Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M.R.F. LTD. versus JAGDISH LAL AND ANR.

Decided
5 May 1999
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 1089 · 1999 INSC 225

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 1089, margin F

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.

p. 1089, margin G

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

p. 1089, margin G

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

p. 1090, margin A

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

p. 1090, margin A

(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 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

p. 1090, margin B

period as may be granted by the District Forum."

p. 1090, margin D

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 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 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.

p. 1090, margin D

This Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1090, margin F