Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The brief facts of the complaint is that complainant has purchased one Split Air Conditioner duly manufactured by opposite party no.2-LLOYD Electric and Engineering Ltd. from opposite partyno.2. It is alleged inter alia that there is a warranty period for 60  months, but within such period, the Air Conditioner did not function properly. Therefore, the complaint was lodged on 3.6.2015 and 21.7.2015 before the opposite party who visited the spot and repaired the Air Conditioner but took Rs.8000/- from the complainant. The complainant with protest paid the money. So he filed the complaint petition.

4.        The opposite party no.1 filed written version stating that he is not the manufacturer of the Air Conditioner in question. According to him, it was manufactured by opposite party no.2. He submitted that the opposite party no.1 is the proprietor of M.L.Tyres and Motors and usually gets 5% commission after selling the Air Conditioner machine. It is also averred that after receipt of the complaint from the complainant, he informed the opposite party no.2-Lloyd Electric & Engineering Company Ltd. for repair of the Split Air Conditioner. The Service Engineer came and verified the claim of the complainant and repaired the A.C. Machine twice. The allegation of the complainant is not a true fact and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

5.        Learned District Forum has only dismissed the complaint case stating that the entire onus lies on the opposite party no.2- Lloyd Electric & Engineering Company Ltd and it should have been added as opposite party no.2. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, opposite party no.2 has already been added as opposite party on record. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed without going through the materials on record. Had the opposite party no.2 be taken on record, the matter would been  otherwise disposed of. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the learned District Forum.

6.        Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.

7.        It is very much available from the allegation  of the complainant that he has purchased the Air Conditioner from opposite party no.1, who is a dealer of opposite party no.2 the manufacturer. Moreover, it is also clear from the materials on record that during the currency of the warranty period, defect was removed by opposite party no.1, but the complainant alleged that as the deficiency in service has not been removed, there is manufacturing defect. Learned District Forum has only rejected the complaint stating that the Manufacturer should have been added as opposite party no.2. When opposite party no.2 has already been added as opposite party no.2, the observation of the learned District Forum is perhaps out of record. Therefore, it is necessary to give opportunity  to the learned District Forum to re-assess the material on record and pass a fresh order.

8.        In view of the above discussion, we hereby set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned District Forum for de novo hearing and after assessing the materials on record pass order in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 10.4.2023 to take further instruction from it.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.