PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31/03/2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati in Consumer Complaint No.CC/98/231 directing the appellant/opponent No.10 M/s MRF Limited to pay amount Rs. 15,200/- towards the cost of tyres and Rs. 2000/- more as compensation for causing mental harassment and Rs. 2000/- towards cost of proceeding.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that,
1. On 06/10/1997 the complainant/respondent No.1- Rameshwar Kalantri purchased a tractor of Mahindra & Mahindra Company from the opponent No.2- Speed Combines Pvt. Ltd., Amravati. (For the sake of brevity Appellant is hereinafter called as “the Opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited” and Respondent No.1 as “the Complainant” and also respondent No.2 as also opponent No.2). It is alleged by the complainant that within 6 months from the date of purchase the tractor’s tyres were damaged. It is further alleged that those tyres were manufactured by opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited and it was assured by the opponent No.2 while purchasing the tractor, if any part of the tractor is damaged the same will be replaced by the manufacturing company. However, after 6 months of purchasing the tractor, when he made complaint about damaged tyres, the opponent No.2 did not take any cognizance of his complaint. He also made complaint to the opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited and on receiving the complaint, the opponent No.1-M/s. MRF Limited inspected the tyres and found that there was no manufacturing defect and accordingly, it was informed to the complainant. However, subsequently, the complainant has made consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
2. The opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited and opponent No.2 by their separate reply resisted the complaint. Opponent No.1-M/s. MRF tyres submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against it as the complainant is not its consumer. It is submitted that no tyres were purchased by the complainant from it and there was no previty of contract between the complainant and it. Further it is submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. In support of this contention opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited has filed affidavit of Mr. Prabhu Kumar who is Technical Service Engineer of M/s. MRF Limited. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3. Opponent No.2 also resisted the complaint by its reply contending inter alia that though the complainant has purchased the tractor alongwith tyres from it, it has no concern with the tyres as those tyres were manufactured by opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited.
4. On hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint against the opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited holding that there was manufacturing defects in the tyres and therefore, opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited is liable to pay the cost of tyres and also awarded compensation Rs.2000/- and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of proceeding.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the same impugned judgment and order the opponent No.1- M/s MRF Limited have preferred this appeal.
6. We heard Mr. Solat, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited, perused his written notes of argument and also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copy of complaint, written version of both the opponents and affidavit of Mr. Prabhu Kumar, Technical Service Engineer of the opponent No.1-M/s. MRF Limited, etc. We also heard Mr. Harode, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant and also written notes of argument submitted by him.
7. Undisputed facts are that, the tractor alongwith disputed tyres were purchased from the opponent No.2- Speed Combines Pvt. Ltd., Amravati. The tyres were manufactured by opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited and those tyres were supplied to the manufacturer of the tractor but the manufacturer of the tractor is not made party to the complaint. It is also admitted fact that within 6 months of purchase of tractor the tyres were damaged. It is also not disputed that the complainant had made complaint about tyres to both the opponents. But it is not disclosed as to when he had purchased the tractor, etc. It is not known as to when Mahindra & Mahindra Company, who manufactured the tractor and when it had purchased those tyres from the opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited.
8. The Crux in this matter is as to whether the complainant is a consumer of the opponent No.1-M/s. MRF Limited and further any previty of contract between the complainant and opponent No.1.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Solat, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/opponent No.1-M/s. MRF Limited that, since admittedly the complainant has not purchased the tractor’s tyres from the opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited, the complainant can not be treated as its consumer. Further, he has submitted that since there was no previty of contract between the complainant and opponent No.1, the complainant can not be termed as a consumer and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against the opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited. To which it is denied by Mr. Harode, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opponent No.2 and submitted that when undisputedly the opponent No.1 is a manufacturer of the tyres, it is its liability to pay the compensation when there was manufacturing defect, etc. But we find no force in this submission of Mr. Harode, Ld. Counsel for the opponent No.2; firstly, because there is no iota of evidence on record about the terms and conditions of the contract between the complainant and opponent No.2. However, no evidence on record as to when the disputed tyres were supplied to the Mahindra & Mahindra - tractor manufacturing company, etc. If it so then the complainant can not be treated as a consumer of opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited.
10. Thus, from the undisputed facts, it is obvious that there is no previty of contract between the complainant and opponent No.1-M/s. MRF Limited, therefore, the consumer complaint against the opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited can not be sustained. Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the opponent No.1. However, it appears from the copy of impugned judgment and order that the District Consumer Forum, without considering the legal position as pointed out above, committed error in holding that the complainant is a consumer of opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited and opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited committed deficiency in service, etc. Such erroneous findings of the District Consumer Forum can not be sustained in Law. When, undisputedly, there is no previty of contract between the complainant and opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited, opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
11. Apart from above facts, one more legal flaw in the complaint is that though, admittedly, the Mahindra & Mahindra Company manufacturing the tractor, who purchased the tyres from the opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited, is not made party to the complaint. In our view the Mahindra & Mahindra Company is being a necessary party, the complaint itself not maintainable for want of necessary party.
12. For the foregoing reasons appellant/opponent No.1- M/s. MRF Limited succeeds and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside.
2. Consequently the complaint against the opponent No.1-M/s MRF Limited is dismissed.
3. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own cost.
Dated:- 18/12/2012.
