CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

Regional Manager Ceat Limited vs Katamreddi Gopal Reddy

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 2 April 1997 · Citation: 1997 1 CPC 668 : 1997 1 CPJ 107 : 1997 1 CPR 161 : 1997 2 CLT 396

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI , S.S.CHADHA , R.THAMARAJAKSHI , S.P.BAGLA , C.L.CHAUDHRY J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 382 words
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. The complainant had relied only on a certificate obtained by him from a Vulcanizer and on the side of the opposite parties reliance was placed only on a certificate issued by the Technical Service Engineer in the service of the Revision Petitioner Company. In our opinion, neither of these certificates can be accepted as an expert opinion which could be relied upon for deciding the crucial issue in the case, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The proper procedure which should have been followed by the District Forum, was to get the tyres examined by a technical expert nominated by it with the concurrence of both sides and to go by the opinion of such expert after giving the parties due opportunity to place their representation before the District Forum in respect of the said opinion and if necessary, even to cross -examine the expert. Inasmuch as the said procedure contemplated under Section 13 was not followed, we are of opinion that the Order passed by the District Forum was vitiated by material irregularity and it should not have been confirmed by the State Commission which did not even make any advertence to this crucial aspect. Hence, the Orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal after getting the tyres examined by an expert and, thereafter, proceed to decide the crucial issue in the case after giving both sides due opportunity to canvass the correctness of the opinion given by the expert, cross - examine him, if so requested for by the either party.

3.

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