Date of filing:-    01/01/2020                                                                                                                                                                                                                Date of Order/Judgement:-27/02/2023.                                         

                     DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 1  OF  2020

                Sri Narendra Behera, aged about 54 years, Son of Apana Behera, Resident of Manabandh Pada, Ward No.3, Bargarh, Po/Tah. Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh (Town), District. Bargarh 768028 (Odisha).

                                                                                           ….       .....            Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

(1)  Managing Director, MRF, Ltd, 114, Greams Road,  Chennai.

(2) Office Manager, MRF, Ltd, 2nd Floor, Balaji Business Centre, Budharaja, Sambalpur

     768004(Odisha).

(3) Managing Director, Laxmi Sales and Service pvt.ltd, Canal Avenue, Sayan, N.H. 6,

      Po. Gudesira, District. Bargarh 768038 (Odisha).

(4) Managing Director, Tata Motors Ltd, Head Office At.4th Floor, Ahura Centre,

     82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093.

                                                                                                                                             Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                          :-  Sri Tuna Chandra Tripathy, Advocate with Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 :-   :-  Sri Vivek Sharma, Advocate with Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.3:-              :- Sri S.K. Sahu, Advocate with Associates.  

For the Opposite Party No.4:-            :- Sri Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Advocate with Associates.                          -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.27/02/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-

1. The Case of the Complainant is that on 18^th day of may 2019 the Complainant with the proposal of Opposite party No.3 purchased a Luxury car bearing Engine No. 100A20000782770 and Chasis No. MAT624031 KPA00211 which has been subsequently assigned with registration no. OD/R/5607 which was fitted with tyres manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.3 has given one year of guarantee for the tyres. After two and half months from the date of purchase of the vehicle the Complainant noticed three crack marks in right side front wheel tyre of the vehicle which was within the period of gurantee. The Complainant has immediately drawn the attention of the Opposite Party No.3 about the defect in right side tyre of front wheel of the vehicle of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.3 statisfied with the Complaint of the Complainant and assured him to replace the right side tyre of front wheel of the Vehicle and requested the Complainant to submit the right side tyre of front wheel of the vehicle for replacement and asked for three days time for the same. But Opposite party No.2 vide its leter Dt. 10^th day of September 2019 informed about rejection of the claim of replacement of the tyre on flimsy ground that their inspection reveals that the tyre was damaged as a result of through cut on side wall due to impact with some sharp object and not due to manufacturing defect of the product and asked the Complainant to collect the tyre from  M/s Shivam Tyres.

            The Opposite Parties in Order to avoid liability as assured have refused to replace the tyre on fictious ground which is nothing but unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency in service for non providing prompt service to the Complainant.

2. The Case of the Opposite Parties is that the Opposite party No.1,2,3 and 4 filed their version. Opposite party No.1 and 2 (MRF Limited) are the manufacturer of the tyre Opposite party No.3 Laxmi sales and service (P) Ltd is the saler of the Vehicle. Opposite Party No.4, Tata Motors Ltd. Is a renowned manufacturer of various types of Commercial vehicles and passanger cars.

Opposite Party No.1 and 2 submitted in their version that the Complainant is not a Consumer of the Opposite Parties as the vehicle is used for Commercial purposes. Further Opposite party No.1 and 2 submitted that the tyre was damaged due to impact with some sharp object not due to any manufacturing defect. Hence Opposite Party No.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case. Opposite Party No.3 also prayed for dismissal of the case as the Complainant has not come with clean hand and did not furnish any such prima facie evidence before the Commission. Opposite Party No.4, Tata Motors Ltd, submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.4  the Complainant has unnecessarily made Opposite party No.4 as a party. Hence the Complaint petition should be dismissed for mis joinder of party.

3. Perused the Complaint petition, version filed by the Opposite Parties and the documents filed by both the parties and following issues are framed.

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposites ?
2. Whether the Complaint is barred by mis joinder of party ?
3. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get ?

Issue No.1. 

            The Opposite party No.1 and 2 simply said in its version that the vehicle is used for fCommercial purposes, but no any documents filed by the Opposite Parties which proves that the Complainant used the vehicle for commercial purposes. The complainant submitted that he has purchased the vehicle for private use. Hence the Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite parties and the case is maintainable.

Issue No.2.

It is the contention of Opposite Party No.4 that the company is not a necessary party as vehicle manufacturer. The Opposite Party No.4 while manufacturing a motor vehicle assembling different parts of the vehicle which include the tyre of MRF Company. When the tyre is defective and it is a part of the vehicle, the Opposite Party No.4 can not be excluded from the necessary parties Defects in tyre means defects in the vehicle. Accordingly the Opposite Party No.4 is a necessary party and liable jointly with the MRF tyre company i.e. Opposite party No.1 and 2 for the defective tyre.

Issue No.3.

            It is the admitted fact of the case is that within guaranty period the Complainant noticed the cracks on right side front wheel tyre and informed the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties did not replace the tyre and repudiated his claim on dated 10/09/2019 and sent a notice that the defect in tyre is due to impact of sharp object and not due to manufacturing defects. The Opposite Parties did not file any inspection report. The Opposite party No.1 and 2 are taking plea to avoid their liability. Opposite party No.4 is also taking plea as vehicle manufacturer. In these circumstances Opposite Party No.4 also can not escape from his liability. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.4.

            For deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly and following order is made.

O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite party No.4 and dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable and directed to replace the defective tyre within one month from the date of this order. Further Opposite Parry No.1,2 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 10000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for litigation expences to the Complainant. Failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization.

Order pronounced in open court on this 27^th day of  February 2023.

            Supply free copies to the parties. 

      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                           and corrected by me.                                                                                           

                 I  agree/-                                                                       

       ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)                                                                  (Jigeesha Mishra)

              Dt.27/02/2023                                                                            Dt.27/02/2023.

              M e m b e r  (w)                                                                        P r e s i d e n t.

         UPLOADED BY

(SRI DUSMANTA PADHAN)

       OFFICE ASSISTANT.