Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/09/19

M. Ravinder S/o Om Prakash, O/c Tax Consultant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Tyres Dealer, Mahabubnagar rep. by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud

30 Sep 2009

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

       Wednesday, the 30^th day of September, 2009

                  Present:-   Sri  T. Ashok Kumar, M.A., LL.B., I  Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum-FAC President

          Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, B.Com. LL.B., Member

               Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member                      

C.C.NO. 19  Of   2009

Between:-

M. Ravindar, S/o Omprakash, Aged: 38 years, Occ: Tax Consultant, R/o H.No.1-7-183/A/1,New Gunj, Mahabubnagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                   … Complainant

And  

1. Rahul Tyres Dealer, Represented by Proprietor, R/o Shop No.46 and 47,  M.B.C. Complex, Raichur Road, Mahabubnagar.

2. MRF Limited, R/o 63/2, Gooty Road, Ananthapur Town and District. A.P.                                    … Opposite Parties

 

This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 25-9-2009,    in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri  N. Narender Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, Member)

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,400/- towards price of the tyres and Rs.10,000/- compensation for loss of his professional earnings and Rs.10,000/-  towards compensation for deficiency of services and to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the complaint.  
2.   The complaint averments are as follows:-  The opposite party No.1 is the distributor of MRF tyres.  The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of MRF tyres.  The complainant has purchased four Indica car tyres bearing manufacture number (165/65/R13ZTX) Sl.Nos. (1) 61434702908 (2) 6102323908 (3) 60837712908 (4) 60885622908 from OP-1 on 15.9.2008 by paying total amount of Rs.9,400/- at Rs.2,350/- per each tyre.  The complainant used those tyres till 10.10.2008.   While the said tyres were being used by the complainant the tyre bearing No.61434702908 got damaged due to manufacture defect as a hole in the middle of the tyre fell and the tyre got punctured within one month from the date of purchase.   The complainant has handed over the said tyre to OP-1 on 13.10.2008 and requested to replace with new one.   Meanwhile another tyre was also damaged due to manufacture defect on 15.11.2008.  It was also handed over by the complainant to OP-1 and requested to replace the same with new one.  According to company’s terms and conditions under warranty period, OP-1 has stated that the tyres are sent to Kurnool office and also assured the complainant that the said tyres would be replaced with new ones with the permission from OP-2.  But till today inspite of several reminders the OPs did not give the response to the complainant.  The complainant got issued legal notice to OPs and OP-2 gave reply notice with false averments.  Due to the damage of the tyres the complainant could not use the car and on account of it the complainant has incurred loss of his professional earnings.  Hence the OPs are liable to pay damages and to pay the costs of the tyres.  Hence the complaint.        

3.    The opposite party No.2 filed counter with the following averments:-  The opposite party No.2 denied all the contents of the complaint except those are admitted.  The brief facts are as under:-  It is true that the complainant has purchased four Indica car tyres worth of Rs.9,400/- on 15.9.2008 from OP-1.  The allegations in the complaint regarding the damage of tyre Sl.No. 61434702908 due to puncture of the tyre, defect of the other tyre on 15.11.2008 and purchase of new tyres etc., are all denied and the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not produced any evidence or report of an expert to prove that the tyres were damaged from any manufacturing defect.  The guarantee/warranty if any is only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyres.   The tyre being a rubber product and its life depends on many factors like air pressure, driving habits, road, load and mechanical conditions of the vehicle etc.  On the other hand the alleged tyre was sent for technical examination from Rahul Tyres on 17.10.2008 and after registering the same under complaint docket No.800310119, dated 8.11.2008 by the technical service engineer of the company he observed that the tyre was damaged due to Side Wall Concussion (bursting) due to sudden impact with some hard stationary object while the vehicle was in motion and not due to any manufacturing defect and he also found that there is no manufacturing defect in the said tyre.   The guarantee for the tyres is only against manufacturing defects and the tyre in the complaint is free from manufacturing defects as revealed from the inspection report.  Hence there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of OPs.     All the allegations in the complaint are false and baseless, hence they are denied and the complainant is liable to prove the same with strict proof.   The OPs also stated that there is no such notice received by them and they have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled for compensation or replacement/adjustment of the tyres or refund of any amount.  The complainant has no right to claim any reliefs without sufficient evidence to prove the manufacturing defect and the deficiency of service by OPs.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.  Thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.      

4. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6.

