Haryana

StateCommission

A/807/2016

MRF TYRE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANNU - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

First Appeal No  :    807 of 2016

Date of Institution:    05.09.2016

Date of Decision :     03.10.2016

 

M/s MRF Tyre Private Limited, Kachha Chamria Road, near Pataka Factory, Rohtak through its authorised signatory/Engineer.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Mrs. Mannu w/o Sh. Jasvir, Resident of Village Titoli, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Merit Honda (SPL Motors Ltd) Hisar Road, Rohtak through its Manager/Proprietor.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                              

 

Present:              Shri Amardeep Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh.H.S. Parwana, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

         M/s MRF Tyre Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2, is in appeal against the order dated July 12^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.215 of 2015.

2                 Mannu-complainant-respondent No.1, purchased a new car from Merit Honda-Opposite Party No.1 on 28^th May, 2014. MRF tubeless tyres were fitted in the car. On 20^th April, 2015, one of the tyres burst being defective. The complainant approached the opposite parties to replace the defective tyre with new one but they refused. The complainant got replaced the tyre by paying Rs.4700/-. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                The opposite parties in their written version denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the tyre. It was stated that opposite parties’ liability arises only when the product is having manufacturing defect, due to usage of defective material/faulty workmanship. They are not liable if the product is damaged due to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or accident, normal wear and tear. The opposite parties are not liable for the consequential loss or indirect loss. The complainant has no right to demand damages or compensation for accrued losses, when he did not submit  the (OE fitted) tyre for inspection, by following the due procedure, even when the same was explained to him, when the complainant had at the first instance visited this opposite parties local office. Denying the averments made by the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint issuing direction to the opposite party No.2/appellant, as under:-

“…it is observed that the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of tyre i.e. Rs.4700/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.05.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. However, complainant is directed to hand over the tyre in question to the opposite party No.2 within 10 days from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2, assailed the order of the District Forum taking plea that the appellant neither issued any performance guarantee/warranty regarding tyres nor authorised any other person or company to give guarantee/warranty on their behalf. The guarantee/warranty or assurance, if any, is only regarding manufacturing defect in tyres. But the complainant has not led any evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the tyre.

6.                The contention raised is not acceptable. It is not disputed that the tyre was damaged during the warranty period. The appellant does not dispute that tyre manufactured by it was fitted in the car by the manufacturer of the car. The appellant also does not dispute that the tyre was damaged. The only plea raised was that the vehicle was parked for long time due to which the tyre suffered damage.

7.                Since the appellant-opposite party No.1 admits the tyre to have been damaged; onus was upon it to prove that the damage was not on account of manufacturing defect. It is not the case of the appellant that the damage was on account of normal wear and tear or on account of excess use of the vehicle. 

8.                In view of the above, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.4500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 03.10.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL