Apollo Tyres Limited, the manufacturer was the opposite party No.2 before the District Forum.

Respondent/complainant Suresh Kumar Garg had purchased a set of four Apollo tyres from New Hotla Tyres, Sangrur through its proprietor on payment of Rs.5,400/-.  It was alleged that the dealer had given a warranty against any defect in the tyres till they had run

--2--

50,000 kms.  Apollo Tyres Limited, the present petitioner is the manufacturer of the tyres.  According to the respondent/complainant, when the tyres were fitted on 14.6.2004 the reading of the Milo meter was 48,965 kms.  Complainant alleged that after covering about 10,000 kms, his car started wobbling and after driving another             9,500 kms the tyres were got checked on 26.4.2005 from Rakesh Maruti Centre at Sangrur who told that the rubber of the tyres had started elasticing and needed replacement.  According to the complainant, the dealer had agreed to replace the tyres but he failed to do so.  Petitioner being aggrieved filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite parties to replace the tyres or to refund the price of the tyres with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  Another sum of Rs.5,500/- were claimed as litigation expenses.

Petitioner sent its reply but did not appear.  The dealer did not appear inspite of service and was proceeded ex-parte.  The complaint was allowed by the District Forum on July 29, 2005 by observing thus:

--3--

“4.     Complainant’s affidavit Ex. C-1 supports his version.  Ex. C-2 is cash/credit memo dated 14.6.2004 for purchase of the tyres from opposite party number 1.  The bill bears printing that he is authorized dealer of Apollo tyres.  Ex. C-3 is report of checking dated 26.4.2005 saying that at the time of reading of the odometer at 68465 KMs on 26.4.2005, the rubber of tyres of car number PB-59-7800 Maruti Zen diesel were found swollen, which is a manufacturing defect.  In the written reply of opposite party number 2 received by post, he did not dispute the manufacturer’s warranty against any manufacturing defect till the tyres ran for 50000 KMs.  He also did not dispute that the opposite party number 1 is his authorized dealer.  We see no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s version.  It appears to be a case of sale of defective goods and of deficiency in service both.  Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.5,400/- on account of price of the tyres paid by the complainant.  They shall also pay him a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.  The order be complied with within two months of communication.  It will be open to the opposite parties to get back the obligation to comply with the order.  Its copies be issued to the parties free of charge.  File be arranged, indexed and consigned to records”.

--4--

Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Authorized representative of the petitioner has brought the warranty policy issued and as per this warranty policy, the petitioner is liable to replace the tyres only if the nature of wear was ‘Heel & Toe Wear’ and ‘Uneven Wear’ on pro-rata basis.  This policy was not produced before the District Forum.

In the Written Statement filed by the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner is not aware of the transaction between the complainant and the respondent and denied that the meter reading of the vehicle was 48,965 kms at the time when the tyres were fitted in the vehicle.  It is denied that it has given any warranty of running of the tyres for 50,000 kms.  It was also stated that the complainant had not produced the tyres before the petitioner for inspection to find out whether there is any manufacturing defect in the tyres; that it may not be possible for the petitioner to file appropriate reply; that the complainant be directed to produce the alleged tyres.  Rest of the paragraphs were denied for want of knowledge.  Reply filed by the petitioner was completely vague.  It did not lead any evidence or

-5-

produce evidence.  The dealer did not appear.  The District Forum on the basis of allegations made in the complaint which were duly supported by an affidavit of the respondent, came to the conclusion that the petitioner as well as the dealer were deficient in service.  District Forum was justified in coming to this conclusion as the petitioner did not put up any defence.  Allegations made by the complainant had gone unrebutted and unchallenged.

We agree with the view taken by the for a below.  Since the allegation as made by the respondent had gone unchallenged, the District Forum has rightly accepted the complaint filed by the respondent which has been upheld by the State Commission.  No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.  Dismissed.