputed that the equipment purchased by the complainant is defective.  Hence the opposite parties, cannot be absolved of liability.  The contention that the manufacturer ought to have been impleaded the matter should have been raised as a preliminary issue and pressed for an order.  After disposal of the matter wherein the issue has not been considered and also in view of the amount involved we find that it would not be just to remit the matter back to the Forum.

 In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed is dismissed in-limine.

Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER