District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Berhampore, Murshidabad. Complaint Case No. CC/165/2017 1. Priyanka Jain (Baid) W/O Tarun Kumar Baid.PO. Azaimganj, Jainpatty, PS, Jiaganj, Pin-742122 Murshidabad West Bengal ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Manager, Mobel India Pvt. Ltd. 1st floor, above Express Bazar, N.H- 34, Mohona Bus Stand. PO & PS. Berhampore, Pin-742101 Murshidabad West Bengal ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. CHANDRIMA CHAKRABORTY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. MANAS KUMAR MUKHERJEE MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 03 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement CASE No. CC No. 165/2017. Priyanka Jain (Baid) V/s Manager, Mobel India Ltd, Berhampore Order No. 6 Dated : 03.01.2018 The door of this Forum has been knocked by the Complainant for redressal of the consumer dispute as per the C. P. Act, 1986. In epitome, the Complainant has filed the case for defect of the product/article/furniture, she purchased from the Opposite Party. The Complainant alleged that after one month from the date of purchase, the said furniture/article/product the self of the Almirah, started breaking and after complaining the fact the Opposite Party has repaired the same. But thereafter all other furniture such as Cot, Dressing Table, Almirah were attacked by the fungus but after complaining the same, the Opposite Party neither came and repair the same nor they paid any heed to it for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Party the Complainant has filed the instant case seeking adequate redressal. Receiving the notice the Opposite Party appeared through the Ld. Advocate by filing the Written Version along with another petition challenging the maintainability of the instant case on the ground that the instant case is defective for want/absence of necessary parties as because the Opposite Party is only a franchisee and the Opposite Party is neither the Dealer nor the Manufacturer of the said furniture/article/product and as per the principles of law the instant case deserve dismissal for non-joinder of necessary parties as only the Manufacturer is liable for manufacturing defect. Cont. ???.?. 2 = 2 = Moreover, the opposite Party also alleged that the Complainant has willfully suppressed the material fact pertaining to the present Complaint and came before the Forum with uncleaned hands for which the instant Complaint is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material fact by the Complainant. Today is fixed for hearing the petition challenging the maintainability of the instant case. Today the Complainant appeared the Ld. Advocate by filing Vokalatnama but the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant not filed any Written Objection against the said petition challenging the maintainability filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party. Heard the argument of the Ld Advocates for both the Opposite Party and Complainant in full length on the point of maintainability of the instant case. On overall evaluation of the argument made by both Ld. Advocates on maintainability point raised by the Opposite Party and perusing the material documents in record filed by the Complainant, it is evident from the that the Complainant has purchased the said furniture/article/product from the Opposite Party who is simply a franchisee and neither a Dealer nor a Manufacturer which is revealed from the photocopy of the ?Cash Memo? filed by the Complainant. So in the instant case the Complainant did not make the Manufacturer or Dealer as other Opposite Parties who are the necessary parties to this case. Cont. ???.?. 3 = 3 = In this regard, the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party submitted a citation of the Hon?ble National Commission 2015 (2) CPR 202 NC, wherein the Hon?ble National Commission was pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition due to non-joinder of a Necessary Party. The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party further filed another citation of the Hon?ble State Commission, U.T. , Chandigarh, wherein the said Hon?ble State Commission observed a view that ?the Dealer cannot be blamed for any inaction on part of buyer? , and in the instant case, the Opposite Party is only a franchisee not the Manufacturer of the alleged furniture/ article/product. The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party further filed another Ruling passed by the Hon?ble National Commission 1994 (3) CPR 395 wherein the Hon?ble NC pleased to pass an Order that the manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defect (non-manufacturing defect) appears which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced. The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party further submitted another Ruling of the Hon?ble National Commission 2010 (1) CPR 118 NC, wherein the Hon?ble NC was pleased to opine that the allegation of manufacturing defect has to be proved by expert evidence. Moreover, the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party further stated that the complainant claimed only the refund of money from the Opposite party and not the any other relief for which the instant case is not a Consumer Case and only a Money Suit which is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum at all. Cont. ???.?. 4 = 4 = On perusing the entire Case Record of the instant Complaint petition, we find that the Complainant, made the franchisee, the only Opposite Party and made all allegations against the said franchisee and not against the Manufacturer or even against the Dealer. But the fact remains that in this case the Manufacturer is the Necessary Party to adjudicate the instant dispute regarding the defect in the said furniture/article/product purchased by the Complainant. So the instant case has the defect for want/absence of Necessary parties. On relying upon the above stated citation of the Hon?ble Upper Commission and on view of the Hon?ble National Commission, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the instant case deserves dismissal for want/absence of Necessary Parties. In short, the Complainant deserves failure. In the result, we proceed to pass O R D E R That the case be and same is dismissed on contest as not maintained by law for want/absence of Necessary parties. MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. CHANDRIMA CHAKRABORTY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. MANAS KUMAR MUKHERJEE] MEMBER