Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Here 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. As it appears from the pleading of both the parties that the complainant has purchased fivetyres from OP No.1 and same have been purportedly manufactured by OP No.3. Complainant allegedly purchased a car manufactured by OP No.2 but those five tyres fitted with the said car. Complainant alleged that within the warranty period the five tyres became defective and he wanted to replace the same. When it was not replaced, he filed the complaint.
4. OP No.3 is the appellant before us and submitted that no notice was served on him and further submitted that three tyres have been adjusted on pro-rata basis. The claim for two tyres was rejected as it does not come under the warranty condition. It is the case of the appellant that if opportunity is given, he would produce the material for disposal of the case.
5. It appears from the record that the learned District Forum has passed the following order:-
“xxxxxxxxx
The OPs are jointly and severally, hereby directed to supply five numbers of tyres of same specification to the complainant forthwith. Non availability of same specification of tyre, will entitle the complainant to be refunded with prevailing market price as to the satisfaction of the complainantwithout any demur. Further the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation towards loss, harassment and mental agony sustained by thecomplainant on account of deficiency. The OP 1 will pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) within a period of 30 days from the date of this order along with Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only as legal expenses incurred within the same period failing whichinterest @12% per annum will accrue on the entire sum from the date of 1stinspection report i.e. 08.04.2013 till realization of payment without fail.
2. The OP 3 is slapped with Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only and to pay the said amount to the complainant for non appearing in the case and taking issue of notice is an empty formality having no consequences but compliance of same will attract Rs.10/- per day as penalty till realization.
3. The OP 2 is to recover the tyres from the competent supplier which has been entered into the contract with the terms &conditions that coded therein.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellantreiterated his submission that they have not received notice and he has lot of material to show that he has not acted properly.Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellantand perused the impugned order including the DFR.
8. When the OP is the manufacturer of tyres and he has been asked to supply five number of tyres but he has already adjustedthreetyres onprorata basis as submitted, it is necessary to go through the writtenversion and the evidence adduced by theparties. On perusal of record, it appears that notice was not duly served on the appellant. When no opportunity was given, we are inclined to remand the matter to the learned District Forum for fresh disposal of the case.
9. In view of above discussion, we hereby allow the appeal and remand the matter to thelearned District Forum for giving opportunity to the appellant to file written version and hear both the parties afresh and dispose of the case within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Appellant is directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 29.5.2023 to take furtherinstruction. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
