BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 380 of 2012 against CC 39/2010, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam
Between:
The Manager, MRF Limited,
D.No.3-304, Adarsh Nagar,
OPP; Old Dairy Farm,
Near Sri Sampath Sowbhyagya
Funaction Hall,
Visakhapatnam. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1) Yarra Dhilleswararao,
S/o. late Chinnayya,
Bus Owner,Plot No.2,
Opp: Vysya Bank Colony,
Srikakulam *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) The Proprietor,
Sri Srinivasa Tyres and Automobiles,
G.T.Road, Kasibugga,
Srikakulam District. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. J. Prabhakar
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Akella Padma (R1)
CORAM:
SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)
***
1) Aggrieved by the order in C.C. No. 39 of 2010 on the file of Dist. Forum, Srikakulam the opposite party No. 1 preferred this appeal.
2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant on 27.4.2009 purchased two MRF tyres for Rs. 23,000/- each from Op2 dealer manufactured by the appellant company. The complainant submits that he has been plying the buses for the past 15 years and the normal life of a tyre is 40,000 KMs approximately and later it can be used twice or thrice by re-trading. The complainant alleges that due to manufacturing defect the tyres did not run as expected and the said fact was brought to the notice of appellant/Op1 through Op2 by handing over the tyres. But the appellant/Op1 rejected his claim by letter dt. 6.6.2009 contending that there is no manufacturing defect and advised him to take back the tyres from the dealer. The complainant submits that due to manufacturing defects the tyres are not even fit for re-trading. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 25.7.2009 demanding replacement of tyres for which Op1 gave reply on 30.7.2009 with false averments. Hence this complaint seeking directions to Ops to replace the tyres with a new one or to refund Rs. 23,000/- towards value of the tyres with interest compensation and costs.
3) The appellant/Op1 filed counter denying the allegations made by the complainant. Op1 submits that two tyres were received for inspection from Op2 on 23.4.2009 and on examination by their service engineer it was revealed that the tyres are free from any manufacturing defect and the said tyres had suffered some ‘Thorough Cut’ due to sudden impact with some sharp object while the vehicle was in motion. The tyres along with the technical report dt. 27.4.2009 was returned to Op2. The appellant/Op1 submits that they manufacture the largest range of tyres in India and enjoys the highest preference for superior quality, appearance and wear-ability. The tyres manufactured by them adhere to the strict standards of quality and are free from any manufacturing defect. The life of the tyre depends on several factors such as air pressure, driving habits, road condition, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition, irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain , inflation/pressure and position of the tyre etc. The complainant is not a consumer and that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the tyres are used for commercial purpose. The allegations made in the complaint are baseless. Onus lies on the complainant to prove that there is a manufacturing defect in the tyres supplied by them. There is no deficiency of service nor unfair trade practice on their behalf and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A4 and the pleadings put forward allowed the complaint directing the Ops to replace the existing tyres with a new one and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.
5) Aggrieved by the said order Op1 manufacturer preferred this appeal.
6) The appellant/Op1 and the respondent/complainant filed written arguments.
7) The point that falls for our consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is the case of the complainant that he purchased two MRF tyres from Op2 but immediately found manufacturing defect in them and approached Op2 and even sent the defective tyres to the appellant/Op1 herein. The complainant submits that normal life of the tyres is 40,000 KMs approximately and even then they could be used twice or thrice by re-treading. But the subject tyres were not fit for re-treading also due to manufacturing defect. He further submits that burden lies on the Ops to send the tyres to an appropriate laboratory for testing and that as per evidence of PW2 Medugula Ravi who is the tyre mechanic has clearly stated that there are no cuts throughout the tyre nor visible to the naked eye which establishes that there was no external damage on the tyres and therefore it has inherent manufacturing defect.
9) It is the case of appellant/Op1 that the performance of tyre depends on many factors like air pressure, driving habits, road condition, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition, irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain , inflation/pressure and position of the tyre etc. and any external object with which the tyre may come into contact.
10) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Dist. Forum on physical verification of the tyres came to the conclusion that there is a manufacturing defect without referring it to any laboratory for analysis/opinion. He relied on the judgment of the National Commission in Chavada Dilip Kumar Somabhai Vs. Sahyog Tractor & Another in R.P. No. 2197/2010 dt. 7.2.2011 stating that “onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the tractor was on the petitioner. He also relied on another decision of National Commission in Suresh Chand Jain Vs. MRF Ltd., in R.P. No. 3845/2006 decided on 16.12.2010. In that case there was Technical Service Engineer opinion with regard to nature of the damage who clearly stated that the tyre was damaged due to thorough cut caused due to sudden impact with some sharp object while the vehicle is in motion. In that case the complainant had used the tyres for almost two years and no expert evidence was led on the side of the complainant to dislodge the technical report filed by the engineer.
11) The facts in the instant case are different in the sense that the tyres were purchased on 27.4.2009 and within two months the manufacturing defect was brought to the notice of Op2 who addressed a letter on 6.6.2009 evidenced under Ex. A1 which reads as follows :
“We have thoroughly inspected the subject item on 28.4.2009 and our inspection reveals that the same was damaged due to ‘through cut’. This is not due to any manufacturing defect of the product.
With regret that the claim on the above items is not accepted and therefore you are requested to make arrangements to collect the same from M/s. Sri Srinivasa Tyres & Automobiles within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter.”
The report given by the Technical Service Person of MRF Ltd. vide Ex. A1 states that the tyre was damaged due to ‘thorough cut’. This letter evidences that the tyres were used hardly for two months from the date of their purchase and secondly in the legal notice Ex. A2 addressed by the complainant to the
Ops he has stated that the entire defect i.e., “air has entered between the card and rubber and rubber separating from the two from each other” and that this Ex. A2 is dt. 25.7.2009 which is three months from the date of their purchase. Ex. A3 is reply notice dt. 6.8.2009 of the appellant stating that the tyre was damaged due to ‘THROUGH CUT’ caused due to sudden impact with some sharp object while the vehicle was in motion and this is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre and they deny that the tyre is not fit for re-trading.
12) It is pertinent to note that the complainant purchased the tyres on 27.4.2009 and submits that both tyres have no external damage like a cut which may be visible to the naked eye and this was also observed by the Dist. Forum which had physically inspected the tyres. Therefore the burden of proof shifts on the Ops to establish as to how the tyres are not road worthy when the complainant has established through physical verification by the Dist. Forum that there is no external damage. If indeed there was a through cut and the tyre came into contact with a sharp object which is the contention of the opposite parties, a physical verification by the Dist. Forum ought to have revealed the same. Taking into consideration that both tyres were purchased on 27.4.2009 and within two months, the complainant had given them to Ops for inspection and replacement and also got issued legal notice within three months from the date of their purchase and the said tyres have also been physically verified by the Dist. Forum and no steps were taken by the Ops to make them road-worthy, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on behalf of Ops. We do not see any reason to interfere with the well-considered order of the Dist. Forum. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
13) In the result this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr 23/09/2013
UP LOAD – O.K.
