A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : ATHYDERABAD

FA 1497/2008 in CC No. 118/2006 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad

Between:

M. L. Agarwal, S/o Late Sri G. R. Agarwal,

Aged about 69 years, Occ : Business,

R/oRamaTowers, TSK Chambers,

2^ndM. G. Road

Secunderabad – 3.                                      

And

1. TheSeniorTerritoryM/s. Ceat Limited,

   Flat No.418,

   4^th

   Somajiguda,

   Hyderabad

    

   2. M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd,

   Survey No. 73 ( Part),

   Medchal high way No. 7,

   Opp. Suchitra Electronics,

   Jeedimetla,Hyderabad

    

    

   Counsel for the Complainant          

    

   Counsel for the  

    

    

   CORAM     

    

    

   SMT. M. SHREESHA                                 

    

                                                               

                                                

    

   Friday , the Third

    

    

   Oral order :  

    

    

   *           

   This is an appeal filed by the appellant U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act to set aside Hyderabad28^th.

    

    

   The case of the complainant in brief is that the three tyres purchased from the opposite parties for his business purpose 

    

   The first opposite party, who is the manufacturer, contended  

    

   The second opposite party, who is the dealer, submitted that he clearly established  in the warranty for the vehicle and there is no his liability.

    

               

    

   The points that arises for determination in this appeal are, whether

    

   The grounds of appeal are as follows :    Service Engineer, who is the employee of the opposite party       The order passed by the District Forum may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.

    

   The appellant contended that there was manufacturing defect of the tyres and       

    

   The respondents contended that the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute since the complainant has purchased the tyres for commercial purpose and hence  

    

    Ex A1 is the invoice issued by the second opposite party on 13.01.2004.                                          , wherein, it  complaint alleged manufacturing defects in tractor, such defects could be got established by getting vehicle examined through an expert and in absence of such course, order of Forum allowing complaint could not be sustained.                  The complainant         The complainant also addressed a letter on 4.1.005. Ex A3 is the legal notice dated 11.01.2005 issued to the opposite parties.          

    

   President