BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH AT BIKANER FIRST APPEAL NO: 14/2024 Apollo Tyres Ltd.

B-6, Sethi colony, Govind Marg, Trasnport Nagar, Jaipur Appellant -VERSUS-

1. Ranveer Kumar.

S/O Shri Rai Singh Poonia, R/O Ward No.9, Sarkari School Ke Paas 11 P, Patroda, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

Respondent

2. Josan Tractors.

Dealer Swaraj Tractors, Vijay Nagar Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

Performa Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL -MEMBER JUDICIAL HON’BLE MR. R.N. SARSWAT - MEMBER Present:

For Appellant : Mr. D.D. Pareek, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Rudharam Advocate Dated: 19.08.2025

Judgement

Authored by: Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat – Member Complainant’s version The Complainant (referred to as the “Complainant” for convenience) purchased a tractor having tyres manufactured by Apollo Tyres Ltd. (referred to as the “Appellant” for convenience) through Josan Tractors (referred to as the “Performa Respondent” for convenience).

Four years after purchasing the tractor, the Complainant noticed cuts and cracks on the tyres. The tyres with the cracks were presented to the Appellant for inspection. After evaluation by experts assigned by the Appellant, the request for tyre replacement was denied, as the Appellant deemed the damage to be due to service abuse rather than a manufacturing defect.

The Complainant argued that the cracks in the tyres indicated a manufacturing defect and sought the replacement of the tyres, which the Appellant refused.

Ergo, the Complainant filed a complaint on 28.09.2018, with the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Sri Ganganagar (referred to as the “DCDRC” for convenience). The Complainant sought the following remedies: 1. Replacement of all four tyres with new ones.

2. Compensation of Rs. 30,000 for economic, mental, and physical distress caused by deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

3. Rs. 11,000 for litigation expenses.

4. Any other relief which the fora deem fit.

Proceedings before theDCDRC The Appellant filed a reply stating that they initially refused to change the tyre due to visible damage and usage abuse. However, upon the Complainant's insistence, an inspection was arranged. It was found that the tyres had a "Lug Base Crack" in the rear tires, caused by factors like overinflation, underinflation, entrapped stones, and overload. The front tires had "Stubble Damage," which is considered serviceable and does not affect the tyres' usability. The response letters were based on inspections conducted by

experts following the ITTAC Tyre Condition Analysis Guide.

Order of the DCDRC On 02.11.2023, the DCDRC issued an order allowing the complaint against the Appellant, as follows:

A. The Appellant must either replace all four tires within two months or pay the price of the tires with interest at a rate of 9% from the date of the complaint until the payment is made.

B. The Appellant is required to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental and physical distress.

C. The Appellant must also pay Rs. 5,000 for legal expenses.

Appeal Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.11.2023,Mr.

Adarsh Rajpal, who serves as the RBO Controller and is a Constituted Attorney, filed the present appeal on 16.12.2023.

Appellant’s version The Appellant has filed this appeal on several grounds, including the following:

A. The impugned order was issued without proper judicial consideration and contradicts established legal principles, making it unsustainable in the eyes of the law. B. The DCDRC failed to understand the characteristics of tyres and ignored the facts and evidence presented,

showing no effort to address or refute them.

C. The DCDRC made a serious error by not seeking an inspection of the tyre in question from an independent expert, as required by Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.

D. The investigations revealed no manufacturing defects. Issues like "Lug Base Crack" resulted from overinflation, underinflation, trapped stones, or ove