KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 576/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 15.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 343/2016 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

M.R.F. Limited, 1/135-D, K.V. Warehouse, Varakkal Ambalam Road, West Hill, Kozhikode-673 005 represented by its Depot Manager,

                             (By Advs. Nair Ajay Krishnan and Narayan R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Abdul Kareem T.K., S/o Moosakutty, Thottekkattil House, Edarikode P.O., Malappuram-676 501.

2. The Proprietor, Kottakkal Tyres, K.V. Complex, Edarikode P.O., Malappuram-676 501.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 343/2016 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (District Forum for short).  The 1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 1^st opposite party. 

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows:  Complainant purchased two MRF Tyres from the shop of the 1^st opposite party on 29.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 28,000/- and the 1^st opposite party fitted the tyres in his vehicle (bus).  Complainant purchased the said tyres on seeing the advertisements given by the 2^nd opposite party.  At the time of purchase 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that the tyres were not having any manufacturing defects and they would run 40000 kms.  The employees of the 1^st opposite party made him believe that the tyres were manufactured by MRF Company and so it was durable and suitable for our road conditions.   But within 16 days from the date of purchase complainant noticed some defects in one tyre.  A crack appeared on the inside portion of the tyre and it developed.  Complainant informed the fact to the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that they would inform the company and the company would replace the tyre.  Complainant could not operate the bus for two days because of the defective tyre.  Thereafter as per the request of the 1^st opposite party complainant entrusted the tyres to the 1^st opposite party.  But the opposite parties did not respond.  Complainant demanded the opposite parties either to return the money he paid or to replace the tyre with a new one.  But opposite parties did not do so and they returned the defective tyre to the complainant.  Complainant purchased the tyre on 29.06.2016 and within two weeks the tyre became defective and complainant entrusted the same with the 1^st opposite party.  But they returned the tyre to the complainant without curing the defects.  Hence this complaint. 

3.  The 1^st opposite party filed version contending as follows: The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased two tyres for Rs. 14,000/- each from his shop on 29.06.2016.  All other allegations were denied by the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party stated that when the complainant approached them and informed the matter they collected the tyre from the complainant and sent to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party’s technical expert tested the tyre and found that there was no manufacturing defect.  Since there was no manufacturing defect, the company is not liable to replace the tyres.  The 1^st opposite party informed the matter to the complainant and the complainant had taken back the tyre from the 1^st opposite party.

4.  In their version the 2^nd opposite party contended that they had never given any performance/guarantee/warranty/assurance regarding tyres to the complainant.  They give warranty only if any manufacturing defect occurs to the tyres.  The technical expert reported that the tyre has no manufacturing defect and therefore the company has no liability to replace the same.  The life/performance of a tyre depends on many factors like Air pressure, driving habits, road condition, load carried by the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyre, speed etc.   The 2^nd opposite party argued that the defect may be caused due to the above mentioned reasons.  They are liable only if the tyre was having any manufacturing defect. 

5.  Complainant and opposite parties had filed affidavits and documents before the District Forum.  The findings of the District Forum are that there is no dispute regarding the purchase price or manufacturing date of the tyre and the tyre became defective within 16 days of its purchase. 

6.  According to the opposite parties the disputed tyre was tested by their technical expert and found that there was no manufacturing defect.  The District Forum found that the complainant had got a definite case that the tyre purchased from 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party was defective and he noticed the defects within 16 days of its purchase.  The opposite parties also admitted that the tyre became defective.  Their only case is that it did not have any manufacturing defect. 

7.  The contentions of the opposite parties were that the said tyre does not carry any warranty or guarantee.  The District Forum stated that the contention of the opposite parties is against the intention of the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum found that the 1^st opposite party had sold a defective tyre to the complainant manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-.  He could use the tyre only for a very few days.  The attitude of the opposite parties that the tyre does not carry warranty cannot be accepted and the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 14,000/- to the complainant being the cost of the tyre and Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him along with Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

8.  Aggrieved by this order the 2^nd opposite party has filed this appeal.  The main contention raised by the appellant is that the complainant/1^st respondent and appellant have no consumer relationship and the complainant is a stranger as far as the appellant is concerned.  But in this case the appellant is the manufacturer of the tyre.  Hence that contention raised by the appellant is not sustainable. 

9.  Another contention raised by the appellant is that as per the report of their technical expert, the disputed tyre has no manufacturing defect.  The report filed by the technical expert of the 2^nd opposite party has no evidentiary value before the District Forum.  The technical expert is the employee of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence definitely the expert report will always be in favour of his employer, the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant or the opposite parties had not taken any attempt before the District Forum to appoint a commissioner to test the defects of the tyre. 

10.  Further they argued that it was mandatory in the Consumer Protection Act that laboratory testing was necessary to find out whether there was manufacturing defect to the tyre.  The appellant argued that the 1^st respondent/complainant had failed to take an expert opinion in order to prove the manufacturing defect of the tyre.  The District Forum ought to have dismissed the case on that ground.  But the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint.  Hence the appellant prayed for setting aside the order of the District Forum and allowing the appeal.

11.  We perused the entire records and findings of the District Forum.  In this case there is no doubt that the complainant had purchased the tyre on 29.06.2016 and the price of the two tyres was Rs. 28,000/-.  Ext. A2 shows that on 27.07.2016 the 1^st opposite party had handed over the tyre to the 2^nd opposite party for replacement i.e; within one month of its purchase.  It is impossible that a standard quality tyre would become defective within one month irrespective of the manner in which it was used.  There is no doubt that the opposite parties had sold a damaged low quality tyre to the complainant.  For that reason the tyre became defective within a short span of time.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to replace the tyre with a new one or to repay the amount to the complainant when he approached the opposite parties with the complaint.

12.  The findings of the District Forum are correct.  There was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.  The District Forum ordered that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the ordered amount.  Though there are two parties on the opposite side, the 2^nd opposite party alone has come with appeal. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 

The 1^st respondent has the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant before this Commission at the time of filing the appeal along with its interest accrued, on proper application.  Balance amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                          AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                              BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                            RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb