B K TYRES Vs. BHARAT NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAIN grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the District Forum, whereby it has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/ -, on account of cost of the tyre purchased by the respondent and Rs. 1,100/ - on account of difference in the exchange price, with interest @ 10% p.a., is that without being served through registered post it was proceeded ex parte and suffered the impugned order.

(2.) BE that as it may, the facts as culled out from the impugned order show that the respondent wanted wider tyres for his car and got 5 tyres of the car replaced with MRF Zigma VT tyres from the appellant by paying the price difference of Rs. 5,500/ -. However, on the very next day when the complainant left his house in his car one of the tyres burst. The crack in the tyre of the car was found to be to the extent of 3 inches. When the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the appellant vide letter dated 15.6.2003, the respondent replied that the MRF company had its complaint policy according to which the tyre had to be inspected by technically trained person before any settlement with the customer. The respondent was advised to remove the tyre from the wheel and show it to the Service Engineer of the company having its office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Appellant refused to inspect the tyre and forced the respondent to go to the office of the MRF where the tyre was inspected by the technicians of the company and a report was given that the tyre did not have any manufacturing defect. On inquiry from the officers of the company the respondent came to know that the new tyres are always packed in silver packing which is removed only at the time of purchase by the customer and the tyres purchased by the respondent had no such packing.

(3.) THE aforesaid conspectus of facts cannot absolve the appellant from the charge of deficiency even if the tyres did not have the manufacturing defect. Fact remains that one of the tyres purchased by the respondent from the appellant burst and developed cracks to the extent of about three inches and was not worthy to be used.