DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2022
C.C. 284/2018
Complainant
Sudeesh. A. P.,
S/o Apputty,
Pavithram, Valappunilam,
P.O. Poovattuparambu,
Kozhikode – 673008.
Opposite Parties
- M/s MRF Ltd., Varakkal Temple Road,
West Hill, Calicut – 673005.
(Nadakkavu Police station Limit)
(By Adv. Smt. Shameena. A. K)
- Sastha Tyres, Opp.Govt. High School,
Perinthalmanna Road,
Mele Pattambi, Pattambi – 679306.
(Pattambi Police station Limit)
- MRF Ltd., Near Media one,
P.O. Velliparamba,
Kozhikode – 08.
(MC Police station Limit)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant approached the first opposite party to purchase a tyre of MRF company. Since the tyre was out of stock, the first opposite party informed that he could purchase the same from the second opposite party where stock was available. Accordingly, on 04/10/2017 he purchased a MRF tyre from the shop of the second opposite party paying Rs. 14,150/-. After using the tyre for 3 months, the edge of the tyre got damaged. On contacting the first opposite party, it was directed to contact the third opposite party. Accordingly, he entrusted the tyre to the third opposite party. But no positive steps were taken to redress his grievance. Hence the complaint for refund of the price of the tyre along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed written version. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
4. According to the first and third opposite parties, the complaint is not maintainable. The tyre was not got inspected in an approved laboratory by the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect. The opposite parties had not given any performance guarantee for the tyre. The guarantee/ warranty, if any, is only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyre. The tyre was inspected by the technical service personnel of the opposite parties and on examination it was revealed that the tyre was damaged due to rim digging caused due to in adequate inflation pressure. The inspection report was sent by SMS to the complainant with necessary instruction to collect back the tyre.
5. 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. level 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. The tyre in question might have been suffered due to any one or more of these eventualities.
6. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. None of the reliefs sought for is allowable. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1) Whether the tyre in question is having any manufacturing defect?
(2). Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(3) Whether the prayer for return of the price and for compensation is allowable?
(4). Reliefs and costs.
8. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
9. We heard both sides.
10. Points 1 to 3 : These points can be considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the price of the tyre along with compensation alleging that the tyre is defective having manufacturing defects.
11. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the claim forwarding docket and Ext A2 is the copy of the invoice dated 04/10/2017.
12. The second opposite party has chosen to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings. The contention of the first and third opposite parties is that the damage was due to rim digging which was caused due to the negligence and latches on the part of the complainant himself and there is no manufacturing defect in the product.
13. As already stated, the complainant is seeking refund of the purchase price of the tyre. It may be noted that for getting replacement of the tyre or return of the price, the complainant has to prove by cogent and credible evidence supported by the opinion of an expert that the tyre suffered from any manufacturing defect. Unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, his claim for refund of the price or for replacement of the product cannot succeed. Coming to the present complaint, the grievance is that nearly after 3 months of the purchase, there was edge complaint for the tyre. The complainant has not taken any steps to get the tyre inspected / tested in an approved laboratory to establish his case that the tyre is having manufacturing defect.
14. The definite case of the opposite parties is that the tyre is not having any manufacturing defects. According to them, on their testing and inspection, the damage to the tyre was found to be due to rim digging caused due to inadequate inflation pressure. The Sales and Technical Engineer of the company was examined as RW1, who has also affirmed and asserted that there was no manufacturing defect and the problem was due to rim digging. RW1 was not cross-examined by the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve RW1.
15. To sum up, we hold that there is absolutely nothing to show that the tyre is having any manufacturing defect. The complainant failed to place on record any technical /expert report to support his allegation that the tyre is having any manufacturing defect. In a consumer case, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant. Without proof of deficiency or unfair trade practice, the opposite parties cannot be held liable and consequently the complaint must fail.
16. Point No.4: In view of the finding on the above points, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of November, 2022.
Date of Filing: 05/10/2018.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the claim forwarding docket.
Ext. A2 - Copy of the invoice dated 04/10/2017.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 – Claim forwarding docket.
Ext. B2 – Delivery memo
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Sudheesh. A. P. (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Derick. K. Kuriakose.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
