Dated: 12.07.2024

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by OP4 in CC/255/2017 on the file of DCDRF, Mysuru, aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2019. (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Forum)

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsel for appellant.

3. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether impugned order dated 04.01.2019 passed in CC/255/2017 by DCDRF, Mysuru does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

4. Learned counsel for appellant/OP4 submits that complaint raised by complainant is disposed off without considering the facts and documents placed on record. In order  to substantiate such  contentions, has shown to us, that the District Forum deleted OP1 Sony Corporation as per order dated 20.09.2017 and further deleted the participation of OP3 as per order dated 19.04.2018.  It is to be taken notice of the fact that OP2 is a service centre and has placed exparte, while OP4 the appellant herein is a website or an application who had made a platform between a consumer and the seller, yet the District Forum held OP2 and OP4 have committed deficiency in service even without participation of OP1 and OP3 of whom OP1 is a manufacturer, while OP3 is yet another service centre.  In this regard, it would be appropriate to make mention that the relief sought by complainant against OP Nos.1 to 4 is to return the rectified handset or new handset worth of Rs.23,188/- and has sought compensation  of Rs.50,688/- towards  damage and litigation expenses, yet   District Forum directed OP2 and OP4 are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of product i.e., Rs.27,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay compensation  of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation along with interest @ 12% p.a., which in our view does call for an interference for simple reason for deleting the participation of manufacturer from the complaint. In our view considering the relief sought in the complaint participation of the manufacturer is absolutely necessary or else the complaint will be of defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.  It is not that the complainant is not impleaded the manufacturer as one of the party but facts found was deleted by the DF. As already opined when complainant has alleged that the mobile handset bought by him in the platform is a defective one, to adjudicate the said issue, participation of manufacturer is very much required and without his participation complaint has to be held bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.  In such view of the matter in our view, it would be just and proper to remand back this complaint to the District Commission to reconsider the case afresh against all the Ops and proceed to allow the appeal.  Consequently, set aside the order dated 04.01.2019 passed in CC/255/2017 on the file of DCDRC, Mysuru with a direction to District Commission to re-admit the complaint and decide the complaint case affording opportunity to both parties namely complainant and OP Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, as early as possible not later than 03 months from the date of receipt of the order.

5. The Amount in deposit is directed to be refund to appellant with proper identification by his advocate.

6. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*