BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.183/16.
Date of instt.: 01.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 13.02.2017.
Sanjeev Kumar son of Mati Ram, r/o H.No.411/18, Railway Gate, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- MRF Limited, Plot No.3673/3/1, Excell Tower, IInd Floor, near Sanjay Chowk, G.R.Road, Panipat, through its Manager.
- GARRSONS TYRES, near R.K.S.D.College, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its proprietor/partner.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Aditya Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ranbir Rana, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased two tyres of size 8-25-20 53 K4 TTF bearing No.66009122315 and 66210862415 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per tyre i.e. total amounting to Rs.30,000/- vide bill bearing cash memo No.5272 dt. 29.09.2015 against the guarantee/warranty for a period of five years. It is alleged that on 14.10.2015, after replacing the said two tyres with the old tyres of vehicle No.HR-62/5619 took the consignment of transporting the materials from M/s. G.L.S. Films Industries Pvt. Ltd. Bilaspur to Shamli (UP). It is further alleged that during the journey, the aforesaid both the tyres were burst on the way and the driver of complainant had to manage the other tyres for reaching to destination. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum. Op No.1 filed the reply, whereas Op No.2 did not file the reply despite availing several opportunities, so, the defense of Op No.2 was struck off vide order dt. 03.10.2016. Op No.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyres have not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as required under Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986; that the vehicle fitted with MRF tyres was used for commercial purpose as apparent in the averments made in the complaint; that the complainant has nowhere pleaded that he used the vehicle by way of self-employment for earning his livelihood. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and closed evidence on 18.11.2016. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed evidence on 15.12.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased two tyres in question at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per tyre i.e. total amounting to Rs.30,000/- vide bill bearing cash memo No.5272 dt. 29.09.2015 against the guarantee/warranty for a period of five years. He further argued that on 14.10.2015, after replacing the said two tyres with the old tyres of vehicle No.HR-62/5619 took the consignment of transporting the materials from M/s. G.L.S. Films Industries Pvt. Ltd. Bilaspur to Shamli (UP) and during the journey, the aforesaid both the tyres were burst on the way and the driver of complainant had to manage the other tyres for reaching to destination. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the defective tyres have not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as required under Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986. He further argued that the vehicle fitted with MRF tyres was used for commercial purpose as apparent in the averments made in the complaint. He further argued that the tyre of size 8.25R20 S3K4 bearing Sr.No.66009122315 was received for examination from Op No.2 on 03.11.2015 and the said tyre was thoroughly inspected by Technical Service Personnel namely Mr. Sumit Sugathan and his examination report, Ex.R5 revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to “RUN FLATE” caused due to USAGE OF THE TYRE AFTER NEGLECTING THE INJURY CAUSED BY CUTS. He further argued that similarly, the tyre of size 8.25R20S3K4 bearing Sr.No.66210862415 was received for examination from the Op No.2 on 03.11.2015 and the said tyre was also thoroughly inspected by above-said Technical Service Personnel and his examination report, Ex.R3 revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to SIDE WALL CONCLUSION caused due to SUDDEN IMPACT WITH SOME HEAVY OBJECT.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased two tyres in question on 29.09.2015 from Op No.2 but the dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, both the tyres burst due to manufacturing defects, whereas according to Ops, there was no manufacturing defect and the same were damaged due to negligence of the driver of complainant. To prove that there was no manufacturing defect and the tyres were damaged, the Ops have placed on the file reports, Ex.R3 & Ex.R5 of the expert. It is clear that both the tyres in question were sent by Op No.2 for examination vide claim forwarding document, Ex.R1 and both the tyres in question were examined by Technical Service Personnel, who gave his reports, Ex.R3 and Ex.R5. From the report Ex.R5, it is clear that the tyre of size 8.25R20 S3K4 R16 TT (SJ No.66009122315) was examined and revealed that the same was damaged as a result of “Run flat due to usage of the tyre after neglecting the injury caused by cuts. Tyre run under low inflation/No inflation.” Similarly, from the report Ex.R3, it is clear that the tyre of size 8.25R20 S3K4 R16 TT (SJ.No.66210862415 was examined and revealed that the same was damaged as a result of “Sidewall conclusion due to sudden impact with some heavy object”. So, from the above-said reports placed on the file by Op No.1, it is crystal clear that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres in question. The complainant has failed to prove on the file that there was any manufacturing defect in the tyres in question. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and we hereby dismiss the same. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.02.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
