Complaint filed on: 07.10.2016
Complaint Disposed on:10.10.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.101/2016
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOMBER 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Sri C.E.Kumarappa,
S/o Eshwarappa,
Agriculturist,
R/o Channapura Village,
Baggavalli Post, Tarikere Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. Halekote A.Thejaswi, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
1. M/s Sri Mallikarjuna Enterprises,
Authorized Dealers, Eicher Tractors,
Vinayaka Complex, B.H. Road, Tarikere.
2. Apollo Tyres Ltd.,
No.38/42, 4-B I ind cross,
C.V. Road, Banni Mantap
Extension, Mysore.
(OP 1 - By Inperson)
(OP 2- By Sri/Smt. H.C.Krishna, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP 1 and 2 alleging unfair trade practice in selling defective tyres to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op 1 and 2 to replace the tyres which were fitted to the tractor or in alternative to pay the consideration amount paid towards tyres along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased 458 Model Eicher tractor by paying a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- on 16.10.2015 vide invoice No.092. At the time of purchase of the tractor the Op 1 fitted tyres manufactured by Op 2. After purchase of the said tractor complainant used the tractor for nearly 260 hours, but due to manufacturing defect in the tyres they were badly damaged and immediately complainant informed the manufacturing defects to Op 1 and requested to replace the tyres. After receipt of the complaint from complainant Op 1 in turn had sent the same to the Op 2, for which Op 2 issued a product report dated 15.07.2016 by observing that the tyres got abrasive tread chipping and cut problems due to excess slippage with improper I.P. during tillage operations and also rejected the request of the complainant and stating that no manufacturing defect, the act of the Op 1 and 2 amounts to unfair trade practice, the complainant noticed manufacturing defect within the short period of the purchase, due to manufacturing defect in the tyres complainant suffered inconvenience and unable to use the tractor. Hence, complainant prays for replacement of the said tyres or in alternative to refund the amount towards cost of the tyres along with compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op 1 appeared in person and filed version, Op 2 appeared through his counsel and filed version.
4. Op 1 in his version has contended that, the tractor sold by him has no any manufacturing defect, there is no any defects found in the tyres also as alleged by complainant and there is also no unfair trade practice on the part of this Op. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op 2 in his version has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable against this Op as the complainant has not made any transactions with this Op, there is no any material to show that the tyres have manufacturing defect. After receipt of the complaint from Op 1 they have appointed one technical person to inspect the tyres and after inspection the said technical person submitted the report stating that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres and same was informed to the complainant also. The complainant has filed this complaint with an ulterior motive to extract undue benefits and wrongful gain from this Op.
The persons who was sent for inspection of the tyres is a well qualified and properly trained in tyre technology and upon the examination of the tyres the said technical person had not found any manufacturing defect, the cause of the failure in the rejection report was given as excess slippage cuts, which caused due to tread chipping and abrasive wear is due to excessive slippage or spinning with improper inflation pressure during service run. Hence, this is a service abuse and there is no any manufacturing defect in the tyres manufactured by them.
Op 2 further contended that, the tyres being a rubber product may damage any time due to external reasons, the tyres which were fitted to the tractor of the complainant is found that they are still usable. Hence, there is no any manufacturing defect found in the tyres and also no unfair trade practice on the part of this Op and this Op is not liable to replace the tyres as alleged or to refund the cost of the tyres to the complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. Op 2 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. Op 1 not filed any affidavit in support of his defense.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
10. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Ops there is no dispute that, complainant had purchased one Eicher tractor from Op 1 on 16.10.2015 by paying Rs.5,95,000/- as per Ex.P.1, the said tractor was fitted with tyres manufactured by Op 2. After purchase of the said tractor complainant used the tractor and after usage of up to 260 hours he noticed that the tyres were badly damaged and immediately informed to Op 1, for which Op 1 referred the matter to Op 2, in turn Op 2 had appointed one technical expert to find out whether there is a manufacturing defect found in the said tyres, accordingly, the technical person inspected the tyres and submitted the report as per Ex.P.2 dated 15.07.2016 and reported that the said tyres have no manufacturing defects and also given a opinion that the tyres are serviceable. The complainant also produced nearly seven photos marked as Ex.P.4 to show the tyres have manufacturing defect. On observation of the photos produced by complainant we noticed there is no any manufacturing defect found in the tyres and at the same time the technical person who was appointed for inspection of the tyres also given an opinion that the tyres got abrasive tread chipping of cuts problem due to excess slippage with improper I.P. during tillage operations.
The learned advocate for Op 2 vehemently argued that the tyres have no manufacturing defects and complainant had nearly used the said tractor up to 560 hours, due to excess usage in the fields the tyres only got erosion of the outer surface. Hence, submits no manufacturing defect.
Of course, we noticed that the complainant has purchased tractor in the year 2015 and he used the tractor nearly 560 hours as per Ex.P.2, the complainant has sufficiently utilized the tractor for his purpose, which resulted in erosion of the outer surface of the tyres and we found there is no burst or any manufacturing defect after noticing the photos. Hence, we found there is no manufacturing defect found in the tyres and complainant failed to establish the manufacturing defect in the tyres. The complainant had not made any efforts to send the tyres to appropriate laboratory to know about the quality of the tyres. In the absence of such materials we cannot say the tyres have manufacturing defect and at the same time complainant has not established the allegation made against Op 1 and 2 . Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 10th day of October 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Cash receipt.
Ex.P.2 - Product Inspection Report.
Ex.P.3 - Copy of letter dtd:07.03.2016.
Ex.P.4 - Seven Photos.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Power of attorney.
Ex.R.2 - Product Inspection Report.
Dated:10.10.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
