Haryana

Kurukshetra

21/2018

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bansal tyres - Opp.Party(s)

Sadhu Ram

02 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                          Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2018.

                                                          Date of instt. 23.01.2018.

                                                          Date of Decision:02.03.2021

 

Vijay Kumar Khillan, aged about 58 years s/o Shri Surinder Kumar, r/o H.No.204, Ward No.8, Kheda Mohalla, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                             …….Complainant.                                                         Versus

 

1. M/s Bansal Tyres, Ambala Road, Pehowa through its Proprietor Rakesh Bansal.
2. MRF Limited, W9, Opp. Market Committee Office, Industrial Area, Yamunanagar, through its Manager.

 

Other address: MRF Limited, Chhchhrauli-Ponta Road, NH-73A, Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar-1350033.

          ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                       

Present:      Shri Sadhu Ram Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.          

Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.

Shri H.S. Handa, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.

             

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vijay Kumar against M/s Bansal Tyres and other, the opposite parties.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased MRF tyre 145X70X12 from OP No.1 on 16.08.2017, vide Bill No.9513 amounting Rs.1950/- with one year guarantee. The said tyre was used in car make Maruti 800. On 07.10.2017, while driving, a manufacturing defect detected in the tyre. On 09.10.2017, he contacted the OP No.1 and the tyre was sent to the OP No.2 for checking, but the same was returned on 10.10.2017 after making a false inspection report. The complainant contacted regularly to both OPs, but they had not paid any heed to his repeated requests. The said act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in services. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                Upon notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Forum, as such, the OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2018.

                   Upon notice, initially none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 and accordingly, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2018 by this Forum. However, on 21.11.2018, Shri H.S. Handa, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and thereafter filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. It is stated that the OP had neither given any performance guarantee/warranty/assurance regarding the tyre to the complainant nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/warranty/assurance. The guarantee/warranty, if any, is only regarding manufacturing defect in the tyre. The tyre of size 145/70R12 69S ZCC TT bearing Serial No.1717 was received for examination from OP No.1 on 10.10.2017 and thereafter, tyre complaint Docket No.806862964 dated 10.10.2017 was raised and said tyre was thoroughly inspected by the OPs’ Technical Service Personnel Mr. Sahil Sharma and his examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to run flat due to usage of tyre after neglecting due injury caused by cuts. Tyre runs under low inflation/no inflation. The inspection report dated 10.10.2017 sent to the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. The life/performance of the tyre depends on many factors like air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition and/or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of terrain i.e. level ground, hilly and/or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation/pressure and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion etc. The liability of OP No.2 ‘as a manufacturer, arises only if tyre/tube is having manufacturing defect. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.

 

4.                 The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A alongwith documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant had purchased MRF tyre from OP No.1 on 16.08.2017 with one year guarantee and used the same in Maruti 800 car. He further argued that on 07.10.2017, while driving, a manufacturing defect detected in the tyre and on 09.10.2017, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 and the tyre was sent to the OP No.2 for checking, but the same was returned on 10.10.2017 after making a false inspection report. The complainant contacted regularly to both OPs, but they had not paid any heed to his repeated requests. This way, the Ops are deficient in services.

7.                Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in the reply. He argued that the OP had neither given any performance guarantee/warranty/assurance regarding the tyre to the complainant nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/warranty/assurance and the guarantee/warranty, if any, is only regarding manufacturing defect in the tyre. The tyre in question received for examination and the same was thoroughly inspected by the OPs’ Technical Service Personnel Mr. Sahil Sharma, who revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to run flat due to usage of tyre after neglecting due injury caused by cuts. The tyre runs under low inflation/no inflation. The inspection report dated 10.10.2017 was sent to the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. The learned counsel for the OP no.2 has placed reliance on the law laid down in cases  Baljit Kaur Vs. Divine Motors and another VIII-2017(3)225, Ajay Kumar Vs. M/s Anand Auto Mobile and another 2017(3) CPR 259(NC) and The Manager, MRF Vs. Sri Nripendra Pal, Case No.A-54 of 2017 decided on 23.05.2018 ( Hon’ble Agartala State Commission).

8.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. The learned counsel for the OP no.2 has emphasized on the report Ex.C-2 given by the expert of OP No.2. In the said report it is only mentioned that the damage to the tyre is result of run flat due to usage of the tyre after neglecting due injury caused by cuts. From the perusal of said report, it is seen that it is no where mentioned that before examination of the tyre, complainant was given any notice. To know the genuineness of the damages, the OPs must have examined  the tyre from some independent laboratory. We have never seen that an expert of manufacturing of the product would give report against the functioning or manufacturing of his own company. The tyre was purchased on 16.8.2017 and the defect in the tyre developed on 7.10.2017 just after a period of two months. Therefore, report of the expert of OP No.2, who is manufacturer of the said tyre cannot be believed. The tyre in question has been produced before this Commission. The defect in the tyre can be seen with naked eyes. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the cost of the tyre in question i.e. Rs.1950/-  alongwith compensation for the mental harassment  and agony caused to him and litigation expenses. The authorities given on behalf of the OPs are not applicable to the facts of this case.    

 9.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the cost of the tyre i.e. Rs.1950/- to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses. The OPs  are   further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:2.03.2021                                                                     (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                                 President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),              (Neelam)         

 Member                                     Member.