5.  The OPs filed their affidavit and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-7 on their    behalf.

6.  The points that arise for consideration are:

            (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?      

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

7.    The facts which are not in dispute:-   The complainant has purchased four Indica car tyres bearing manufacture number (165/65/R13ZTX) Sl.Nos. (1) 61434702908 (2) 6102323908 (3) 60837712908 (4) 60885622908 from OP-1 on 15.9.2008 for Rs.9,400/-under Ex.A-1.  The complainant has handed over the tyre bearing No.61434702908 on 13.10.2008 and the tyre bearing No.60837712908 on 18.11.2008 to OP-1 with the complaint that the said tyres got frequently damaged due to manufacturing defect.   The OP-1 sent the tyres to OP-2 on the same date under Exs.A-2 and A-3 to Kurnool office.   The OP-2 sent a letter (Ex.A-5) with inspection report on 26.11.2008 to the complainant rejecting his claim.  The complainant got issued legal notice under      Ex.A-4 to OPs calling upon them to replace the tyres with new ones or refund the cost of the said tyres.                                   

8.    The case of the complainant is that the disputed tyres got air problem resulting in punctures frequently and the damage occurred due to manufacturing defect.  In Ex.B-3 Inspection Report given by the technical service person of MRF Limited the said tyre bearing No.61434702908 was damaged due to Misc. Non Adjustable and as per Ex.B-5 another tyre bearing No.60837712908 was damaged due to Side Wall Concussion (bursting).   As per the counter of OP-2 the said Side Wall Concussion (bursting) is due to sudden impact with some hard stationary object while the vehicle was in motion.         
9.    The contention of OP-2 is that as the complainant did not produce any expert report, the expert report filed by the OP has to be accepted.   The OP-2 stated that the company technical service engineer has come to the conclusion only after examining the said tyre thoroughly and that the Side Wall Concussion (bursting) is not due to any manufacturing defect in the tyre.   The OP-2 also stated that the OPs liability can be fixed only if the tyre is having manufacturing defect.   The OPs further stated that they did not receive any notice from the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on their part.   In the above circumstances, we rely upon the decision reported in 2002 (2) CPJ P.415 in Vikrant Tyres Limited Vs. Sahendra Kumar, wherein the Hon’ble U.P. State Commission held that “Where no expert report is produced by the complainant to prove manufacturing defect in the disputed tyre, there is no reason to disbelieve the expert report filed by the manufacturer”.   In the present case, the complainant did not choose to file any expert report to show that the disputed tyres are having manufacturing defect.  The complainant also did not produce any expert’s report to show that  Exs.B-3 and B-5 given by the technical expert of MRF Tyres is wrong.   The complainant failed to prove that there are manufacturing defects in the said tyres.  When the complainant made complaint the OP-1 received the said tyres and sent to OP-2 branch at Kurnool for replacement.  The OP-2 received the said tyres and got inspected the said tyres thoroughly by technical expert of MRF Tyres and sent a letter rejecting the claim of the complainant.  Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.    Therefore we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs towards the complainant. Hence, this point is accordingly answered against the complainant.  In view of the above reasons the complainant is not entitled to claim any reliefs.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed without costs.   
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2009.           

 

   MEMBER                            MEMBER                   PRESIDENT (FAC)     

Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-   

Ex.A-1:        Cash Bill, dt.15.9.2008.

Ex.A-2:        Claim Forwarding Docket, dt.13.10.2008.

Ex.A-3:        Claim Forwarding Docket, dt.18.11.2008.

Ex.A-4:        Legal Notice, dt.19.11.2008.

Ex.A-5:        Inspection Report, dt.26.11.2008.

Ex.A-6:        Courier Receipt, dt.19.11.2008.

Exhibits marked for OPs:-

Ex.B-1:        Claim Forwarding Docket, dt.13.10.2008.

Ex.B-2:        Letter issued by Kurnool branch, dt.8.11.2008.

Ex.B-3:        Letter issued by Kurnool branch, dt.8.11.2008.

Ex.B-4:        Claim Forwarding Docket, dt.18.11.2008.

Ex.B-5:        Inspection Report, dt.26.11.2008.

Ex.B-6:        Letter issued by Kurnool branch, dt.22.11.2008.

Ex.B-7:        Power of Attorney, dt.24.2.2009.                                                                                

By the Forum:

    - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT (FAC)

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri N. Narender Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.