At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SHAMSUDDIN
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. K. BALAKRISHNAN
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE PROF. K. MADHURI LATHA
For the Appellant: M/s. Jose Davis, S. Reghukumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: None.
P.K. Shamsuddin, President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Thrissur, in O.P. No. 1087 of 1995. The first opposite party is the appellant.
2. The only contention taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that he is only a dealer. The District Forum found that there is manufacturing defect. Learned Counsel submitted that, therefore, the manufacturer alone is liable to replace the defective call monitor.
3. Though we issued notice to the respondent there is no appearance. Learned Counsel pointed out that in the instant case the warranty was issued only by the manufacturer and admittedly the service contract was taken only by the manufacturer, and in the circumstances the District Forum went wrong in fastening the liability on the appellant. We find considerable force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel. The warranty was issued by the manufacturer himself. It was the engineer of the manufacturer who was deputed to rectify the defects. We, therefore, vacate the liability fastened on the appellant the first opposite party. The l
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
iability passed on the second opposite party will stand. The order of the District Forum is modified to the above extent.