Haryana

Panchkula

CC/129/2018

HARPREET SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRF LTD - Opp.Party(s)

YOGYA DUTT ,KIRTI KUMAR & SHUBHAM SHARMA

12 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	129 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	19.07.2018
Date of Decision	:	12.06.2019

                       

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

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       MRF Ltd., SCO No.37, Chandigarh-Panchkula Road, Manimajra, Manimajra U.T.-160101 (near Tanishq Jeweller) through its principal officer.

2.       MRF Ltd, 114, Grems Road, Chennai, (Madras) 600006, through its principal officer.

3.       Autovogue Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.388, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Panchkula-134109 through its principal officer.

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Mr.Shubham Sharma, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.P.S.Sobti, Adv., for the Ops No.1 and 2.

OP No.3 already ex-parte vide order dt.14.12.2018.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.       The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that the complainant has purchased a new Maruti Brezza car from the Op No.3 on 04.09.2017 and the same was registered with Registering Authority, Panchkula vide registration No.HR-03V-3974. The grievance of the complainant is that within 25 days of its purchase, there was a buldge in the tyre. The complainant immediately approached the Op No.3 who issued a job card dated 31.10.2017 and stated that tyre would be replaced by the manufacturer of the tyre i.e. OP No.1. Thereafter, the complainant enquired the status of the replacement from Op No.3 who told that the OP No.1 refused to replace the tyre and also demanded Rs.700/- as depreciation. Upon this, the complainant stated that it is the duty of manufacturer to replace the defective piece without any depreciation but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice dated 06.11.2017 requesting them to replace the tyre but to no avail. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the defective tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant which is required under Section 13 (1) (c) of the CP Act. There is no report of any expert to the effect that there is any manufacturing defect which occurred due to use of defective material or faulty workmanship. The onus is on the complainant to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the product.

On merit, the complainant had purchased a Maruti Brezza car with MRF Tyre from the Op No.3 on 04.09.2017. Neither the Ops company had given any performance guarantee/warranty/assurance regarding tyre to the complainant nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/ warranty/ assurance in this regard. The company manufactures the largest range of tyre in India and enjoys the highest brand preference for superior quality, appearance and long life. The tyre/tubes manufactured by the Ops adhere to strict standard of quality and is free from any manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that the tyre being a rubber product could be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect. The life/performance of a tyre depends 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 and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion, etc. The complainant never informed the Ops No.2 and 3 regarding any defect in the tyre nor lodged any complaint with the Ops No.2 and 3. It is the normal practice of the company, in case of any complaint tyre/s being received either directly from the customer or through the dealer’s network, the same were inspected by their technical service personnel and said technical service personnel should give an “Inspection Report” as the outcome of such inspection done. The Ops No.1 and 2 being a manufacturing company of tyre should be held responsible only when defective tyre suffer from the manufacturing defect and not otherwise. The complainant never brought the defective tyre to the workshop of the Ops No.1 and 2. The Ops No.1 and 2 in reply of the said legal notice dated 06.11.2017 requested the complainant to sent the tyre to find out if there is any manufacturing defect but the complainant did not come.

Remaining pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.1 & 2 and as such complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.       Notices were issued to the Op No.3 through registered post on 02.11.2018 (vide registered post No. RH3555118435IN), which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to Op No.3; hence it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op No.3, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide order dated 14.12.2018.

4.       To prove his claim, the complainant has tendered the affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has tendered the affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith document Annexure R1/1 and closed the evidence.  

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 and perused the record carefully and minutely.

During the pendency of the present case, the counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has filed an application under section 13 (1) (c) for directing the complainant for getting the proper analysis of the tyre from any lab. The said application has been resisted by the complainant stating that no further examination from any technical expert is required in the present matter in view of the fact that OP No.3 itself has observed after the inspection of the tyre that the tyre has buldge in it. In the present case, the observations made by OP No.3 in job card No.004/BC/17001978 dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure C-1) are of utmost importance which says that tyre in question has a buldge in it. In view of the above clear and unambiguous report by Op No.3 with regard to the defect of buldge in the tyre, we find no necessity of any additional expert report substantiating the same fact. Hence, the application for obtaining the proper analysis of the tyre from any lab is disposed of accordingly.

