Per Hon’ble DR. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member. 

1.   Being aggrieved by the order dated 16^th June 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Buldhana in consumer complaint case no. 118/ 2013 and thereby directing the appellant and respondent no. 2 to replace the JCB machine tyres and also directing to pay compensation Rs. 5000/- and cost Rs. 5000/- to the complainant, the original opposite party, MRF Limited approached this Commission by filing this appeal.
2.  Brief facts for deciding this appeal are as follows. 

The original complainant- respondent no. one in this appeal is a JCB machine contractor who purchased two tyres, a tube and a flap from respondent no. 2 vide bill no. 3059 dated 4^th July 2012 for the total cost of Rs. 80,000/- as per the details of the bill enclosed with the complaint case.  Respondent no. 1 is using this machine to earn his livelihood. It was noticed by the original complainant that within two months from the date of purchase that the tyres were cracking in a standing position of the said vehicle. To the complainant, it appeared that there is a manufacturing defect in tyres and hence the present appellant being the manufacturer is liable and responsible for the manufacturing defect.

3. After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to replace the tyres of the JCB machine, and both the opposite parties were directed to pay compensation to the original complainant.
4. Aggrieved by this order one of the original opposite parties, MRF Limited filed his appeal before this Commission.
5. During the pendency of this appeal though the appeal was initially filed before the circuit bench of the State Consumer Commission at Amravati, later on, it was transferred to the circuit bench of the State Commission at Nagpur, and the appeal was admitted by an order dated 30^th October 2018. On serving notice to both respondents, one advocate Mr. Thakkar appeared for respondent no. 1. Despite due service of notice to respondent no.2, none represented him in this Commission and so the commission passed the order to proceed ex Parte against the opponent no. 2. Respondent no.1 was not represented for a long time during the pendency of this appeal, hence this matter was taken up for a final hearing. Learned advocate Shri. Solat argued on behalf of the appellant, while nobody appeared on behalf of respondent no.1.
6. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Buldhana erred in passing the order in favour of the original complainant since the JCB machine was standing for about two months at one place after the tyres were purchased.  The cracks were noticed by a representative of the dealer M/s Rungta tyres of Akola and the dealer promised to replace the tyres purchased from him.  It was also observed by the learned District Forum that the tyres were lying with the dealer once it was decided to replace them, but further the original opposite parties failed to replace these tyres. The JCB machine could not be used due to the same and there was a loss to the original complainant.  Inviting our attention to judgments and orders passed previously by this Commission advocate submitted that in similar matters, the orders of the district forum were set aside by this Commission. Inviting our attention to another judgment and order, Ref.  2018(2) CPR 675(NC), Himanshu Maheshwari versus director, Grand Nissan and another,  in which Hon’ble National Commission has ruled that “manufacturing defect must be proved by some evidence.”  We have gone through the rulings placed on record. According to us, these judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7.  It is observed that the learned District Consumer Forum has considered the findings of cracks in the tyres immediately within 2 months from the date of purchase and that the said tyres were lying with the dealer after the cracks were noticed. In this situation, the learned district forum has rightly concluded that the opposite parties failed to replace the JCB tyres which is a deficiency in service. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum with correct reasoning.   Hence we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed with a cost quantified to Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
2. Copy of this order is to be given to all the parties free of cost.