Heard the learned counsel for   the appellant.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case of the  complainant, in brief is that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from OP No.1 with warranty certificate. It is alleged inter-alia that 25 days after  its use, the mobile handset gave defect in functioning for which the complainant deposited the mobile handset with OP No.1 who after  20 days  returned the mobile set after repair.  It is stated that again the defect  arose. So, he took the mobile set to OP no.1 but OP No.1 expressed inability to rectify   the defect stating that it has got manufacturing defect. Hence, the complaint was filed.

4.                The OP No.1 was set-exparte.

5.            The OP  No.2 filed the written version stating that the OP No.1 has got business with the OP No.2  on principal to principal basis. It is further stated that  the complainant has not brought this fact to their knowledge. He submitted that there is no manufacturing defect and the complainant has not approached them alleging  the manufacturing defect.  Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed and they have no any deficiency in service.

     6.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum  passed the following order:-

                  Xxxxx              xxxxxxxx              xxxxxx

                   “ The complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs.15,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order. Further the  O.P No.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of this order. Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged mobile handset to the Op No.2 at the time of complying the order by OP No.2.”

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not referring  the mobile set for expert opinion and passed the impugned order which is otherwise illegal. According to him they have raised objection before the learned District Forum.  In that petition they have alleged that  there is no any manufacturing defect and mobile set should be sent for expert opinion. Learned District Forum, without considering the prayer of the complainant passed the impugned order by  contravening the provisions of law. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by remanding same to the learned District  Commission to  call  for  the expert opinion  after examining  the mobile  set.

8.             Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and  impugned order.

9.           It is admitted fact of the complainant that the complainant had purchased the mobile set from OP No.1 and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the mobile set. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has taken the mobile set to OP no.1 for repair and OP No.1 stated that it has manufacturing defect. It is a fact that the Op No.2 was not approached by the complainant. The preliminary objection  filed by the  OP No.1 that they have asked for expert opinion but learned District Forum has not considered the preliminary objection. In that objection he has raised at para-7  to call for  expert opinion from the expert to find out whether there is manufacturing defect. It appears that the plea  has not been considered by the learned District Forum.

10.            In view of above fact and circumstances we  deemed it proper to allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum for necessary consideration of manufacturing defect after collecting opinion from the expert  as stated by the learned  counsel for the appellant. After the opinion is received, it is better to  pass judgment afresh.

11.      In view of aforesaid  discussion, the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the learned District Commission  who would act as per the discussion made above and dispose of the case as per law afresh  within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                 Both the parties  would be appear before the learned District Commission on 04.04.2022 and take further instruction.

                 The appeal is  disposed of accordingly.  

                 Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                 DFR be sent back forthwith.