Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President — We have heard Mr. P.S. Bhullar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner. The respondents were not represented at the time when this case was heard.

2. In our opinion, there is force in the contention advanced by the Revision Petitioner that the District Forum had committed a serious material irregularity in not observing the procedure laid down in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act before it proceeded to determine the crucial question as to whether the tyres in question suffered from any manufacturing defect.

3. The complainant had relied only on a certificate obtained by him from a Vulcanizer and on the side of the opposite parties reliance was placed only on a certificate issued by the Technical Service Engineer in the service of the Revision Petitioner Company. In our opinion, neither of these certificates can be accepted as an expert opinion which could be relied upon for deciding the crucial issue in the case, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The proper procedure which should have been followed by the District Forum, was to get the tyres examined by a technical expert nominated by it with t