Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/536/2019

Prem Singh S/o Basanta Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ajay Tyres - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Budhwar

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    536 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         17.12.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 11.07.2022

 

Prem Singh (now deceased) s/o Shri Basanta Ram, deceased through his LRs:-

1. Taro Devi widow of Prem Singh,
2. Karamjit Singh,
3. Deb Singh alias Baldev Singh, both sons of late Shri Prem Singh, r/o Village Phalsanda Jattan, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.
4. Palo Devi d/ late Shri Prem Singh and wife of Shri Jai Bhagwan, r/o village Bibipur Jattan, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                                      …Complainants.

                                                         Versus

 

1. M/s Ajay Tyre, Opp. Anaj Mandi Gate, Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, through its Prop.
2. MRF Limited, Regd. MRF Ltd., 1140 Greams Road, Chennai-60006, through its Managing Director.

                                                                             ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri M.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the LRs of complainant.

                   Shri H.S. Handa, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant (since deceased) purchased a new tyre of tractor MRF Farm Tyres make Shakti Life Plus Shakti Super bearing Bill No.3000 dated 20.04.2019 from OP No.1 after paying a sum of Rs.41,600/- in cash having warranty of six years. The said tyres were manufactured by OP No.2. The said tyres were of sub-standard quality and having therein manufacturing defect from the very beginning, because, there were many cracks in the tyres of the tractor. Due to which, the tractor of complainant became useless and he put the sugar cane crop in the mills by hiring another tractor by spending Rs.1,00,000/- for hiring the tractor of another person. He went to the OPs many times but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, his son Baldev Singh went to the other agency of MRF i.e. The Wheel Express Ladwa Road Babain, Distt. Kurukshetra and make request for sending his complaint to the OPs. The OPs had rejected his claim on 23.10.2019, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statement.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement stated that the defective tyres were not got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as is required u/s 13 (1) (c) of CP Act. The complainant used the tractor for commercial purpose, therefore, complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act. It is admitted that on 20.04.2019, complainant purchased the tyres for his vehicle from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.41600/-. 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, improper maintenance of the tyre, speed, nature of terrain i.e. level ground, hilly and/or winding roads, season of the year when tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation/pressured and the external object with which the tyre may come on contact while in motion etc. There was no manufacturing defect in the tyres in question and so present complaint deserves dismissal with costs.

5.                OP No.2 in its written statement stated that the tyre of size 13.6.28 SLF PLUS N12 was received for examination from Mr. Prem Singh through M/s Wheel Express on 18.10.2019 and it was thoroughly inspected by OPs Technical Service Personnel Mr. Raman Prasher. His examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to external damage/scoring caused due to sudden impact with sharp object. Necessary instruction was given to Mr. Baldev Saini to collect the tyre from M/s Wheel Express. The OPs company liability arises only when the product is having manufacturing defects i.e. due to usage of defective material/faulty workmanship. The OPs had not committed any act of deficiency in service or unfair trade practise and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

6.                It is pertinent to mention here during the pendency of complaint, complainant was stated to be died and in this regard, his LRs was brought on the record.

7.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A along with document Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a new tyre of tractor MRF Farm Tyres make Shakti Life Plus Shakti Super from OP No.1 after paying a sum of Rs.41,600/- in cash having warranty of six years. The said tyres were manufactured by OP No.2. The said tyres were of sub-standard quality and having therein manufacturing defect from the very beginning, because, there were many cracks in the tyres of the tractor, due to which, the tractor of complainant became useless and he put the sugar cane crop in the mills by hiring another tractor by spending Rs.1,00,000/- for hiring the tractor of another person. He further argued that the complainant went to the OPs many times but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly rejected his claim on 23.10.2019, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled H.N. Shankara Shastry, Appellant Vs. The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, Respondent, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) (SC).

11.              The learned counsel for OP No.1argued that the defect, if any in the tyres was due to wrong use of the tyres by the complainant by using the same on uneven and stone and glass etc. He further argued that it is admitted that on 20.04.2019, complainant purchased the tyres for his vehicle from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.41600/-. 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, improper maintenance of the tyre, speed etc.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the tyre of size 13.6.28 SLF PLUS N12 was received for examination from Mr. Prem Singh and it was thoroughly inspected by OPs Technical Service Personnel Mr. Raman Prasher and examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to External damage/scoring caused due to sudden impact with sharp object. He further argued that the said inspection report dated 23.10.2019 was sent to Mr. Baldev Saini on 23.10.2019. The tyre mentioned in the complaint is of a true and merchantable quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect. The OPs is not liable for the consequential loss or indirect loss and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, Civil Appeal No.4193 of 1995, Decided on 04.04.1995 (SC); Ajay Kumar Vs. M/s Anand Auto Mobile and Anr., 2017 (30 CPR 259 (NC); The Manager, MRF Limited Vs. Sri Nripendra Paul, Case No.54.2017, date of hearing 26.04.2018, date of judgment 23.05.2018 (Tripura State Commission, Agartala).

