Haryana

StateCommission

A/462/2015

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJU AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MAINI

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.462 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 22.05.2015

Date of Decision: 29.01.2016

 

Goodyear India Ltd. Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh Faridabad, Haryana, Pin 121004.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Sanju S/o Sh.Om Parkash, R/o village & Post Office Jyotisar,Tehsil thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

2.      Jaswant Singh and sons Kurukshetra, Pipli road, Kurukshetra.

3.      Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Tractor division, Ankul road, Kandivili East, Mumbai-4000101 Cable “Introworks Bombay, Fax, 910222884/28876287, Board Line: 66483051 Web www.mahindrakisanmitra.com

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Amit Kumar Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sanju respondent No.1 in person.

                   None for the respondent No.2.

                   Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3.

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Complainant purchased Mahindra tractor from O.P.No.2 on 20.06.2012.  Both rear tyres of the tractor were defective.  The guarantee of tyres was for five years. The complainant approached O.P.No.1 with the request to replace the tyres, but, to no use.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate replies controverting his averments.  O.P.No.1 deputed one engineer  and he submitted report dated 25.03.2014.  The observation made by the engineer was “ the subject tyres has been rejected due to application related irregular wear.”  The condition was not covered under good years warrantable condition. So O.P.No.1 was not responsible for any warranty/assurance given by other opposite parties.

3.      O.P.Nos.2 and 3 resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that  O.P.No.1 i.e. manufacturer of tyres was responsible for any defect in the tyres. They were not responsible for any defect in tyres, electric parts, battery and other parts of tractor.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 07.04.2015 and directed the O.P.No.1 to replace both the rear tyres of the tractor alongwith Rs.2000/- as harassment and litigation expenses.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1 has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File persued.

7.      Complainant alleged that within one year from purchase of the tractor, the tyres weeded out and he approached the O.P.No.1, but it did not replace the tyres and was putting off the matter under one pretext or the other.  Learned District Forum rightly directed appellant-O.P.No.1 to replace the tyre.

8.      This argument is of no avail.  The complainant has not produced any evidence on the file to show that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres.  A manufacturer can be directed to replace any item in case of manufacturing defect. The complainant should have examined some expert witness to prove this fact.  Irregular wear and wash of the tyre can be due to one reason or the other  i.e. proper air pressure, proper load etc.  Only left side rear tyre is worn out.  Had there been manufacturing defect the right side tyre would also have weeded out.  Left hand side tyre mostly goes down the road it can be the reason of the wear out.  Engineer of O.P.No.1 examined the tyre and gave his following report:-

“On observation found. Rem/H side alternater wear out. Due to application related irregular wear and wash related tyre does not any manufacturing defect. Hence not covered under warranty.”

9.      The complainant has not submitted any report contrary to it.  It is well settled proposition of law that firstly the complainant is to show that there is deficiency in service. If he fails to do so, he cannot take benefit of the weekness in the O.P’s. case.  To prove any case, it is the duty of the complainant to prove manufacturing defect. These views are fortified by opinion of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.Sanesh & others 2015 (3) CRP 509 (NC).  In the present case complainant has not produced any evidence about manufacturing defect, so learned District forum wrongly take into consideration this aspect and granted relief to the complainant. Hence the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.1000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

January 29th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.