M.R.F. LTD. versus JAGDISH LAL AND ANR. on 5 May 1999

M.R.F. LTD.

v.

JAGDISH LAL AND ANR.

A

MAY 5, 1999

[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]

B

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : Section 13(l)(c)

Consumer Protection-District Forum.:.._Defect in goods-Determination C of-Analysis or test of the goods- Reference to laboratory-Procedure prescribed for-Need to follow-In this case, the complainant had given the tyre and the tube which had burst, to the dealer, who in turn had sent it to the appellant-The procedure prescribed under Section l 3(l)(c) of the Act was, therefore, not capable of being followed because the comlainant D was not in possession of the tyre and the tube- No evidence to suggest that the appellant had returned the tyre and the tube to the respondent-Therefore no fault can be found with the District Forum, the State Forum or the National Commission in the matter of not following the procedure under Section I 3(1)(c) of the Act.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2710 of E 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.98 of the National Consumers disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in M.P. No. 407/96 in R.P. No. 1082 of 1996.

F

Ashok H. Desai, D.A. Dave, P. Venugopal and P.S. Sudheer for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

G

The short point on which notice was issued in this case on 22nd January, 1999 was whether the consumer court should have followed the procedure under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

We have heard Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondent, though served, is not present. 1089

1090

A Section 13(1 )( c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides as under:

13. Procedure on receipt of complaint (l) The District Forum shall, on receipt of a complaint, if it relates to any goods - (a) (b) .................................................................. ~ .... .

B

(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the c sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of fifty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended D period as may be granted by the District Forum."

A bare reading of clause (c) would show that the District Forum, with a view to get proper analysis or test done, should obtain the sample of goods from the complainant and then followed the procedure prescribed in the said E clause. In this case, the material on the record shows that the complainant had given the tyre and the tube which had burst, to the dealer, who in tum had sent it to the appellant. The procedure prescribed under Section l3(I)(c) of the Act was, therefore, not capable of being followed because the complainant was not in possession of the tyre and the tube. There is no material to show that the appellant had returned the tyre and the tube to the F respondent. That being the factual matrix, we do not see how any fault can be found with the District Forum, the State Forum or the National Commission in the matter of not following the procedure under Section (13)(l)(c) of the Act.

This Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.

G

Appeal dismissed.

T.N.A.