13.              There is no dispute between the parties that on 20.04.2019, the complainant purchased two new tyres of MRF from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.41,600/-, vide Tax Invoice Ex.C-9. The said tyres were having six year warranty vide document Ex.C-8.

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to sub-standard quality and having manufacturing defect, from the very beginning, there were many cracks in the tyres in question and in this regard, he requested the OPs many times to replace the defective tyres, but they illegally rejected his claim on 23.10.2019 vide report Ex.C-10, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs contended that on receiving the alleged complaint in the tyres, the same were thoroughly inspected by their Technical Service Personnel and after examination, it revealed that the tyre was damaged due to External damage/scoring, caused due to sudden impact with sharp object, as such, there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres and claim of complainant was rightly rejected on this very ground.   

15.              To support his above contentions, the complainant produced photographs of the defective tyres, on the case file as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 respectively. From perusal of said photographs, it is found that there are very long cuts in the inner part of the tyre. In this regard, the OPs mainly contended that the tyres were damaged due to external damage/scoring caused due to sudden impact with sharp object. But from perusal of said photographs of tyres Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7, this contention of OPs, is beyond comprehension and cannot be believed, because the shape of the rear tyres of the tractor, which touches the ground, is such/like, that inner part (where there are long cut marks on the tyre) cannot touches the ground and even when the inner part of tyres (where there are long cut marks on the tyre) does not touches the ground, then there is no question of this part colliding with any sharp object and getting long cut marks in it. For the sake of discussion if this contention of the OPs that the said damaged to the tyre came due to sudden impact with sharp object, is believed for a time being, even then, such a long/big cuts cannot be caused to the tyre by colliding with a sharp object. The OPs mainly relied upon on the report Ex.C-10 which was prepared by one Raman Prasher, Technical Service Personnel, but it is pertinent to mention here that said Raman Prasher was not an independent person, rather he was an employee of the OPs, as such, there is every possibility that he will support the OPs being its employee, and will prepare his report in favour of OPs instead of complainant, as such, report Ex.C-10 prepared by one of employee of OPs, has no favour to the case in hand. It seems that the OPs are contemplating the performance of impossibilities and shooting the arrows in the air. From the tax invoice Ex.C-9, it is clear that the complainant purchased the tyres in question on 20.04.2019, which was having six years warranty and the complainant raised his grievance regarding cut marks in the said tyres in the month of October 2019 i.e. after about six months from the purchase of said tyres, meaning thereby, the tyres were having some manufacturing defect in it, that’s why it became defective from the very beginning i.e. in the six months of its purchase and in this regard, the complainant approached the OPs various times either to replace the tyre with new one or refund its cost, but the OPs failed to do so, which is an act of gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Our view is fully supported by the case law cited (supra) by learned counsel for the complainant titled H.N. Shankara Shastry, Appellant Vs. The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, Respondent, wherein, it is held that State and National Commission failed to understand even the very object of the Act and ignored even the judgments on its interpretations – The very object of the Act is to protect the consumer from clever traders and manufacturers – It is a beneficial legislation to be given liberal interpretations in favour of the consumer which held carrying out its object not to defeat the same. The case laws produced by the learned counsel for the OPs are not disputed, but the same are not helpful to the case of the OPs, being rested on different footings.

16.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs sold defective tyres to the complainant having manufacturing defect in it due to which, it became defective from the very beginning, which is an act of gross deficiency on their part, and for their above act, the OPs not only liable to replace the defective tyres in question with new one, but also liable to pay the compensation amount along with litigation expenses to the LRs of deceased complainant.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against the OPs and direct them jointly and severally to replace the defective tyres in question subject matter of tax invoice Ex.C-9 with new one, subject to return the defective tyres by the LRs of deceased complainant, to the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that in case, the OPs were not in position to replace the said tyres with new of same model/design, then they will refund its cost price i.e. Rs.41,600/- to the LRs of deceased complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him due to deficiency in services on their part alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the LRs of complainant. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the LRs complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. 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 records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:11.07.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.