State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrf Tyre Ltd., W-9, Industrial Area, ... vs 1.Sanjay Kumar Son Of Shri Raj Kumar, ... on 6 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1178 of 2005 Date of Institution: 29.06.2003 Date of Decision: 06.08.2012 MRF Tyre Ltd., W-9, Industrial Area, Yamunanagar. Appellant (OP-2) Versus 1. Sanjay Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of Village Kakhnauti Tehsil Nakur, District Saharanpur, UP now residing at C/o Ashok Kumar Saraswati Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent (Complainant) 2. M/s Krishna Lal Makkar and sons through its proprietor Radaur Road, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamunanagar. Respondent (OP-1) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri P.S. Sobti, Advocate for appellant. Respondents exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby complaint filed by the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling defective tyres to the complainant was accepted and following relief was granted:-
we allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the respondent No.2 to replace the tyres in question with new one if the respondent No.2 is not a position to replace the same he is directed to refund the cost of tyres i.e. Rs.18400/- along with 12% p.a. interest from the date of purchase till its realization.
The respondent is directed to comply with this order within one month from the date of order. The complainant has also suffered mental agony and harassment, hence, the respondent No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as cost of proceedings.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the complainant had purchased two tyres from the opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) against payment of Rs.18400/-. The tyres were manufactured by the appellant-opposite party No.2. According to the complainant the tyres were unfit for use in the vehicle and for that reason he approached the opposite parties to replace the tyres with new tyres but to no effect. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. While denying the version of the complainant it was stated that the opposite party No.2 had received the tyre in question bearing Sr.no.30878404144 on 6.8.2003 from the opposite party No.1 and the same was registered under Docket No.33161 dated 6.8.2003 and was thoroughly examined by Technical Service Engineer Mr. Asharti Dev and the examination revealed that the tyre was damaged due to cut near the beed caused due to improper fitting of lock ring. It was further stated that before Locking the tyre/rim assembly with the lock ring, it was essential to check the centering of tyre with rim. Any off centered fitment will lead to cut at bead area as was seen in the tyre in question. Thus, there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party No.2 as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.2 has come up in appeal.
Heard.
On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the District Forum failed to understand the actual controversy of the case to the effect that only one tyre was damaged but the District Forum wrongly recorded finding that both the tyres were defective. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the affidavit of Shri Asharti Dev son of Shri U.K. Nair, Technical Service Engineer of M.R.F. Ltd., Annexure A-6 wherein it has been stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and the tyre was damaged due to cut near the bead, caused due to improper fitting of the Lock Ring.
The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has tendered affidavit of Satish Kumar, Mechanic of welding tyre puncher who deposed against the opposite parties. As per the report of the mechanic examined by the complainant, one of the tyres was found defective. It is well settled law that if two views are available, then the view which favours the consumer, should be believed by the Consumer Fora. In our view the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant cannot be discarded because even a road side mechanic who fix punctures to the vehicles, gains sufficient experience because of everyday experience, however, the said mechanic cannot be a termed as a technical man.
Thus, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant is entitled to the relief with respect to one tyre the price of which comes to Rs.9200/-. Hence, the appellant-party is directed to pay Rs.9200/- to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any interest on Rs.9200/- for the reasons that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. However, the litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the District Forum does not call for any interference.
This appeal is disposed of in terms of the modification in the impugned order as indicated above.
The statutory amount of Rs.11,800/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 06.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member