M R F LTD Vs. ASHOK LUTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE find that there is force in the contention raised by the Petitioner that the observations contained in the order of the State Commission concerning the propriety and fairness of policy of granting pro-rata replacement in respect of defective tyres have been made without any discussion or consideration of the question as to whether there is any inherent illegality or unfairness involved in the said policy. There is also substance in the plea raised in the Revision Petition that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to file his written objections on the merits of the complaint petition before the District Forum proceeded to finally dispose of the complaint petition. In the light of the unsatisfactory features above mentioned, vitiating the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission, we would have ordinarily sent the matter back to the District Forum for fresh consideration. However, it has been submitted before us by the Petitioner Company that the Company is not interested in dragging the complainant over and again to the District Forum and puting him to unnecessary expenditure, trouble and inconvenience and that they have already supplied a new tyre to the complainant in replacement of the defective tyre. The complainant who is appearing before us in person has also confirmed to us that he has received a new tyre and he has no subsisting grievance in the matter. In the circumstances, we merely set aside the adverse observations made against the petitioner company concerning its policy of pro-rata replacement of defective tyres in the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and make it clear that the question relating to the legality, propriety and fairness of the policy of granting only pro-rata replacement is left open for determination at a proper time in the future. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above. Order accordingly.