LAWS(NCD)-2001-2-97

APPEIK Vs. RAMAKRISHNA BARIK

Decided On February 05, 2001
APPEIK Appellant
V/S
RAMAKRISHNA BARIK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. K. Patnaik on behalf of Mr. P. K. Nanda the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant is a T. V. dealer by name 'appeik' at Dhenkanal town. None appears for the complainant. The short question for decision in this appeal is whether the present appellant as a dealer, who admittedly sold a Bush Television, details of which is mentioned in the complaint petition, would be liable either to replace a new T. V. Set of the same model or to refund the price thereof. Mr. Patnaik submits that the appellant as a dealer during the warranty period merely sold the T. V. to the complainant and in case of any defect or replacement of the T. V. set within the period of warranty, should have been sought for from the manufacturer and not from the dealer and under no circumstances the dealer should be liable to shoulder the burden.

(2.) We are afraid, we cannot accept such a contention of Mr. Patnaik, because a registered dealer is always supposed to act as an agent of the manufacturer. It is too much to expect a customer that after purchase of the article from the dealer for any repair/replacement etc. one should be asked to run to the manufacturer who normally resides outside the State. When a mercantile transaction takes place between a seller and a buyer it is obligatory on the part of the seller to supply the article or goods without any defect and in case any defect is so brought to its notice by the customer, which is legitimately and legally required to be rectified, it is the first obligation on the part of the dealer to take up the matter himself and satisfy the customer with regard to service and in case of any deficiency the dealer is primarily held responsible for this. By this we do not mean to say that in each and every case the dealer alone should be liable for compensation. Circumstances may in a given case require that the manufacturer as well as the dealer are to be jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service. In the present case since the manufacturer of the T. V. Set was Bush Company which is no more in existence and the present appeal is admittedly by the dealer, the liability should be shouldered by both.

(3.) Having perused the impugned order and going through the documents on record, we are satisfied that the District Forum has dealt with the case in its right perspective and has rightly held that the T. V. set was defective one and needed to be replaced. We do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. We accordingly confirm the order but we hold that the dealer should refund the amount, and the dealer is free to realise the amount or recover the amount from the manufacturer, if he is so advised. The appeal has no merit and dismissed but without any cost. The amount be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.