Haryana

StateCommission

A/660/2019

MRF LTD. AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARPREET SHARMA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL GOGNA

10 Sep 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.660 of 2019

                   Date of Institution:23.07.2019

          Date of Decision:10.09.2019

 

1.      M/s MRF Ltd., SCO No.37, Chandigarh-Panchkula road Manimajra, UT-160101 (Near Tanishq Jeweller) through its authorized attorney.

 

2.      M/s MRF Ltd., 114, Grems Road, Chennai, (Madras) 600006 through its authorised attorney.

 

…Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Harpreet Sharma s/o Sh. Sh.Harmesh Agnihotri, R/o VPO Morni Hills,Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula.

 

2.      Autovogue Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.388, Industrial Area Phase-1, Panchkula-134109 through its Principal Officer.

…Respondents

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Anil Gogna, counsel for the appellants.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Opposite Party No.1-M/s MRF Limited, SCO No.37, Chandigarh-Panchkula Road, Manimajra and Opposite Party No.2-M/s MRF Limited, 114, Grems Road, Chennai, (Madras) have filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated  12.06.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby complaint preferred by complainant-Harpreet Sharma was partly allowed by directing the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to replace the defective tyre in question and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of litigation charges.

2.      According to the complainant, he had purchased a new Maruti Brezza car from opposite party No.3-Autovogue Pvt. Ltd. on 04.09.2017. Soon after its purchase, there appeared a bulge in the tyre. The complainant approached the dealer, who issued job card on 31.10.2017 and stated that the tyre would be replaced by Opposite Party No.1-manufacturer of the tyre.  When the complainant enquired the status of the replacement  from the dealer he was told that Opposite Party No.1 refused to replace the tyre and also demanded Rs.700/- as depreciation.  According to the complainant, it was the duty of the manufacturer to replace the defective piece without any depreciation, but it was not done so.  Thereafter, he issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties requesting them to replace the tyre, but to no avail. Hence the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 while taking various preliminary objections pleaded that the defective tyre had not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant and as such there was no report of the expert to the effect that there was any manufacturing defect which occurred due to defective material or faulty workmanship.  They admitted the purchase of the car with MRF tyres by the complainant from the dealer on 04.09.2017.  However, according to them, the Opposite Parties did not give any performance guarantee/warranty/assurance regarding the tyre to the complainant.  The tyre manufactured by the opposite parties adhered to strict standard of quality and free from any manufacturing defect.  The tyre being a rubber product could be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect.  The life/performance of tyre depended on many factors like air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyre, speed, nature of the terrain i.e. level ground, hilly or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation/pressure, the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion, etc.  The complainant never informed opposite parties No.1 and 2 regarding any defect in the tyre nor lodged any complaint with them.  Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.      Opposite party No.3 was deemed to have been served as despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice, it had not put in appearance and was accordingly proceeded ex parte.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, learned District Forum held that there was lapse and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2 while declining the genuine request with regard to the replacement of the defective tyre in question.  However, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 was found and, accordingly, complaint was dismissed qua opposite party No.3.

6.      The State Commission has heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order.

7.      It may be worthwhile to notice here that opposite party No.3, i.e. dealer of the vehicle in question vide job card dated  31.10.2017 noticed that tyre of MRF making had buldge in it and accordingly the tyre was to be adjusted.  However, the depreciation had to be borne by the complainant which he refused to pay.  The complainant in Para No.4 of his complaint specifically stated that within a short period of just two months, there had appeared bulge in the tyre. The said bulge was duly noticed by opposite party No.3-dealer when it opened the job card.  There was thus no necessity to insist upon report from an expert.

8.      Apart from the inspection, the report (Annexure C-5) issued by Neel Kanth Tyre and the photos (Annexure C-6) make it apparent that the buldge in the tyre occurred due to manufacturing defect.  Opposite party No.3-Dealer did not appear to contest the complaint and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte. On that account, the Commission can draw adverse inference that it had nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant.

9.      In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merits and accordingly, dismissed.

10.    Statutory amount of Rs.7,500/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal, be released in favour of the complainant-Harpreet Sharma against proper receipt and identification subject to decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

10th  September, 2019      Manjula                                             T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member                                             President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)