Tripura

StateCommission

A/54/2017

The Manager, MRF Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri. Nripendra Paul - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sankar Lodh

23 May 2018

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A. 54.2017

 

 

1. The Manager, MRF Limited,

NH 37, Cuirukandi Ramnanagar Point,
Ramnagar, Silchar - 788 003;

Presently the office at Ward No.16,

Holding No.623/2 (N.S. Avenue),

Hailakandi Road, Silchar - 788006, Assam.

 

2. Sri Subrata Das,

C/o Iman Tyre, Manipuri Chowmuhani,
Mohanpur, P.S. Sidhai,
District - West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

1. Sri Nripendra Paul,

S/o Sri Kirshna Chandra Paul,
Resident of Taltala Bazar, (Sonatala),
P.O. Bamutia, P.S. Lefunga,
District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                                         Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                      Ms. Ranu Bhaumik, Adv.

Date of Hearing:                                             26.04.2018.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                       23.05.2018.         

J U D G M E N T

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, the Manager, MRF Limited and Sri Subrata Das, C/o Iman Tyre (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) against the judgment dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 50 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the appellant-opposite parties to replace the tyre and also to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Payment is to be made within two months, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.     

2. Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties as well as Ms. Ranu Bhaumik, Ld. Counsel appeared for the respondent-complainant. 
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant is an owner of a four wheeler motor vehicle bearing No. TR-01 R 1930 (Bolero Pickup) had purchased one MRF Tyre from the opposite party no.1, the appellant no.2 herein, on 12.07.2016 on payment of Rs.7,100/- and the said tyre was used as stepney. On 10.09.2016, he had transplanted the said tyre in his vehicle, but on 14.09.2016, it burst. So on 23.09.2016, he again purchased another tyre from the opposite party no.1 on payment of Rs.7,150/- and raised his claim before the opposite party no.1 to refund or repair the burst damaged tyre. He had also requested for replacement of the said tyre, but the opposite party no.1, the appellant no.2 herein, informed that his complaint was reported to the Company Manager, MRF Ltd. i.e. the opposite party no.2, the appellant no.1 herein, for arranging the replacement. Ultimately, on 13.03.2017, the opposite party no.1 informed that the tyre cannot be replaced as there was no manufacturing defect. Being aggrieved by the action of the appellant-opposite parties, the complainant then lodged a complaint before the learned District Forum claiming an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac.

4.   The opposite party nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre, i.e., usage of defective material/faulty workmanship. It was also stated that the complaint petition was not maintainable on the ground that the vehicle fitted with MRF Tyres was used for commercial purpose as apparent in the averments made in the complaint. It is further case of the opposite parties that the tyre in question was inspected by the technical person and found that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and accordingly, the technical report was accepted and the claim of the complainant was rejected.
5. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties, the following points were taken up by the learned District Forum for consideration which are as follows:-

1. Whether any defective tyre was sold out by the O.P. No.1 and 2?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service of O.P. No.1 and 2?

6. Complainant had produced original cash memo, claim forwarding docket and also examined himself as one of the witnesses and one Bijoy Paul who was examined as P.W.2.
7.  On the other hand, the opposite parties produced the inspection report, claim docket and the letter. They also produced the statement on affidavit of two witnesses, namely, Subrata Das, O.P.W.1 and Mrinal Kakati, the Sales Executive of MRF Tyres as O.P.W.2 who had undergone a training regarding tyre inspection.
8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
9. Mr. Lodh, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum though passed the impugned judgment directing the opposite parties for replacing the tyre and also to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/-, but in its judgment, nowhere held that there was any defect in the tyre purchased by the complainant. He has further submitted that the learned District Forum while held that O.P.W.2 Mrinal Kakati, Sales Executive of MRF Tyres is not a technical person, but did not give any reason except that “It is not proper inspection by the O.P.W.2”. He has finally contended that unless there is a manufacturing defect in the tyre, a consumer like complainant is not entitled either to replace the tyre or any compensation as ordered by the learned District Forum. In support of his aforesaid contention he has relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as National Commission) reported in 2017 (3) CPR 259 (NC) [Ajay Kumar Vs M/s Anand Automobile and Anr.] and 2017 (3) CPR 24 (NC) [Baljit Kaur Vs Divine Motors and Anr.].
10. Per contra, Ms. Bhaumik, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the inspection of the tyre by the O.P.W.2 Mrinal Kakati and the report submitted by him was rightly not accepted by the learned District Forum as he failed to produce any document in respect of his technical qualification for tyre inspection as he is only an MBA degree holder and a sales executive. She has again submitted that the dealer Iman Tyres, the opposite party no.1 of the opposite party no.2 MRF Ltd. admitted the sale of the tyre and also forwarded the claim of the complainant to the opposite party no.2 MRF Ltd. She has further submitted that the O.P.W.2 in his cross-examination specifically admitted that he is not a technical person, but has got training of tyre inspection and it is his presumption that the tyre burst by concussion/impact break due to sudden contact with some heavy object etc., but not definite.
11. We have gone through the evidence on record from which it appears that admittedly the complainant purchased the tyre from the opposite party no.1, Iman Tyres, the dealer of the opposite party no.2, the appellant no.1 herein and the tyre purchased by him burst on 14.09.2016 and thereafter on 14.09.2016 the complainant had lodged a claim before the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.1 forwarded the claim of the complainant to the opposite party no.2, but the tyre was not replaced. It also appears from the complaint petition that the complainant in his complaint petition nowhere stated that the tyre purchased by him burst due to manufacturing defect except the contention that on 14.09.2016 the tyre purchased by him burst and again he purchased another tyre from the opposite party no.1.  

We have also gone through the findings of the learned District Forum. The learned District Forum while rejecting the contention of the O.P.W.2 Mrinal Kakati and accepting the contention of the complainant nowhere discussed about the reasons for bursting the tyre except the ground that the said Kakati did not produce the training certificate before the learned District Forum. Mere bursting of a tyre itself cannot be a ground for holding that the product was found defective as it did not give proper service and also for awarding compensation either from the dealer or from the manufacturer when they have taken a specific ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the purchased tyre. More so, the complainant also did not disclose in its complaint where and how the purchased tyre burst except a general contention that the purchased tyre burst on 14.09.2016.

In Ajay Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner therein who alleged that the tractor purchased by him from the respondent no.1 therein and manufactured by respondent no.2 was a second hand tractor which was earlier sold by the respondent No.1 to one Jagjeevan and the tractor was suffering from manufacturing defect. The Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition of the petitioner upholding the decision of both the State Fora as well as the District Fora that no evidence to establish the manufacturing defect has been led by the petitioner and the petitioner has not been able to show cogent evidence to support the allegation of manufacturing defect.

In Baljit Kaur (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission also dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner Baljit Kaur therein holding that “While it is true that this has no relation with any manufacturing defect, it is also true that the manufacturing defect as alleged has not been proved before the fora below, by reference to any expert report in this regard. When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant had produced, in support of her allegation of manufacturing defect, her own affidavit alongwith affidavit of 7-8 more witnesses. The District Forum correctly held - and the state commission concurred - that that these affidavits are no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the vehicle was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect (s).”

12. In the instant case also, when the complainant alleged that the tyre purchased by him burst, then it is his duty to prove the reason for bursting the tyre which he did not mention in his claim petition. More so, when the opposite parties came with a plea that there was no manufacturing defect and in support of such contention, they have examined O.P.W.2 who has specifically stated that the tyre was damaged due to concussion/impact break caused due to sudden impact with some heavy object and on inspection of the tyre, he had found that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. The learned District Forum should not have discarded his evidence only on the mere ground that he had not produced any documents regarding his training. We are of further opinion that the learned District Forum while rejecting the contention of the O.P.W.2 regarding his opinion, could have asked the complainant to take back the tyre from the dealer-opposite party no.1 and examine the same through an authorized technical expert, but the learned District Forum did not do so.

Considering the above facts, we are of the view that appellants have made out a case for interfering with the impugned judgment and accordingly, the same is interfered with and in consequent thereto, the impugned judgment is set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and consequent there to complaint petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura