Haryana

Kurukshetra

174/2018

Kehar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRF - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 174 of 2018.

Date of instt. 10.08.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 08.07.2019.

 

Kehar Singh son of Sh. Lachhman Dass, resident of House No.3255/5, Sham Colony Jhansa Road, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. MRF Limited Chhchhrauli # Poanta Road NH-73, Jagadhri Yamuna Nagar 135005.

 

2. M/s United Tyre, Railway road, Kurukshtra through its proprietor.

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Complainant in person.       

 Sh. H.S. Handa, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kehar Singh against MRF Limited and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant had purchased two tyres 195/55R16 MRF manufactured by op no.1 from op no.2 vide bill No.30339 dated 30.3.2018 and at the time of purchase of tyres, the op no.2 had given full guarantee of the same. It is further averred that one tyre became defective within 15 months of purchase, the intimation of which was given to the customer care centre of op no.1 on 4.8.2018 and the customer care received the tyre from the complainant but op no.2 ret returned the tyre by saying that an impact has been caused to the tyre whereas the op no.2 had given guarantee of the cut also and the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply taking preliminary objection that 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 the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is submitted that op is not aware of the circumstances in which the subject tyre was brought for inspection. The tyre was received for examination from M/s United Tyres on 6.8.2018. Soon after the receipt of the said tyre, complaint docket No.807860864 dated 6.8.2018 was raised and the said tyre was thoroughly inspected by this op’s technical service personnel Mr. Sahil Sharma who has undergone intense training in the evaluation of defects in tyres. His examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to concussion/ impact break caused due to sudden impact with some heavy object. This is not due to any manufacturing defect of the tyre. It is further submitted that op company’s liability arises when the product is having manufacturing defects i.e. due to usage of defective material/ faulty workmanship. This op is not liable if the product is damaged due to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or accident, normal wear and tear. The tyre being a rubber product can 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 and/ or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain i.e. leval ground, hilly and/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. Thus it may be case the tyre of the complainant might have been suffered due to any one or more of these eventualities. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Op no.2 in its separate written statement has also resisted the complaint on the same plea as taken by op no.1 and denied the contents of the complaint.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered affidavits Ex.DW1/A, DW2/A and document Ex.D1.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             From the copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C1, it is evident that complainant purchased tyres from opposite party no.2 on 30.3.2018 for a sum of Rs.11,900/-. Moreover, the sale of the tyres to the complainant by the ops is not disputed and same is admitted. However, the grievance of the complainant is regarding manufacturing defect in one tyre but there is nothing on file to suggest that there is any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. The complainant has placed on file copy of inspection report- rejection advice dated 6.82.2018 as Ex.C4 wherein Technical Service Person for MRF Limited has reported that their inspection revealed that tyre was damaged as a result of concussion/ impact break due to sudden impact with some heavy object and this is not due to any manufacturing defect of the product. There is no other document on file to show any manufacturing defect in the tyre in question. The complainant has not got tested the tyre in question from any other independent laboratory and as such the complainant has failed to prove his case. The authority cited by learned counsel for ops in case titled as The Manager, MRF Limited Vs. Sri Subrata Das, decided on 23.5.2018 (Tripura State Commission, Agartala) wherein it has been held that when a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8.             In view of the above, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.           

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 08.07.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.