Counsel For Complainant : M/s. B. Srinivasaragavan, Advocate
Counsel For Opposite Party : M/s. L. ThanigaiVel, Advocate
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 17.6.2015 in the presence of M/s. B. Srinivasaragavan, Advocate on the side of the complainant and M/s. L. ThanigaiVel, Advocate appeared on the side of the Opposite party, and upon hearing arguments on the side of the Complainant an perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN,B.Sc., L.L.M., PRESIDENT, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvallur District.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12(1) of the Consumer protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties for seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss of income and mental agony due to the burst of the tyre purchased from the opposite parties and with cost of Rs.2000/-.
The Brief Facts of the Complaint are as Follows:
1. The complainant has purchased 2 M.R.F. Tyres 750-16SL-450 TTF from the second opposite party at a cost of Rs. 8700/- each on 3.4.2012 which was manufactured by the first opposite party. While on 4.5.2012 when the complainant passing Mirasipally Sivar on NH44 Road the left side back Tyre burst and the vehicle turned turtle and thereby one person died and another one got injuries. I n this connection the FIR in crime No. 57/2012 under section 304(A) IPC was registered on the file of the Kothakata Police Station.
2. Since the Tyre burst within a period of one month of purchase, it must be due to the manufacturing defect in the Tyres and thereby the accident would have occurred. In spite of legal notice issued to the opposite parties on 27.9.2012 and the same was received by them on 1.10.2012, they did not respond. Hence, this complaint is filed.
The contents of Written Version filed by the opposite party -1 and adopted by opposite party -2 are as follows:
3. The Complaint is not maintainable since the defective Tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as it is required under Sec. 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Respondent cannot be held liable unless there is manufacturing defect in the Tyre, i.e., due to usage of defective material/faulty workmanship. The Complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint since this complainant will not come under the purview of the term “Consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986; for the reason the subject products (tyre/tube/flaps) were being purchased by one Mr. Bashabai and subsequently it is seen Mr. Bashabai had given the subject products for our inspection (through our dealer T.R.C. Tyres opposite party no. 2) and inspection Report are being sent in the name of Mr. Bashabai only. It is specifically denied that alleged tyre burst took place within a period of 1 month and that it is due to manufacturing defect. It is aware of the circumstances in which the tyre was brought for inspection. Soon after the receipt of the said tyre/tube/flap were thoroughly inspected by the Technical Service Personal namely Mr. John kennady and he revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to the sudden impact with sharp object. The said Tube and Flap were returned due to the tyre rejected caused due to flap is free from manufacturing defect and returned along with 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, 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. Hence it is denied that the tyre /tube/flap are damaged due to the manufacturing defect. The complainant has not taken any steps to sent tyre to the appropriate laboratory for test. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice . Therefore the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he has filed his proof affidavit for his evidence along with documents which are marked has Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 . Similarly the opposite party has filed the proof affidavit for evidence . Ex.B1 (series) is marked.
7. At this Juncture, the vital points for determination before this forum is,
- Whether it is correct to say that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for?
8. Written Arguments submitted on both sides and the copy of the same is furnished to either side. Oral Arguments also adduced on both sides.
9. Point No. 1:- As per the case of the complainant is that he has purchased two M.R.F. Tyres 750-16-SL, 450, TTF form the 2nd Opposite Party on 03.04.2012 at a cost of Rs.8.700/- each which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. Through original receipt No. 4191 is marked as Ex.A1. It is further learnt that, on 4.5.2012, while passing Mirasipally Sivar NH 44 Road, though his vehicle, the left side of back DCF Tyre burst and the vehicle turned tussle and thereby one person died and another sustained injuries and caused mental agony to the complainant. Since because of the manufacturing defect in the tyre, the complainant issued Ex.A2 notice to both the opposite Parties and the same received by them. The acknowledgment card are marked as Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 respectively. It is pertinent to notice that eventhough they received the Ex.A2 notice, they did not response and therefore the complainant is compelled to file this complaint.
10. While so, the opposite parties narrated that though it is true that the tyre burst but by means of ExB1, the inspection report of opposite party Mr. Bashsbai, on careful checking he has clearly stated that it is not, due to any manufacturing defect and hence, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. Furthermore, it is contended by the opposite parties that the defective tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant has it is required U/S 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.
11. At the outset, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is admitted fact that the alleged tyre in this case has been purchased from the 2nd opposite party and was manufactured by the opposite party-1. Similarly the left side tyre which was purchased from the Opposite Party-2 was burst while used in the vehicle of the complainant during travel that in the NH 44 Road. There is no evidence to show that the said NH 44 Road is not in good condition. So, it goes without saying that the said Road in good condition. Such being the position, on going through the ExB1. Inspection report, it is pertinent to note that since the said inspection Authority belongs to the Opposite party -1 company, there is some valid reasons as stated by the complainant that the inspection report is the self contended document. So, such document cannot be fully taken into consideration.
12. Regarding the next contention that the complainant has not taken any steps U/S 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act. At this instance, it is crystal clear that the alleged bursted tyre was purchased on 3.4.2012 as new one and bursted on 4.5.2012 i.e., within a month, which clearly seems to be presumed that there is some manufacturing defect. In such a case, the non-taking of steps by the complainant U/S 13 (1) (c) is no way fatal to the complainant’s case.
In the light, of the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus point no. 1 is answered accordingly.
13. Point No. 2: In view of the decision arrived in the point no. 1, the complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation and thereby this point no. 2 is answered accordingly.
In the Result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a cost of tyre of Rs.8,700/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Only) and to pay a Compensation a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards the Mental agony and loss of income with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Total Rs.30,700/-) only.
Dictated directly by the president to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 1st July – 2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER – I MEMBER- II PRESIDENT
List of Complainant Documents:
Ex.A1 Dt. 03.04.2012 - Xerox Copy of M.RF. Tyres Cash Bill
Ex.A2 Dt. 25.09.2012 - Xerox Copy of legal notice
Ex.A3 Dt. 01.10.2012 - Acknowledgment Card return from 2nd
Opposite party
Ex.A4 Dt. 01.10.2012 - Acknowledgment Card return from 1st opposite
Party
List of Opposite Parties Document:
Ex.B1 Dt. 01.09.2012 - Xerox Copy of M.R.F.Tyres Inspection
Report
Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
