REGIONAL MANAGER CEAT LIMITED Vs. KATAMREDDI GOPAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. P.S. Bhullar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner. The respondents were not represented at the time when this case was heard.

(2.) IN our opinion, there is force in the contention advanced by the Revision Petitioner that the District Forum had committed a serious material irregularity in not observing the procedure laid down in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act before it proceeded to determine the crucial question as to whether the tyres in question suffered from any manufacturing defect.

(3.) THE Revision Petition is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Revision Petition disposed of.