6.       It is evident that the complainant purchased a Maruti Brezza car from Op NO.3 on 04.09.2017 (Annexure C-4) and the same was got registered with Registering Authority, Panchkula vide No.HR-03V-3974. The complainant has alleged that one tyre of said car got defective as there appeared a buldge in it within 25 days of its purchase and thereupon the complainant approached the Op No.3, who asked the complainant to bear the depreciation cost.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has relied upon the observation made by Op No.3 with regard to the defect in tyre vide job sheet Annexure C-1. The learned counsel also invited the attention of this Forum towards the report Annexure C-5 issued by Neel Kanth Tyre and photos placed at Annexure C-6 in support of the fact that the buldge in the tyre occurred due to manufacturing defect in it. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment titled as Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Munna Lal Gupta passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi decided on 18.08.2004.

7.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2, who is manufacturer of the tyre in question denied its liability stating that there is no expert report establishing the manufacturing defect in tyre. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contended that the tyre being a rubber product could be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect. The life/performance of a tyre depends 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 and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion, etc. Learned counsel asserted that the tyre in question might have got damaged due to any of the aforesaid factors/eventuality. Learned counsel further stated that in case of any complaint from any consumer the tyres are got inspected in the workshop of the Ops and in the present case, the complainant did not approach the Ops for getting the tyres in question examined and inspected from its technical expert. Learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has relied upon the case law titled as Baljit Kaur vs. M/s Divine Motors & Anr. passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi decided on 08.06.2017 and The Manager, MRF Limited and Anr vs. Sri Nripendra Paul passed by the Hon’ble Tripura State Commission, Agartala decided on 23.05.2018.

8.       After hearing the rival contention of both the parties and going through the entire record available on the file, we find that the defect of buldge occurred in the tyre of the car as is crystal clear from the recommendations made by the Op No.3 vide its job card No.004/BC/17001978 dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure C-1) which is reproduced as under:

“Recommendations:      

tyre of mrf make has buldge in it case refer to vendor mrf for inspection As per MRF, tyre will be adjusted and depreciation has to be bourne by the customer for which customer refused.”

9.       The learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has not raised any kind of doubt with regard to the genuineness or otherwise about the recommendations made by Op No.3 vide said job sheet. We find specific and categorical pleadings in para 4 of the complaint corroborated by corresponding para 4 of the affidavit (Annexure C-A) with regard to the remarks of buldge in tyre vide job sheet dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure C-1). In view of the specific and categorical pleadings as contained in para 4 of the complaint and affidavit (Annexure C-A), it was incumbent upon the Ops No.1 and 2 to have a correspondence with Op No.3 so as to unveil/unravel the truth in the matter.  However, the Ops No.1 and 2 instead of contacting the Op No.3 with regard to aforesaid observation made vide job sheet (Annexure C-1) with regard to buldge in the tyre preferred to keep silent. Though it is a well settled law that a manufacturing defect can be established only on the basis of a report of an expert, yet in the present case, the requirement of an expert report may, safely, be dispensed with, keeping in view the clear recommendations of OP No.3 vide aforesaid job sheet with regard to buldge in the tyre. Moreover, the inspection report (Annexure C-5) issued by Neel Kanth Tyre and the photos at Annexure C-6 further make it crystal clear that the buldge in the tyre occurred due to the manufacturing defect in it.

10.     The OP No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte for which an adverse inference is drawn against it. The non-appearance of the Op No.3 despite notice shows that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there is lapse and deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 and 2 while declining the genuine request with regard to the replacement of the defective tyre in question. However, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.3, hence, the present complaint is dismissed qua the Op No.3.

12.     As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint against the Ops No.1 and 2 with the following directions:-

(i)      The Ops No.1 and 2 are directed to replace the defective tyre in question.

(ii)     The Ops No.1 and 2 shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.

(iii)    The Ops No.1 and 2 shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of litigation charges.

 

13.     The Ops No.1 and 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the Ops.  A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of costs, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

12.06.2019        (Dr.Sushma Garg)     (Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini)       (Satpal)

                             Member                  Member                            President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                                                    (Satpal)

                                                                             President