Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/403/2014

Mallappa R Naganur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Dasanur & Cmpy & Authorised Dealer of New Holland Tractors - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Hanchinal

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging sale of defective and low quality of tyres fitted to Tractor.  

          2) In the complainant it is alleged that on 21/9/2012 the complainant purchased Holland Tractor manufactured by O.P.No.3 through O.P.No.1 to the 1^st O.P. dealer which is registered under KA-24 / TA-4881 dated 9/11/2012. It was used for agriculture purpose. The complainant after one month of using the said tractor as noticed that, both the tyres of the said tractor that is front and rear tyres were found chipping/cuts /crash etc., on the both tyres. This fact is informed to O.Ps. 1 and 2 in the month of May 2013 and technical experts have inspected the tyres and they gave opinion that tyres were checked but do not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Further the complainant submitted that the experts are working under the O.Ps. and hence to please them they have given false report. Even though tyres were defective one.

          3) The 1^st O.P. in his version denied all the material allegations in the complaint. He has sold the tractor to complainant. Also it is stated that there is no allegation against this O.P. for any deficiency of service. This O.P. has been arrayed as a former party this O.P. has not at all liable to pay any amount and also they are not liable to replace as alleged defective tyres.

4) The O.P.2 is seller of the tyres at the time of purchase of Tractor from O.P.1. The O.P.3 is manufacturing of tyres. The O.P.2 and 3 contended that they have deputed one of their Engineer to inspect the tyres alleged to have become defective. During the course of inspection of tyres does not constitute manufacturing defect and they have occurred due to rear tyre was having tread shoulder cut damage was due to spinning which has been caused filed in the application such damages are not covered warranty.

5) The respective parties and or authorized persons have filed the affidavits and certain documents.

          6) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel and parties and perused the records.

          7) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and or defect in tyre in question entitled to the reliefs sought?

          8) Our finding on the point is partly in nagative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          9) The fact that the complaint has purchased the vehicle is not in dispute.

          10) The grievance of the complainant is that the tyres fitted to the vehicle had manufacturing defect and hence tyres were chipping/cuts /crash etc., but the O.Ps. have denied.

11) To prove the manufacturing defects in the tyres except the allegations in the complaint and statement of complainant in the affidavit, there is no other evidence on record. On the other hand for the O.Ps. No.2 and 3 have produced report of engineer are placed on record were in it is pointed out that there was no manufacturing defect. The defect was found due to spinning of tyres which does not constitute manufacturing defect and such damages are not covered warranty.

          12) Further they have contended that tyres are become defective not for the reason of manufacturing defect but for the wrong and negligent driving on the part of the complainant.  

13) In the case on hand admittedly there is no expert evidence When the complainant alleged that there is manufacturing defect then entire, burden lies upon the complainant to prove that the tyre is having manufacturing defect. Hence the contention taken by the complainant in the present case is that there is manufacturing defect in the tyres but except warranty card the complainant has not produced any other documents or expert evidence has also not been led by the complainant and moreover, the O.Ps. have produced their expert opinion for which the complainant has also signed when the O.Ps. visited and inspected the tyres. This being the fact the complainant did not produce any single document to show that the tyres are having manufacturing defect and also upon that the photographs produced by the complainant does not show that the tyres are defective and in what way the tyres are damaged. Hence the considering the entire fact and the evidence on record the complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect in the tyres.

15) Accordingly following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

           (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 27^th day of April 2015).

                    Member                                  President.

gm*