GOODYEAR INDIA LTD Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a manufacturer of tyres. Two tyres were purchased by the respondent from its dealer M/s. Link Tyres for Rs.2,200/ - each on 20.1.2000. One of the tyres developed cracks after two months. The defects were pointed out to the dealer who advised him to deposit the said tyre with the branch of the appellant. In spite of several visits of the respondent to the branch office of the appellant for replacement of the tyre, the appellant did not pay any heed. On account of deficiency in service, the appellant has been directed vide impugned order 9.2.2001 to replace the defective tyre of the same type or refund the amount of Rs.2,200/ -.

(2.) THROUGH this appeal said order has been challenged. The plea taken by the appellant is that the tyre deposited by the respondent was examined carefully and no defects were found in the same and the respondent was informed accordingly on 31.3.2000 but he did not care to take back his tyre. The appellant have nowhere mentioned as to the fact whether the tyre had developed cracks or not and if cracks were rectified or not. The only information sent by the appellant to the respondent was that they have examined the tyre and found that there was no manufacturing defect and asked the respondent to take it back. Such kind of attitude is not expected from the manufacture of the tyres. It should have either to remove the defects or replaced with new tyre.

(3.) THE fact that respondent did not complain about another tyre he had purchased shows the bona fide of the respondent as to the inherent defects in tyre. The development of cracks in the tyre within a short period of two months itself demonstrates that as the tyre in question was having inherent manufacturing defects. The appellant cannot escape from the liability by either replacing the defective tyre on refund the price of the tyre of the respondent on account of deficiency in service.