Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant allegedly purchased two tyres from OP No.1 and after using found the same defective. So he sent the tyres to OP No.2 and after examining the tyres the Service Engineer of OP No.2 reported that there is no manufacturing defect but complainant alleging about deficiency of service filed the complaint. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that OP No.2 filed written version clearly stating that their Service Engineer has reported that there is no any manufacturing defect. He submitted that the tyres were damaged for concussion/impact brake due to sudden impact with some heavy object.

4.      Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The opposite party No.2 is hereby directed to provide a same new tyre and tube or pay the price of it to the complainant. Besides he is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) as compensation and Rs.2000/- (two thousand) as cost to the complainant.

All the above orders shall be complied within 30 days of despatch failing which the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not appreciating the facts and law placed by the OPs. There is clear report of the expert to the effect that the tyres have been damaged due to above defect but not manufacturing defect. Learned District Forum has failed to apply judicial mind to such report. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

6.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

7.      The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased two tyres  of OP No.2  the manufacturer. It is also admitted fact that after defect, the complainant approached OP No.1 who sold the tyres. It is true that the tyres were examined by the Service Engineer. But the learned District Forum has observed that the OPs have not produced such report. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant files the copy of the said report wherein defect has also been checked up by the Service Engineer. The DFR does not disclose that such document is filed. Had there been perusal of the report the impugned order of the learned District Forum would have been otherwise. However, it is a fit case to be remanded to the learned District Forum to give opportunity to the parties to produce evidence if any.

9.      In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum to allow the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the case after giving opportunity of being heard to both parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 22.3.2021 to receive further instruction from it.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

Free copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.

Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.