Haryana

Ambala

CC/28/2015

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chanana Treaders - Opp.Party(s)

Ankush Gupta

27 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                             Complaint Case No.  : 28 of 2015.

                                             Date of Institution    : 30.01.2015.

                                                Date of Decision      : 27.11.2017

 

Ajay Kumar son of Laxmi r/o VPO Shazadpur Tehsil Nariangarh District Ambala.

 

                                                                                      ……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Chanana Trader Chandigarh- Nahan Road Near bus stand Nariangarh District Ambala.
2. MRF Ltd. 124, Greens Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600006, Tamil Nadu.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

         

Present:       Sh. Ankush Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. G.S.Antal, Adv. for OP No.2.

                   OP No.1 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased two MRF tyres from OP No.1 on 11.08.2012 vide bill No.21932 for Rs.35200/- against cash payment bearing Sr.No.30375522912 & 30378432912  and at the time of selling the same the OP No.1 had given warranty in case there remains manufacturing defect.  After few months of its purchase, manufacturing defect was noticed by the complainant as the tyres started leaving wires and further become useless. The complainant approached to OP No.2 and requested to replace the same with new one  but it told that the tyres would be left to Op No.1 and as and when the representative of Op No.2 comes then the same would be replaced after reporting the matter to him.  The Op No.l failed to redress the grievance of the complainant even after lapsing of many months forcing the complainant to purchase new tyres.  The Op No.1 called the complainant and stated that the dealer of MRF Yamuna Nagar has refused to replace the same. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.

2.                Upon notice, OP no.1 did not appear before this Forum and it ws proceeded against exparte. Op No.2 appeared only and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing reply wherein it has been submitted  the  manufacturing defect cannot be held until and unless of report of expert and there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of C.P.Act.  The appearing Op has neither given any assurance qua performance guarantee/warranty, though, guarantee for manufacturing defect has been given. The appearing Op is unaware of the circumstances in which the subject tyres were brought for inspection. Soon after receiving the tyre bearing serial No.30378432912 it was thoroughly inspected by Technical Service personnel Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh  and according to his report tyre bearing serial No.30378432912 was damaged due to Fitment damage and tyre bearing Sr.No.30375522912 was not received for inspection. There is no manufacturing defect in the tyres  and inspection report was also sent to the complainant on 08.08.2014. The life/performance of a tyre depends on many factors like Air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load crried by the vehicle, mechanical condition and/or irregularities of the vehicles, proper maintenance of tyres, speed, nature of the terrain i.e. level ground, hilly or winding roads, the season of the tyres when the tyre was used, position of the tyres of the vehicle, inflation/pressure and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion etc. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Op No.2 has affidavit Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

3.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

4.                 Purchasing of tyres by the complainant from Op No.1 is not disputed. The complainant in order to prove his case has produced his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CX wherein he has reiterated the version made in the complaint besides documents Annexure C2, Annexure C3 (Photographs of tyres). It is not understandable on one hand the complainant has claimed that his tyres are having manufacturing defect but on the other hand provided only one tyre for inspection. The inspection report Annexure R2 reveals that the damage to the tyre was the result of Fitment damage due to careless fitment. In this report it has also been mentioned that this is not due to any manufacturing defect of the product. The Op No.2 has specifically mentioned in the reply about supplying of inspection report to the complainant. Had there been any grievance, the complainant could have got the same checked through expert by moving an application under Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act to rebut the report Annexure R2 mentioned above. Relevant section 13(1) (c) of C.P. Act  says that “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which conanot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”.

5.             The complainant has not moved any application under section 13(1) (c) of C.P. Act before this Forum for inspection of the tyres in question to ascertain the facts, whether the same were having manufacturing defects. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 27.11.2017                                    (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

          MEMBER                               MEMBER