1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 02.08.2018 he purchased (i) Punta UPS for Rs. 1,900/-, (ii) one Epson printer L380 PSC for Rs. 11,800/- and (iii) one Intel Dualcore processor 4GB RAM, 160GB hard disk, mother board, DVD writer cabinet, Xcess MM speaker IBALL USB Keyboard and mouse HP 20” IPS HD LED display for Rs. 17,500/- from the O.P. It is alleged that after 15 days of use, the Sl. No. iii started malfunctiong for which the O.P. replaced with a new one. After one week the new set also did not function and again the O.P. replaced the same with another new one which also did not function properly for which he faced loss in his business.Thus with other submissions, showing deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. refund the cost of the product no. iii with Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to him.
    
2. O.P. after receiving the notice, appeared and filed his counter admitting the sale of alleged product no. iii and contended that as per defects found out by the complainant he replaced the same for two times.  Further he contended that after second time replacement, the complainant has never been to his shop for approaching further defects, thus denying his liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. Complainant has filed certain documents, whereas the O.P. did not choose to file any documents.  Perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
4. There is no dispute regarding sale transaction of alleged product between the parties.  It is also not disputed that due to defects the alleged products have been replaced two times.  The allegations of complainant is that after being replaced for second time, he found malfunctioning of the replaced product and he complained to the O.P., which was strictly challenged by the O.P. contending that the complainant never approached him for further defects after replacement of the alleged product for second times and he is a marginal retailer to sale the alleged product on commission basis.  It is seen from the averments from the parties, that the product which was purchased by the complainant exhibited the malfunctioning for two times though the same was replaced for twice, hence we feel, the alleged products is having manufacturing defects and which needs to replaced as it is under warranty or to refund the costs of the said product.Further it is seen that the complainant has not made the manufacturer of the alleged product as necessary party in the present disputes and as per our view, it is the manufacturer who can give the proper answer either to replace or refund the costs of alleged products.Hence without impleading the manufacturer as necessary party, the present dispute cannot be properly adjudicated, as the O.P. is only a retailer getting commission from the manufacturer and it is also well settled of law that for any manufacturing defects, the manufacturer is only liable. Hence we think, the complainant should have added the concerned manufacturer as necessary party and without appearance of the manufacturer, the liability cannot be fastened upon the retailer.Hence this order.

ORDER

Considering the averments of parties, we are of the opinion that the present case is dismissed for non joinder of necessary party with a liberty to the complainant to approach the concern manufacturer in a proper way to get reliefs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced the order in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of December, 2019.  Issue free to the parties concerned parties.