Haryana

StateCommission

A/385/2022

SUMER CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRF TYRES AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

JITENDER SAINI

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.385 of 2022

                                                 Date of Institution: 16.08.2022                                                            Date of Final Hearing: 26.08.2022

Date of pronouncement: 14.11.2022

 

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

…..Appellant

Versus

1. MRF limited, 124, Greams Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Email:mrfshare@mrfmail.com through its Manager.
2. M/s Jagdambey Trading Co. Opp. Radha Soami Satsang Bhawan, Panjlasa Road, Naraingarh Distt. Ambala. Authorised Dealer in Sonalika Tractors, Engine, Spare parts and Agri implements.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Jitender Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.385 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 07.07.2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.179 of 2020, which was dismissed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2019, the complainant purchased a tractor  for Rs.7,20,000/- make Sonalika Di-750-III  from opposite party No.2. All the tyres fitted in the said tractor were manufactured by MRF-OP No.1. The warranty was for two years for all tyres.   However, within one year from the date of purchase of the tractor, uneven tread wear was exposed in both the rear tyres and same got damaged.  Faced with this problem he approached OP No.2-seller and complained about the damaged condition of tyres in such a short span of time.  On 05.06.2020, OP NO.2 forwarded his complaint to OP No.1 via mail and vide letter dated 06.08.2020, OP No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant.  He requested the OP No.1 to replace the tyres, but, to no avail.  Faced with this situation, he sent legal notice dated 06.07.2020 to the OP, but, to no avail. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.      Notice being issued, OP NO.2 failed to appear following which it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.09.2021.  Opposite party No.1 filed written statement submitting that the wornout tyres have not been got tested from the laboratory. Infact there was no manufacturing defect in those tyres.  Even upon inspection, no manufacturing defect was detected.  However complainant did not agree to the finding and sought for physical examination of the tyres. On 17.06.2020, he 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.  Upon examination, he revealed that tyres were damaged due to uneven tread wear caused due to unequal contact pressure exerted at tyre/terrain contact area. The Inspection report dated 18.06.2020 was sent to M/s Sonalike Tractors on 18.06.2020. The company’s liability arises only when the product was having some manufacturing defect. Since, there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres, thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Preliminary Objections about maintainability of complaint, suppressing of material facts  etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned District Commission, Ambala has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 07.07.2022.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, Complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Jitender Saini, learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire record of the appeal including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that at the time of purchasing the tractor by the complainant, the warranty was for two years for all tyres made by MRF.   Some uneven tread wear was noticed in both the rear tyres.  The complainant approached OP No.2-seller and complained about the damaged condition of tyres, but   on 05.06.2020, OP NO.2 forwarded his complaint to OP No.1 via mail and vide letter dated 06.08.2020, but OP No.1 rejected his claim.  He requested the OP No.1 to replace the tyres, but, it did not consider the request. There was manufacturing defect in the tyres. The learned District Commission wrongly dismissed the complaint.

8.       Perusal of Annexure C-9 clearly shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres and therefore, the claim was not accepted.  Since the learned District Commission rightly endorsed the report of Raman Prasher expert from MRF Limited.  Infact after physical inspection of the affected tyres, this expert has disclosed the precise reason for which these tyres got unevenly worn out. No other material could be brought on record by complainant to dispel this observation made by an expert.  The respondent was not liable to pay the tyre charges  as well as compensation to the complainant. The learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

9.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed.

10.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgement.

14th  November, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)