AUTO LINES JALNA Vs. VIJAYA J BHUTADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed off by this common order since they arose out of the order of District Forum, Jalna dated 31.1.91 from Complaint No.17/91. In complaint filed by Vijaya Bhutda against Auto Lines, Jalna, the District Forum passed the impugned order. The complaint was as regards the defective manufacture of Kinetic Honda scooter. The complainant alleged that the scooter sold to him through Auto Lines Jalna was not giving the required consumption as per the advertisement and the literature. A notice was issued to the Opposite Party but it appears that the Opposite Party was proceeded ex-parte and by the impugned order the District Forum ordered that the Opposite Party i. e. , Auto Lines, Jalna to pay to complainant Rs.2000/- towards the expenses and also replace it with a new Kinetic Honda scooter. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant Vijaya Narayan filed this appeal claiming of compensation and M/s. Auto Lines, Jalna filed Appeal No.168/93 praying to set aside the impugned order.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant and respondent for Mr. Ajay Karwa.

(3.) After careful consideration of the grounds of appeal and the impugned order, we find that the allegations in the complaint are made by Ms. Vijaya Bhutada that the engine of the vehicle was defective since it was not giving correct average of consumption of petrol. In any case, the allegations relate to the manufacturing defect whereas the Opposite Party-the dealer was made a party by the complainant. Admittedly, M/s. Auto Lines, Jalna is not a manufacturer of Kinetic Honda and, therefore, cannot be made accountable for the manufacturing defect. In case of manufacturing defect the manufacturer should be made a party and he has to explain about manufacturing defect. A local dealer cannot be made liable for the manufacturing defect in a vehicle. In the instant case, we find that the award has been passed against the local dealer for which he cannot be held liable as he is not a manufacturer. Under these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be upheld. The complaint is, therefore,. made over to the District Forum, Jalna for fresh decision after adding the manufacturer as a party. Under these circumstances, we pass the following order:-