D.of.F:17/6/2011
D. of O: 21/4/2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.4/2012
Dated this, the 21 st day of April 2012
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
A.Prashanth,
S/o C.N Prakashan Nair(L),
Kovval House, Kanhangad South. : Complainant
(in person)
The Proprietor,
Global Sports, Opp. Busstand, : Opposite party
Main Road,Kanhangad.
(Adv.K.M.Basheer,Hosdurg)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Bereft of unnecessaries the case of complainant is as follows:
Complainant purchased a badminton racket from the shop of opposite party. Opposite party made the complainant believe that ‘Vixen ‘racket is of superior quality and it is free from defects. Believing opposite party complainant purchased a vixen badminton racket for Rs.1700/- from opposite party. As a practice among shuttle badminton players the complainant has also given the badminton racket to put new strings since even the most reputed companies won’t give warranty for the strings. But after putting the strings from the sports shop a bend occurred to the racket due to the defects of the racket. Had the racket been superior quality it would not have bent while tightening the strings. The complainant purchased the said racket believing the representation that the racket is of superior quality.
2. According to opposite party the Vixen racket is a superior quality racket in his experience. The vixen company is not offering any guarantee to their racket. The Vixen company is not made a party to these proceedings. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. Further the bill produced by the complainant does not contain the date. Hence they cannot say when the complainant purchased the racket. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant adduced evidence. Exts.A1 to A3 and MO1 produced and marked. Opposite party has not adduced oral or documentary evidence. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. The complainant as PW1 deposed that opposite party made him believe that Vixen rackets are superior quality and since it has ordinary strings he entrusted the racket for changing its strings to BG 65. But after putting the strings when the racket is taken out of the machine, it became bent. So he approached opposite party next day and he was asked to come on the next day and after 3 consecutive visits, opposite party refused to replace the racket.
5. It is the contention of opposite party that manufacturer of the racket is not made a party and therefore the complaint is bad for non joinder of manufacturer.
The contention of the opposite party is not sustainable. The dealer of a product is the front man as far as the consumer is concerned and privity of contract is between the customer and the dealer. It is nowhere provided either in the Act or the rules framed, there under that whenever a trader is proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act, original manufacturer of the goods must be also be traced and made as a necessary party. It is well settled that a necessary party is that in whose absence court cannot pass an effective order.
7. Further it is not the case of the complainant that he approached opposite party to purchase a racket manufactured by Vixen company. According to PW1 he purchased Vixen racket since the opposite party made him believe that Vixen racket is superior quality. Therefore being the front man of the consumer, the dealer i.e. the opposite party cannot wash his hands putting blame on the manufacturer. Opposite party being a dealer should have taken proper care to sell good quality products rather than sub standard products for a comparatively higher price. Any product put for sale should provide a minimum guarantee irrespective of any express guarantee or warranty. In other words a product put for sale without any guarantee or warranty does not mean that the dealer can sell useless goods or immediately perishable goods for a higher price.
8. Therefore we hold that opposite party committed unfair trade practice and hence he is liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to return the purchase price of the racket Rs.1700/- with a compensation of 1000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which Rs.1700/- will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Had the opposite party got a case that it is the manufacturer who is liable to pay the amount then opposite party can recover the said amount from the manufacturer of Vixen racket through appropriate proceedings after complying this order. Complainant is directed to take back the racket from the Forum and return it to the opposite party on receiving the amount as per this order.
Exts:
A1-Sale Bill
A2-13/10/11- Lawyer notice
A3-postal acknowledgment
MO1- badminton racket -
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva