BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 41 of 2018
Date of Institution : 23.01.2018
Date of Decision : 18.04.2019
Balu Ram alias Ram Partap son of Shri Ram Murti, aged about 27 years, resident of village and post office Kagdana, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
- Taneja Tyre & Services, 174, Hisar Road, near Radhaswami Satsang Ghar, Sirsa-125055, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its proprietor/partner.
- MRF Limited, through its District Manager, SCO No.36 & 37, Sector 13, Main Tosham Road, near Dabra Chowk, Hisar-125001.
- MRF Limited-124, Greams Road, Chennai (Tamil Nadu), 600003, through its authorized signatory/officer Incharge.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Krishan Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for OP No.1 to 3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant is permanent resident of village Kagdana, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The op no.1 is dealing in selling MRF tyres etc. under the name and style mentioned above, being the authorized dealer of the company, as claimed by the op no.1. Op no.2 is the authorized distributor of op no.3 company, authorized for distribution of the products to various dealers in the area and is having his depot at Hisar. Op no.3 is the manufacturing company of the product in question i.e. MRF tyres and it is having its registered office at Chennai(Tamil Nadu). The complainant has purchased two tyres, size 1000 x 20 SM 99 for the use of his truck/Tralla 2518, bearing Registration No.RJ07-GC-5981, from op no.1 vide Invoice No.T-01865 dated 8-6-2017, for the total amount of Rs.37249/- and similarly he purchased one another tyre vide Invoice No.1017 dated 17.10.2017 for Rs.14600/-. At the time of sale of the above said products, the op no.1 had assured the complainant that in case of any complaint in the working and use of the said tyres, the same will be replaced with new one, without charging any extra amount from the complainant, within the period of guarantee/warrantee. The complainant had purchased the above said tyres on this assurance of op no.1 and bonafidely believing his version as true and correct. After purchase of the above said tyres, within few days of its use, the said tyres got cracks therein and its ‘dhagas’ removed from the tyres and damaged(phool gaya), and the same became useless for the complainant, and it became risky to ply the truck on the road with the use of these defective tyres. Therefore, under the circumstances the complainant had to purchase another new tyres for the said Truck/Tralla. The complainant immediately contracted the op no.1 and brought the defective tyres at his shop. The op no.1 after seeing the condition of the tyres admitted the same as defective and having the manufacturing defect therein. Op no.1 considered the claim of the complainant being valid and genuine, he prepared a docket and sent the defective tyres to the depot of op no.2 at Hisar, but the op no.2 returned the docket on the ground that the claim of the complainant for replacement of the defective tyres with new one is not genuine. No plausible and reasonable cause has been assigned by the op no.2 for rejecting the claim of the complainant. The said defective tyres are still lying with op no.1. The complainant had met the concerned officials of op no.2 at Hisar and requested them for replacement of the same but they did not listen the complainant and told that the claim of the complainant is not genuine, without any reasonable cause and ground. The complainant had met the ops nos. 1 and 2 from time to time but they have totally refused to admit the claim of the complainant. The ops totally refused to admit the claim of the complainant for the replacement of the said tyres about a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Op No.1 appeared on 09.02.2018 and Ld. counsel for op no.1 vide separate statement made on 05.12.2018 stated that he does not want to file any reply on behalf of op no.1 and further ops no. 2 and 3 appeared and filed written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, maintainability since the defective tyres have not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as is required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The answering OP cannot be held liable unless there is manufacturing defect in the tyres, i.e. due to usage of defective material/faulty workmanship. The complainant has further nowhere pleaded that he used the vehicle by way of self-employment for earning his livelihood. On merit, it is further submitted that the complainant on 8.6.2017 and 17.10.2017 had purchased two MRF tyres for his vehicle from op no.1 for the total sum of Rs.37,249/- and Rs.14,600 are denied for the want of knowledge. it is further submitted that this op company had neither given any performance guarantee/warranty/assurance regarding tyres to the complainant nor authorized any person to give any guarantee/warranty/assurance in this regard. The guaranty/warrantee, if any, is only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyres. It is specifically denied that tyres suffered from any manufacturing defect. it is respectfully submitted that, it is the normal practice of this op company, in case of any complaint tyres being received either directly from the customer or through its Dealer’s Network, to subject the personnel, in order to assess the problem in the complaint tyre/s, and said technical person shall give an “Inspection Report” as the outcome of such inspection done, spelling out the actual cause of such damage/defect, if any, and it is only when such tyre/s suffers from Manufacturing Defect, the op company shall be held liable or responsible; and not otherwise. It is further submitted that the answering ops are not aware of the circumstances in which the subject tyre was brought for inspection. With regard to the other allegations, the answering Ops humbly submit that, the tyre of size 1000.20 SML 99 N 16 bearing serial No.30019714017 was received