Haryana

Ambala

CC/179/2020

Sumer Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRF Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jasvir Singh Saini

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint case no.         :     179 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :     09.09.2020

                                                          Date of decision     :     07.07.2022.

Sumer Chand S/o Shri Raj Kumar, R/o Village & P.O Thakur Pura, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

                                                                                                          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. MRF Limited, 124, Greams Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Email:
2. M/s Jagdambey Trading Company, Opposite Radha Soami Satsang Bhawan, Panjalasa Road, Naraingarh District Ambala Authorised Dealer in: Sonalika Tractors, Engine, spare parts and Agri implements Through its proprietor/manager.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

Present:       Shri Jitender Kumar Saini, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Gursewak Singh Antal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 already ex parte.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i)        To replace both the rear tyres of tractor of the complainant       with   new tyres of the same size and pattern, without charging any amount from him or pay Rs.45,000/-, value of      Tyres.

(ii)     To pay Rs. 2 lakhs for causing physical harassment, mental      agony, financial loss and reputation to his image in the         society, to the complainant;

iii)     To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses

                                      OR

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Tractor make Sonalika Di-750-III on 21.05.2019 for Rs.7,20,000/- vide invoice No.402 from the OP No 2. All the four tyres fitted to the vehicle were manufactured by MRF Limited, i.e. the OP No.1. The size of rear tyres is 14.9.28 and the Sr. Nos. of rear tyres are 26010614118, 26010114118. Warranty was for two years for all four tyres of the tractor as provided by MRF Limited. Complainant maintained the Tractor and the tyres and also got done the regular service of the Tractor and tyres balancing got done from OP No.2, from time to time. However, within one year from the date of purchase of the said Tractor, the uneven tread wear was exposed in both the rear tyres and same have been damaged. In the month of March 2020, complainant approached the OP No.2 i.e seller and complained about the damaged condition of the tyres. On 05.06.2020, OP No.2 forwarded his complaint via e-mail to OP No.1, to get the tyres replaced as there was manufacturing defect in the tyres. After much persuasion, the tyres were got checked through the authorized person of OP No.1, who concluded that uneven tread wear caused due to unequal contract pressure exerted at tyre/terrain contact area, and vide letter dated 06.08.2020, OP No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant. It is further stated that since there was manufacturing defect in the tyres, therefore OP No.1 was liable to replace the tyres with the new one, without charging any amount from the complainant but to no avail. The complainant served a legal notice dated 06-07-2020 upon the OPs, but no action was taken by them in the matter. By not replacing the defective tyres with the new one, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared through its counsel and filed its written version wherein raised preliminary objections with regard to its maintainability, status of the complainant as consumer, that the complainant suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that the defective tyres have not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as is required under Section 38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. OP No.1 cannot be held liable unless there is manufacturing defect in the tyres. The guarantee/warrantee, if any, is only regarding manufacturing defect in the tyres. Complainant had visited OP No.2 on 05.06.2020, for inspection of the tyres. On inspection, no manufacturing defect was detected and the finding was communicated to the complainant. The complainant did not agree to the finding and sought for physical examination of the tyre. On 17.06.2020, complainant brought his tractor for examination of the tyres fitted therein. The said tyres were inspected at OED 'S premises by Technical Service Personnel Mr. Raman Prasher, who had undergone intense training in evaluation of the same. His examination revealed that the said tyres were damaged due to uneven tread wear' caused due to unequal contact pressure exerted at tyre/terrain contact area. The inspection was conducted in the presence of the complainant and the reasons for the damage were explained to him in detail and he was convinced about the reasons also. The inspection report dated 18.06.2020 was sent to M/s Soanalika Tractors on 18.06.2020. The Company's liability arises only when the product is having manufacturing defect. OP No.1 is not liable if the product is damaged due to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or accident, normal wear and tear. It has also come to the knowledge of OP No.1 that complainant is still using the very same tyres in his tractor and as such this fact itself proves that the tyres were not having any manufacturing defect. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of OP No.2 as a result whereof it was proceeded  against ex parte vide order dated 15.09.2021.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-30 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Raman Prasher son of Mr. Suresh Kumar Prasher aged about 27 years, residing at Professor Colony Yamunanagar as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP 1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there was manufacturing defect in the tyres in question as a result of which the same got damaged within one year, from the date of purchase of the said tractor, i.e within warranty, as such OPs are liable to replace the tyres in question, free of costs with the new one or to pay the costs thereof, as the same were under warranty period.  
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that since the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence in the shape of expert report or any other document to prove that the said tyres suffer from any manufacturing defect, and on the other hand, the expert of OP No.1 has thoroughly examined the said tyres and came to the conclusion that the damage has occurred due to uneven tread wear' caused due to unequal contact pressure exerted at tyre/terrain contact area, therefore, OP No.1 cannot be made liable for the same.
9.           The plea of the complainant is that the tyres in question got defective due to manufacturing defect, within the warranty period. However, he has not placed on record the warranty card/document to show that as to what was the warranty period of said tyres. Even otherwise complainant has neither moved an application under section 38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before this Commission nor has placed on file any expert/lab report/opinion from which this Commission is convinced that tyres in question were having any manufacturing defect. Mere placing on record, the photographs of the tyres in question are of no use because from these photographs it is nowhere proved that the tyres in question were having any manufacturing defect. 
10.               On the other hand, the case of OP No.1 is supported by the report dated 06.08.2020, Annexure C-9 of its expert namely Sh.Raman Prasher, wherein, it has been clearly opined that said tyres were got damaged due to uneven tread wear' which has been caused due to unequal contact pressure exerted at tyre/terrain contact area. Thus, when OP No.1 has taken the specific plea supported by the report Annexure C-9 aforesaid, it was the duty of the complainant to rebut the same by filing the expert opinion or lab report but he has not done so. Even, the complainant has not placed on file any independent cogent evidence to rebut the version of OP No.1. Under similar circumstances, in Baljit Kaur Vs Divine Motors and Anr., 2017 (3) CPR 24 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner-Baljit Kaur holding as under:-

"….While it is true that this has no relation with any manufacturing defect, it is also true that the manufacturing defect as alleged has not been proved before the fora below, by reference to any expert report in this regard. When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant had produced, in support of her allegation of manufacturing defect, her own affidavit alongwith affidavit of 7-8 more witnesses. The District Forum correctly held - and the state commission concurred - that that these affidavits are no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the vehicle was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect (s)..."

11.     In another case decided by the Hon'ble National Commission titled as Suresh Chand Jain Vs. MRF Ltd., in R.P. No. 3845/2006 decided on 16.12.2010 there was Technical Service Engineer opinion with regard to nature of the damage who clearly stated that the tyre was damaged due to thorough cut caused due to sudden impact with some sharp object while the vehicle is in motion. In that case, the complainant had used the tyres for almost two years and no expert evidence was led on the side of the complainant to dislodge the technical report filed by the engineer. Thus, no relief was given to the complainant and the revision petition was dismissed.  

12.     Complainant has alleged that the tyres in question suffer from manufacturing defect and on the other hand the OP No.1 has contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres and in support of this contention it has placed on record the expert report dated 06.08.2020, Annexure C-9. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that it was the bounden duty of the complainant to prove that the tyres in question suffer from manufacturing defect, by placing on record some cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of report of any expert, challenging the expert report of OP No.1 but he miserably failed to do so.

13.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case that the tyres in question suffered from any manufacturing defect, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 07.07.2022.

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President