APOLLO TYRES LTD. Vs. RATI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT purchased a tyre for his trolley from respondent -2 M/s. Surinder Tyres who was the dealer of the appellant. Admittedly the tyre was manufactured by the appellant and carried a warranty of three years. After the use of two years the tyre burst due to having been over -inflated. The dealer sent the tyre to the appellant for either replacing it or repairing the defect. Appellant vide its communication dated 9.2.2005 informed the dealer that after carefully examining the tyre it is found that there is no manufacturing defect and, therefore, it is not convered under the customer friendly claim. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. Appellant was proceeded ex parte as it did not appear in spite of service of notice.

(2.) VIDE impugned order dated 2.5.2004, the District Forum has directed the appellant to either replace the defective tyre with a new tyre of the same quality and a fresh warranty of 3 years or refund its cost of Rs. 3,700 along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint and also pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

(3.) THROUGH this appeal the impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that the respondent has no locus standi as the tyre was purchased by one Mr. Subhash Chand as intimated by the respondent -2 and secondly that had the rejection letter dated 9.2.2005 being brought to the notice of the District Forum the appellant would not have suffered the impugned order and lastly that no evidence was produced that it has a manufacturing defect.