DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/303/2021
Date of Institution: 03.12.2021
Date of Decision: 31.07.2024
Navdeep Singh, son of Sh. Iqbal Singh resident of Bhaini Jassa, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant Versus
1. MRF Tyres Limited, Sanour Road, Patiala, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Tyre Plaza, MRF Tyres and Service Franchise, Dhanaula Road, Near Truck Union, Barnala, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. D.S. Dhaliwal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Gagandeep Garg Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against MRF Tyres Limited, Sanour Road, Patiala, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased two tyres bearing serial No. 70305154720, HSN/SAC Code 4011 from the opposite party No. 2 manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 at Barnala on 23-01-2021 against Rs. 43,000/- through Bill No. 2036 dated 23-01-2021. It is further alleged that at the time of purchasing the said tyres the opposite party No. 2 had assured the complainant that full claim shall be given in case of blast of the two tyres or any defect thereon till the both half worn tyres and no extra payment be charged regarding the worn of the tyres. It is alleged that after 15 days from the purchasing of both the tyres, tyre serial No. 70305154720 exploded and in this regard the complainant came to the opposite party No. 2 and requested him to replace the said tyre then opposite party No. 2 deposited the exploded tyre of the complainant and then opposite party No. 2 informed opposite party No. 1 about this, after which the employee of opposite party No. 1 approached the opposite party No. 2 and saw the tyre and said that this tyre could not be replaced. It is further alleged that the opposite parties with malafide intention refused to replace the tyre of the complainant without any reason and the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
i) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the above said tyre with new one or to pay the amount of Rs. 21,500/-.
ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 50,,000/- on account of compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law, facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has suppressed, distorted and concealed vital and material facts. The present complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre have not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as is required under Sec.38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further alleged that the vehicle of the complainant fitted with MRF tyres was used for commercial purpose as apparent in the averments made in the complaint and the complainant has further nowhere pleaded that he used the vehicle by way of self-employment for earning his livelihood. The complainant has no locus-standi to file and maintain the present complaint against opposite party. The guarantee/ warrantee, if any, of the tyre, is only regarding manufacturing defect in the tyre and the alleged defect in the tyre in question is not manufacturing defect, rather the damage of tyre is a result of Lock ring damage and thus the opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for replacing the tyre.
4. On merits, it is denied that the complainant on 23.01.2021 had purchased two tyres of MRF Make for his vehicle and the opposite party No. 2 had assured the complainant that full claim shall be given in case of blast of the two tyres or any defect thereon both the tyres and no extra payment be charged regarding the worn tyres etc. It is further submitted that opposite party company had neither given any performance guarantee/warranty/ assurance regarding tyres to the complainant nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/warranty/ assurance in this regard. It is further denied that the opposite party had received a Tyre of size 1000R20 S3C8 PLUS R16 TTF bearing Serial No.70305154720 was received for examination from M/s. Tyre Plaza on 27.01.2021 and soon after the receipt of the same a complaint Notification No.903054659 dated 27.01.2021 was raised and the said tyre was thoroughly inspected by opposite parties Technical Service Personnel Mr. Anupam Mishra, who has undergone intense training in evaluation of tyres and his examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to Lock ring damage caused due to improper fitment and this is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre. The inspection report dated 27.01.2021 pertaining to the above said tyre was sent to Mr.Iqbal Singh, the father of complainant on 27.01.2021 and necessary instruction was given to Mr. Iqbal Singh to collect the tyre from M/s. Tyre Plaza. But the complainant with some ulterior motives of portraying opposite parties in bad light has not taken back the rejected tyre from the opposite party No. 2. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 4.3.2022 due to non appearance.
6. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite party No. 1 and reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
7. To prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Navdeep Singh as Ex.C-1, bill dated 23.01.2021 as Ex.C-2, legal notice as Ex.C-3, postal receipts are Ex.C-4 & C-5, reply to legal notice as Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anupam Mishra as Ex.OP1/1, copy of inspection report as Ex.OP1/2, copy of claim forwarding docket as Ex.OP1/3, copy of reply to legal notice as Ex.OP1/4, copy of envelope as Ex.OP1/5, copy of postal receipt as Ex.OP1/6, coy of email as Ex.OP1/7, copy of power of attorney as Ex.OP1/8 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite party No. 1.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased two tyres bearing serial No. 70305154720, HSN/SAC Code 4011 from the opposite party No. 2 manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 at Barnala on 23-01-2021 against Rs. 43,000/- through Bill No. 2036 dated 23-01-2021 (as per Ex.C-2). It is further argued that at the time of purchasing the said tyres, the opposite party No. 2 had assured the complainant that full claim shall be given in case of blast of the two tyres or any defect thereon till the both half worn tyres and no extra payment be charged regarding the worn of the tyres. It is argued that after some days from the purchasing of both the tyres, tyre serial No. 70305154720 exploded and in this regard the complainant came to the opposite party No. 2 and requested him to replace the said tyre then opposite party No. 2 deposited the exploded tyre of the complainant and then opposite party No. 2 informed opposite party No. 1 about this and the employee of opposite party No. 1 approached the opposite party No. 2 and saw the tyre and said that this tyre could not be replaced. It is further argued that the opposite parties with malafide intention refused to replace the tyre of the complainant without any reason and the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services of the opposite parties.
11. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that the present complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre have not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as is required under Sec.38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further argued that the vehicle of the complainant fitted with MRF tyres was used for commercial purpose as apparent in the averments made in the complaint and the complainant has further nowhere pleaded that he used the vehicle by way of self-employment for earning his livelihood. It is further argued that the alleged defect in the tyre in question is not manufacturing defect, rather the damage of tyre is a result of Lock ring damage and thus the opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for replacing the tyre. It is further argued that opposite party company had neither given any performance guarantee/warranty/ assurance regarding tyres to the complainant nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/warranty/ assurance in this regard. It is further argued that the opposite party had received a Tyre of size 1000R20 S3C8 PLUS R16 TTF bearing Serial No.70305154720 was received for examination from M/s. Tyre Plaza on 27.01.2021 and soon after the receipt of the same a complaint Notification No.903054659 dated 27.01.2021 was raised and the said tyre was thoroughly inspected by opposite parties Technical Service Personnel Mr. Anupam Mishra, who has undergone intense training in evaluation of tyres and his examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to Lock ring damage caused due to improper fitment and this is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre (as per Ex.O.P1/2). Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further argued that the complainant has failed to place on record any expert report/opinion of an Engineer.
12. We have gone through the facts and evidence produced by both the parties. The opposite party No. 1 mentioned in its written statement that the Tyre bearing No. 70305154720 was received for examination from M/s Tyre Plaza on 27.1.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that the Tyre was inspected by Technical Service Personnel Mr. Anupam Mishra and found that the Tyre was damaged due to Lock ring damage caused to improper fitment and this is not due to any manufacturing defect. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that it is admitted case of the opposite party No. 1 that the Tyre was sent for examination on 27.1.2021 and opposite party No. 1 further admitted in its written statement that the said Tyre was damaged. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant has purchased the above said Tyre vide invoice dated 23.1.2021 from opposite party No. 2 and it is clearly mentioned on the invoice that the opposite party No. 2 is the Franchise of MRF Tyres and Service. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that opposite party No. 1 mentioned in its written statement that the said Tyre was damaged due to Lock ring damage caused due to improper fitment and the complainant purchased the said Tyre from opposite party No. 2 and the said Tyre was also fitted by opposite party No. 2. It is established from the arguments of both the parties that the Tyre in question was damaged and the only question is that the Tyre was damaged due to manufacturing defect or due to improper fitment. The opposite party No. 2 is the Franchise of opposite party No. 1 and the fitment of Tyre was done by the opposite party No. 2 and if there is any improper fitment of Tyre caused the damaged, then it is also the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 2. The Tyre purchased on 23.1.2021 and the same was received by opposite party No. 1 for inspection on 27.1.2021 i.e. just after 4 days from the date of purchase. The opposite party No. 2 has preferred to remain exparte. We observed that if there is improper fitment of Tyre i.e. also due to the negligence on the part of opposite party No. 2 who is the Franchise of opposite party No. 1. Therefore, from the above discussion it is clear that by not changing the damaged Tyre with new one there is clear cut deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the above said tyre in question with new one or to pay the amount of Rs. 21,500/-. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
31st Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
