Dated: 01.08.2023

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal filed by OP under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by an order dated 28.04.2023, passed in CC/93/2022 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya (herein after referred as District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)

2. Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsel for appellant.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Commission below has passed the impugned order without giving sufficient details of facts, applicable law and reasoning and has passed cryptic order which is unsustainable in law.  Further submits that he is only an authorized dealer and not the manufacturer of the car in question and appellant other than selling the subject car has never carried out any repairs or service on same prior to passing the impugned order causing grave inconvenience to the appellant which in turn very much requires the interference of this Commission. Also the main contention of the appellant herein is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since respondent/complainant has failed to array the manufacturer of the subject car and the service centre as the parties to the complaint.  Thus sought for an interference of this Commission.

4. It is to be noted herein that Commission below while passing the impugned order held that there is a manufacturing defect of the car in question and directed OP/appellant herein to repair the vehicle free of cost along with some amount of cost and compensation which in our view is contrary to facts and law since OP/appellant is only the dealer of the car and not the manufacturer. Further to be noted herein that complainant in her complaint submits that she had availed 02 free service from the authorized service centre and after the 2^nd service of the car she had left the said car at Saphire Motors Pvt. Ltd., Mysore Road for 15 days for observation and they had replaced Gear Assy, Steering and Strut Assy-FR RH, but after the return of the said car the problem was not solved.  It is therefore, in our view, keeping in mind the object of Consumer Law, the Commission below before passing of impugned order could have directed complainant/respondent to implead Manufacturer, Service Centre and Saphire Motors Pvt. Ltd., as parties to the complaint since it is seen that the complainant/respondent was disgruntled by the service provided by the Service Centre and Saphire Mortors Pvt. Ltd., and since in her complaint she had sought for replacement of the car.

5. In the above view of the matter, to avoid further delay by dispense with issuance of notice of this appeal to respondent, we deem it fit to remand this matter to the Commission below to decide the case by giving direction to the complainant/respondent to implead Manufacturer, Service Centre and Saphire Motors Pvt. Ltd., as parties to the complaint.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed in CC/93/2022 is hereby set aside and remanded the matter to Commission below to decide the matter in accordance with law and decide as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order by affording opportunity to both parties.

7. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

Lady Member                        Judicial Member                               President

*GGH*