E.J. Bellie, President

1. The 2nd complainant is the appellant (1st complainant is SMN Consumer Protection Council). The complaint in the District Forum ended in dismissal. The 2nd complainant purchased one Kalvinator Refrigerator of 165 litres from the 1st opposite party on 3.1.1991. The case of the 2nd complainant is that from the date of purchase of the refrigerator, it was over cooling and there was a hole at the bottom. When this was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party - Service Agent of the 1st opposite party, that was rectified by changing the compressor and plugging the hole. But in spite of it, the refrigerator continued to be defective and malfunctioning because the refrigerator had inherent manufacturing defect. The 2nd complainant requested the opposite parties to either place the refrigerator with a new one or refund the sale price, but they declined. On these allegations, with the help of the 1st complainant, the complaint was filed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the refrigerator and to pay compensation for the expenditure incurred by him in this regard.

2. The 1st opposite party remained exparte.

3. The 2nd opposite party filed a written version contending that the complaint filed without impleading the manufacturers of the refrigerator is bad. They denied that the refrigerator was causing problems as alleged in the complaint. They also contended that among several of their customers, only the complainant expresses grievance, and without giving an opportunity to this opposite party to look into the problem the complainant has rushed to me Court. They further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation.

4. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, came to the conclusion that the complaint is not barred by limitation. However, it held that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the manufacturers and mainly on this ground the complaint is not maintainable. Holding thus, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5. Now in the appeal, it is contended that the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is against the pleadings and evidence in the case. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that there is no substance in this submission. It is the clear case of the complainant,' as evidenced in his pleadings, that the refrigerator has manufacturing defect. Admittedly, the opposite parties had done some repair work. If the refrigerator is again found to be defective, it must be only due to the said reason as alleged by the complainant himself that there was manufacturing defect. In this position, the proper persons who will be responsible and answerable will be the manufacturers alone. In fact, the opposite parties have raised a contention in their written version that the complaint is bad for not impleading the manufacturers. But in spite of it, the complainant has not chosen to implead the manufacturers. In this position, as rightly held by the District Forum, without the manufacturers being a party, the dealer and their service agent cannot be held responsible. It was however argued before us that the dealer is a representative of the manufacturers and therefore the manufacturers need not have been independently impleade

d. We are unable to agree with this. A dealer cannot be said to be answerable for the manufacturing defects in the refrigerator. The defects in the refrigerator is due to the negligence of the manufacturers. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.