for examination from M/s. Taneja Tyre & Service on 01.01.2018. Soon after the receipt of the said tyre complaint Docket No.807122842 dated 01.01.2018 was raised and the said tyre was thoroughly inspected by this op’s technical service personnel Mr. Ajay Bansal who has undergone pre induction intensive training and have experience in defect analysis of tyres and is competent to speak about the defects in the tyre if any. His examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to Through cut on tread caused due to impact with some sharp object. The inspection report dt. 01.01.2018 sent to Mr. Balu Ram on 01.01.2018. Necessary instruction was given to Mr. Balu Ram to collect the tyre from M/s. Taneja Tyre & Service. The tyre mentioned in the complaint is of a true and merchantable quality absolutely free from any manufacturing defect. The answering ops further humbly submits that, the complainant had submitted the same tyre for inspection alleging that the tyre is defective on 16.11.217 and after the receipt of the said complaint Docket No.806981540 dt. 16.11.2017 was raised and the tyre was thoroughly inspected by the answering ops technical service personnel Mr. Ajay Bansal. His examination revealed that the said tyre was not having any defects. It is further submitted that ops company manufactures the largest range of tyres in India and enjoys the highest brand preference for superior quality, appearance and long life. It is further submitted that the op is not liable if the product is damaged due to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or accident, normal wear and tear. The answering Ops are not liable for the consequential loss or indirect loss. The complainant has no right to demand damages or compensation for any accrued losses. The life/performance of a tyre depends on many factors like Air Pressure, Driving Habits, Road Conditions, Load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition and/or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain i.e. level ground, hilly and/or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation/pressure and the external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion, etc. Thus it may be case; the complaint tyre of the complainant might have been suffered due to any one or more of these eventualities. It is specifically denied that there is no plausible and reasonable cause has been assigned by the answering Ops for the rejection of the claim of the complainant. No liability can be attributed to the answering ops nor any relief can be claimed against the answering ops under any circumstances whatsoever. Hence, the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs, in the interest of justice.
3. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.CW1/A his own supporting affidavit, whereas opposite parties No.2 & 3 have tendered the affidavit of Ajay Bansal Ex.OW1/A, inspection report dt. 01.01.2018 Ex.OW1/B.
4. We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
5. In order to prove his complaint, the complainant has tendered the affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated the averment made in the complaint. He has tendered the sale invoice dated 8.6.2017 regarding purchasing of the tyre for Rs.37,249/- and another sale invoice dated 17.10.2017 for Rs.14,600/-for purchase of tyres. He has also placed on record claim forwarding docket and the copy of the Aadhar Card and Pan Card.
6. On the other hand, the ops No.2 & 3 has tendered the affidavit of Shri Ajay Bansal, Senior Executive Service of MRF LTD, in which he has deposed in terms of the defence plea of the ops No.2 & 3. He has deposed that a complaint docket dated 01.01.2018 was raised and was inspected by the op’s Technical Service Personnel Mr. Ajay Bansal, who has undergone pre induction intensive training and have experience in defect analysis of tyres and is competent to speak about the defects in the tyre if any. His examination revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to Through cut on tread caused due to impact with some sharp object. This is not due to any manufacturing defect of the said tyre. The inspection report dt. 01.01.2018 was sent to Mr. Balu Ram on 01.01.2018. Necessary instruction was given to Mr. Balu Ram to collect the tyre from M/s. Taneja Tyre & Service. The op has tendered the copy of letter as Ex.OW1/B, addressed to Balu Ram in this regard.
7. The perusal of the evidence of the ops reveals that the ops have taken the plea in their written reply as well as in the affidavit of Ajay Bansal that the tyre in question was inspected by their experienced expert persons and found that there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre but however, the ops have not placed on record any copy of the inspection report which was allegedly submitted by the team of expert persons, who inspected and examined the tyre of the complainant and concluded that the tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing defect which was obligatory on the part of the ops to produce. Simply writing a letter Ex.OW1/B to the complainant Balu Ram is not sufficient to discharge the liability of the ops. Rather it was the legal obligation of the ops to inspect and verify the defect in the tyre of the complainant in the presence of the complainant by giving him a sufficient opportunity of being heard before taking any decision. So, it appears that the ops have not complied with the rule of natural justice.
8. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the ops to get the tyres re-inspected and examine by team of expert persons in the presence of the complainant by giving him atleast 7 days prior notice of inspection and thereafter consider the report of experts. If any, manufacturing defect is found, then replace the tyres with same make and model without any cost or in the alternate to make refund of the cost of tyres after deducting the depreciation of the tyres. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 18.04.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
