APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs Rati Ram

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.

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. 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.

Appellant appears to be labouring under the misconception that it is only on account of manufacturing defect in the goods that the manufacturer is liable to replace the goods or rectify the defect or compensate the customer. Under notion of customer friendly claim, it is a misconception on the part of the manufacturers that customer friendly claim is permissible if defect is of manufacturing nature. Customer does not live on the mercy or friendship of the manufacturer or a trader. It is the statutory right of the consumer to sue the manufacturer or trader or provider of service for defective goods, unfair trade practice or deficient service and seek compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him.

WHEREVER there is a manufacturing defect the customer is required to produce an expert evidence or the evidence which is deemed proper by the District Forum in terms of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and goods have to be replaced. As regards the defect it has to be ascertained in terms of Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act which means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity potential or purity or standard which is required by the manufacturer or is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. There is no dispute as the dealer has confirmed it that the tyre had burst within the warranty period due to over-inflation and bursting of tyre itself renders it defective.

HOWEVER, in view of the fact that the tyre was used for two years by the respondent we partly allow the appeal by modifying the impugned order by awarding the cost of the tyre by way of 5% depreciation and thereby award Rs. 3,000 as compensation besides Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation, interest awarded by the District Forum is hereby set aside as in such case the interest is not awardable. Interest is awardable where there is such a term of contract or there are strong equitable grounds. The aforesaid payment shall be made within one month on return of the tyre. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The FDR, if any deposited by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal partly allowed.