Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,500/- towards cost of the tyre and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with interest @18% .p.a. from the date of purchase till realization and costs of the complaint.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainant purchased a MRF tyre from the 2^nd opposite party on 14-12-10 for his Bore Wheeler Traley for an amount of Rs.8,500/-.  The said tyre was fitted to the bore wheeler traley immediately after his purchase.  The tyre was damaged and the edge was completely spoiled within 15 days of its fitment due to manufacturing defect.  The complainant immediately approached the dealer 2^nd opposite party herein, who immediately sent the tyre to 1^st opposite party for inspection. 

3.      The 1^st opposite party sent letter dated 17-02-11 to the complainant stating that the tyre was damaged due to fitment problem.  The complainant having much experience in using big vehicles, had rightly fitted the tyre to his traley.   The tyre edge was damaged due to manufacturing defect but not with fitment problem.  The complainant sustained huge loss due to the defective tyre supplied by the opposite parties which is nothing but deficiency of service.  Therefore the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence the complaint.  

4.      The following is the version of 1^st opposite party in brief:

          The vehicle of the complainant fitted with MRF tyre was used for commercial purpose.  The complainant no where pleaded that the vehicle is used for self employment or for earning his livelihood.  Therefore the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(1) (D) of the Consumer Protection Act. 

5.      The alleged defective tyre was not inspected from any approved laboratory by the complainant as is required u/s 13(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The 1^st opposite party cannot be held liable unless there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre. 

6.      No assurance was given to the complainant that damaged tyre would be replaced for any latent, patent or improper function neither any performance guarantee regarding the tyre was given to the complainant.  The opposite parties are not liable if the product is damaged due to negligence, misuse, improper maintenance, accident, normal wear and tare and consequential or indirect damages.  The Technical Service Person after thoroughly checking the tyre having serial No. 57116013310 informed the complainant through letter dated 17-02-12, that there was not any manufacturing defect and the tyre was damaged due to careless fitment.  The complainant has no right to claim any relief from the opposite parties without manufacturing defect.  The Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to direct the complainant to take steps to send the subject complaint tyre to the appropriate laboratory for analysis as provided in the Section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

7.      The following is the version of 2^nd opposite party in brief :

          The complainant purchased tyre bearing No.900-16TTR707 serial No.571160013310 for Rs.8,500/- on 14-12-11 with the 2^nd opposite party. 

8.     The complainant made an absolutely false allegation that the tyre edge was damaged due to manufacturing defect.  The tyre was damaged due to improper maintenance but not due to manufacturing defect and the same was proved by the company’s authorized technical service person.  The complainant did not file any approved 3^rd party technical report in support of his allegation. 

9.     As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the bill the complainant is not liable for any kind of guarantee.  Therefore the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss with complaint with exemplary costs in the interest of justice. 

10.    Both the parties have filed their affidavits respectively.  Ex.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents was marked on behalf of opposite parties.

11.    Now the points that arose for consideration in this          complaint are:      

1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of

     service?

2.   To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

12.    POINT NO.1 &2:   The complainant alleged that the damage caused to the tyre is due to manufacturing defect. 

13.   The opposite parties contented that the said damage is due to careless fitment but not due to manufacturing defect.  The subject tyre was inspected and a report (Ex.A-3 dated 17-02-11) was given by the Technical Service Person of the 1^st opposite party.  The inspection report revealed that the damage is of “fitment damage”.  The complainant did not file any document in contrast to Ex.A-3.  The burden of proof is on the complainant himself.  Complainant ought to have sent the subject tyre for laboratory test.  It was not done by the complainant.  The complainant failed to substantiate his allegation.  In those circumstances, the Forum cannot hold opposite parties responsible for the damage caused to the tyre. 

14.   In view of the above discussion, the Forum comes to a considered opinion that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and are not liable to compensate the complainant. 

15.   In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.   

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 25^th day of June, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:   NIL

PRESIDENT