Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/382/2018

D.P. Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRF Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Trikha

13 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/382/2018
Date of Institution	:	09/08/2018
Date of Decision	:	13/12/2019

 

D.P. Industries, F-305, Phase 8B, Industrial Area, Mohali - 160055, through its Proprietor Smt. Deepika Soni W/o Sh. Puneet Soni.

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     MRF Limited, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer/Authorized Signatory, Godown No.1A, Gate No.1, Dariya, U.T. Chandigarh – 160101.

 

[2]     ESS DEE Tyre Care, 641, Opposite BPCL Petrol Pump, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh - 160002, through its Manager/ Authorized Representative.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh. P.S. Sobti, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, Complainant, who is proprietorship concern and is running its small business of spare parts for her livelihood, purchased two MRF tyres and two MRF tubes for her vehicle on 17.11.2017 and paid Rs.12,150/- vide invoice Annexure C-1 issued by Opposite Party No.2. The tyres carried a warranty of one year from the date of purchase. However, on 09.06.2018 one of the tyre got burst while driving, due intimation of which was given to Opposite Party No.2 and on 11.06.2018 a claim was preferred, however, the said claim was repudiated on erroneous grounds vide Annexure C-3. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 15.10.2018.
4.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre, as after detailed and thorough examination, the Technical Service Engineer reached to the conclusion that the damage was due to through cut on the tread caused due to impact with some sharp object. The question of warranty only arises if there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.          The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
7.         Admittedly, on 11.06.2018 the Complainant filled Claim Forwarding Docket (Annexure C-2). Perusal of the same shows that it was addressed to Opposite Party No.1 and was provided by Opposite Party No.2 under their signatures and the tyre in question which got burst was sent to Opposite Party No.1 for inspection.
8.         Per contra, Opposite Party No.1 maintained that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre and thus, it cannot be held liable unless it is established that there is manufacturing defect in the tyre.
9.         The Opposite Party No.1 held its ground stating that on receipt of the tyre, the same was inspected/ examined by the Technical Service Engineer who had undergone instant training in evaluation of defect in the tyre and as per his examination it was revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to through cut on the tread caused due to impact with some sharp object. As such there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. The onus to prove the same was on the Opposite Party No.1. However, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to adduce any cogent, convincing and reliable documentary evidence, much less the technical report/affidavit of the concerned Technical Service Engineer who examined the tyre in question, in order to substantiate its claim that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. In the absence of which the assertions made by the Opposite Party No.1 are bald and thus, cannot be believed.
10.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
11.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have resolved the matter by promptly arranging the replacement of the tyre with a new one, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed:-

[a]     To refund Rs.6075/- to the Complainant being the cost of one tyre;

[b]     To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[c]     To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/12/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”