Ajmer Tyres vs Apollo Tyres Limited and Others

H.R. Panwar, J.—No one appears for the respondents even in second round.

This civil misc. appeal u/s 43 Rule 1 CPC is directed against the order dated 17.03.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer City, Ajmer (for short ''the trial Court''), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed. I have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned as also the affidavit filed by Shri Sanjeev Bhargava in Civil Original Suit No. 60/2005 between the parties in support of his written statement.

It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was the dealer for the sale and service of Apollo Tyres, however, he surrendered his dealership on 30.03.2005 and during subsistence of his dealership, he has sold number of Apollo Tyres to various customers and the tyres so soled by the appellant were having guarantee clause. After surrendering the dealership, whatever transaction took place during subsistence of the dealership and the tyres sold, any losses during period of guarantee is to be honoured by the respondent.

Learned Counsel has invited my attention to para No. 4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent through its C&F In-charge Mr. Sanjeev Bhargava on 09.03.2006, which reads as under:

;g fd izfroknh dEiuh oknh QeZ ds Hkfo"; esa mnHkwr gksus okys leLr DysEl dk fuiVkjk Hkh djus dks dfVc) gS D;ksfd dksbZ Hkh dksbZ Hkh xzkgd oknh QeZ dk u gksdj izfroknh eS0 viksyks Vk;lZ dk gS rFkk dEiuh vius gj xzkgd dks pkgs og fdlh Hkh izdkj Mhyj ds ek/;e ls dEiuh ls tqM+k gks vkSj leLr vuqykHk o loksZRre lsok nsus dks rRij o dfVc) gS A Hkfo"; esa dEiuh blh rRijrk ls dk;Z djrh jgsxh A

Thus, from the admission of the respondent it is clear that the respondents-defendants themselves have admitted that they are liable to honour the guarantee claims for the Apollo Tyres which were sold by the appellant while his dealership was subsisting and the respondents have admitted that whenever any consumer to whom the dealer sold the tyre during the subsistence of his dealership, if come to the respondents, the respondents are prepared and would honour the terms of guarantee.

Despite these being terms admitted by the respondents, the trial Court dismissed the application. The apprehension of the appellant is that after surrendering the dealership, the consumers to whom the appellant sold the Apollo Tyres while subsisting his dealership, are making claims against him and the respondents are not honouring the terms of such guarantee.

In my view, there can be no reason after having admitted even on affidavit, they are liable to honour the terms of the guarantee in respect of the tyres sold by the appellant while subsisting his dealership for the period till he surrendered his dealership on 30.03.2005.

In this view of the matter, the order impugned is modified to this extent that the respondents shall entertain the guarantee claims in respect of the Apollo Tyres sold by the appellant during subsistence of his dealership i.e. up to the period of 30.03.2005, the day when the appellant has surrendered his dealership.

With this modification in the order impugned, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.