Tripura

West Tripura

CC/50/2017

Sri Nripendra Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Subrata Das, Dealer of MRF Tyres. - Opp.Party(s)

Ranu Bhowmik.

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  50   of   2017

              Sri Nripendra Paul,
S/O- Sri Kirshna Chandra Paul,
Taltala Bazar,(Sonatala),
P.O. Bamutia, P.S. Lefunga,
West Tripura.            ...….…...Complainant.

            VERSUS
          
          1. Sri Subrata Das,
C/O- Iman Tyre, Manipuri Chowmuhani,
Mohanpur, P.S. Sidhai,
West Tripura.

          2. Manager,
MRF Limited,
NH 37, Cuirukandi Ramnanagar Point,
Ramnagar, Silchar- 788 003.    ..........Opposite parties.
 

 __________PRESENT__________
 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant        : Sri Ranu Bhowmik,             
                      Advocate.                      
                      
For the Opposite Parties        : Sri Sankar Lodh,
                      Sri Kishalay Roy,
                      Advocates.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   11.09.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T    
        This case arises on the petition filed by One Nripendra Paul U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2.        Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one MRF tyre on 12.07.16 on payment of Rs.7,100/- from the O.P. No.1. On 10.09.16 he fixed the tyre in the vehicle. But after 4 days on 14.09.16 the tyre burst out. On 23.09.16 again he purchased another tyre from the shop of O.P. No.1 on payment of Rs.7,150/- and lodged claimed before the O.P. to refund or repair the burst damaged tyre. Petitioner prayed for replacement. But the O.P. No.1 informed that it was reported to Company Manager, MRF Ltd. for arranging the replacement and finally on 13.03.17 O.P. No.1 informed that the tyre can not be replaced. Petitioner then prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.1 lac. 

3.        O.P. No.1 and 2 appeared and filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that technical person inspected the tyre. He found no manufacturing defect. The technical staff report was honored and claim rejected.

4.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether any defective tyre was sold out by the O.P. No.1 and 2 ?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service of O.P. No.1 and 2 ?

5.        Petitioner side produced original cash memo, claim forwarding docket, also produced the statement on affidavit of 2 witnesses, complainant himself & another Bijoy Paul. 

6.        O.P. on the other hand produced the inspection report, claim docket and letter. They also produced the statement on affidavit of two witnesses, Subrata Das & Mrinal Kakati.

On the basis of all these evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

                Findings and decision:

8.        We have gone through the documents as produced and the evidence as produced by the parties. The fact of purchase of the MRF tyre from the shop of the O.P. No.1 is admitted and established fact. We have gone through the cash memo and found that one Iman tyres, MRF Tyres Exclusive Dealer issued the cash memo on 12.07.16 to Nipendra Paul. P.W. 1 petitioner himself stated that he retained the tyre as stepney and it was fixed on 10.09.16. But it was burst on 14.09.16 after 4 days. He had to purchase another tyre. He lodged claim 14.09.16. 

9.        We have gone through the claim forwarding docket. As per that docket on 06.10.16 the claim was forwarded and on 20.10.16 inspection report was given. Inspection report revealed that tyre was damaged as a result of concussion/impact break due to sudden impact with heavy object. Mrinal Kakati, O.P.W.2 stated that he is the Sales Executive of MRF Tyre. He also stated that he is an MBA. He had undergone training regarding tyre inspection. He inspected the tyre in the premises of CNF at Ganaraj Chowmuhani and submitted the report. He did not produce the training certificate before us. Subrata Das is the seller of the MRF tyre. He admitted the sale of the tyre on 12.07.16. He stated that he had sent the complaint and the tyre was inspected at CNF at Ganaraj Chowmihani. Bijoy Pal stated that the petitioner requested the respondent to replace the defective tyre but the respondent did not replace it. From scrutiny of the evidence on record it is found that the details information about the sold product was not disclosed to the purchaser. Warranty card also not supplied. Whether the warranty is available also not informed by the seller to purchaser. 

10.        As per 'Consumer Protection Act' any false representation about any item, goods is unfair trade. The seller should have disclosed the fact that replacement not possible in case of damaged of tyre by any means. Any deceptive practice is unfair trade. The damage tyre was not inspected by any technical person. It is inspected by O.P.W.2, Mrinal Kakati, who is a Sales Executive not technical person. He stated that he is an MBA and undergone training under tyre inspection. In his report he assumed that tyre might be damaged by concussion/impact break due to sudden impact with heavy object. It is not proper inspection by the O.P.W.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner argued that without any proper enquiry the claim was denied. 

11.        Learned advocate for the O.P. referred the decision of National Commission. 2016 STPL 3616 to reiterate that petitioner is not a consumer. Admittedly petitioner purchased the tyre which was burst out within 4 days of use. Product was found defective as it did not give proper service. Warranty also not given. This is unfair trade. The tyre should have been replaced as it did not last even for 2 months after purchase. The fact of warranty and inspection other related information not disclosed by the seller. Therefore, it appears to be unfair trade and deficiency of service. Both the O.Ps are liable for this deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. We therefore, direct both the O.Ps to replace the tyre and also pay compensation Rs.5000/-. Both the points are decided accordingly. 

12.        In view of our above findings we direct the O.Ps to replace the tyre and compensate the petitioner by paying Rs.5000/- as costs of deficiency of service. Payment is to be made within 2 months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.