Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.612 of 2015

1- Goodyear India Limited, (through its Authorised         

    Representative) Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh,

    Faridabad-121004 Haryana.

2- Proprietor and Manager, Sunny Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

     (through its Authorised Representative)

    63/3, Mal Road Kanpur, District Kanpur U.P.             

                                                                          …Appellants.                                                                          

1- Smt. Seema Khatoon w/o Shri Mohd. Hanif,

     R/o 14/54, Old Betvaghat, City & District,

     Hamirpur-210301 U.P.

2- Shri Mohd. Hanif s/o Shri Chandu,

     R/o 14/54, Old Betvaghat, City & District,

     Hamirpur-210301 U.P.                            …Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate for appellants.

Sri Naveen Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for respondents.

Date    30.5.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 20.2.2015 passed by the District Forum, Hamirpur in complaint case no.44 of 2014.

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the respondent no.1 has filed a complaint no.44 of 2014 against the appellant and respondent no.3 before the ld. District Forum, Hamirpur U.P. which was decided on 20.2.2015. The complaint was filed for the alleged defects in the tyres of their vehicle during the warranty period on the ground of financial loss and compensation for Rs.1 lac.

          The complainant’s case is that they have purchased Innova Car and after 3 months tyres started getting damages, puncturing and bulging. The appellant no.2 said that changing of tyre is the responsibility of manufacturer. As per the investigation report, tyres have been damaged but it is also held that there is no manufacturing defect. On 30.9.2013, all the 4 tyres were replaced at a cost of Rs.25,000.00. During investigation, it was found that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. The 4 tyres had already travelled 11500 Kms. Being a rubber product had there been any manufacturing defect in tyres as is been alleged, the tyres would not have covered even a few Kms. The impugned order is without appreciation of facts.

          The ld. District Forum has erred in holding that though the manufacturing defect has been denied by the engineer but damage to tyres has been admitted. Vide order dated 20.2.2015, the ld. District Forum has passed the following order:

          “परिवाद स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी सं0 1 को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह परिवादीगण को गाड़ी में लगवाये गये टायरों की कीमत मु0 25000 रू0 प्रदान करेगा। साथ में मु0 2000 रू0 वाद व्‍यय भी देगा। विपक्षी सं0 1 यदि चाहें तो विपक्षी सं0 2 से टायरों की कीमत मु0 25000 रू0 वसूल सकता है। आदेश का अनुपालन विपक्षी सं0 1 को आदेश की प्रति प्राप्‍त होने के 30 दिवस में हो।”

          The impugned order is beyond the facts and law. Every kind of damage is not damage. As per the engineer the tyres do not suffer any manufacturing defect. The ld. District Forum erred in giving claim for all these tyres against the appellants. The ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the tyre being a rubber product if having a manufacturing defect can not travel for even few Kms. The ld. District Forum has formed their reasoning upon the facts stated in the complaint only. The complainant failed to adduce any expert evidence in respect of manufacturing defects in the tyres which is against the settled principles of law as onus has to be discharged by a person who is imputing a certain allegation which burden has not been discharges by the complainant and the ld. District Forum has erred in shifting the burden upon the opposite parties.  Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and order be set aside.

Heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri Naveen Kumar Tiwari and perused the documents and evidence available on record.

The appellant has accepted that the engineer has stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre but damage to the tyres has been admitted. What was reason for the damage of tyres not explained. The damaging of tyres only for 11000 Kms shows inherent manufacturing defect. One tyre’s life is about 40 to 60000 Kms. The dealer or manufacturer purchased the tyres from different companies in bulk and they do not check these tyres whether without any defect or not. In this case, the ld. District forum has passed a well reasoned judgment. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. 

If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Dated 30.5.2023

Jafri, PA I

Court 2