State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Mrf Limited & Anr. vs Mahinder Singh Verma on 6 December, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.256/2013
Date of Presentation: 18.09.2013
Date of Decision: 06.12.2013
..................................................................................
(1) M/s. MRF Limited,
Kamla Sadan, Sector-IV,
Crossing Kasauli Road, Parwanoo,
District Solan, H.P.,
Through its Manager/Officer/Attorney,
Shri Deepak Kumar.
(2) M/s. Pal Auto Traders,
Authorized Dealer of MRF Limited,
Village & Post Office Nerchowk,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
.......... Appellants
Versus
Mahinder Singh Verma, son of Shri Nagender Singh,
Resident of Village Chaugan, Post Office Chail Chowk,
Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P.
.......... Respondent
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellants: Mr. Jagjeet S. Bagga, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2013, of learned District Consumer 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? {(M/s. MRF Limited & Anr. Versus Mahinder Singh Verma) (F.A. No.256/2013)} Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent-Mahinder Singh Verma, has been allowed and a direction given to them to refund an amount of `450/- as labour charges for fitting new tyre & tube to the respondent's vehicle and also to pay `8,000/- as compensation and `1,500/- as costs.
2. Respondent/complainant purchased a set of new tyres & tubes manufactured by appellant No.1 from appellant No.2 on 23.06.2012 and on the same very day, the tyre & tube got damaged, due to bursting of tube, on account of some defect in its valve. Appellant No.2 was apprised of the bursting of tyre & tube, who promised to replace the same, free of cost. Forty two days' time was taken by the appellants to replace the tyre & tube and when new set of tyre & tube was fitted to the vehicle, a sum of `450/- was charged, on account of labour charges.
3. Respondent/complainant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that appellants were guilty of unfair trade practice because of their charging a sum of Page 2 of 6 {(M/s. MRF Limited & Anr. Versus Mahinder Singh Verma) (F.A. No.256/2013)} `450/- and were also deficient in rendering service as they took forty two days' time to replace the defective tube & tyre.
4. Complaint was contested by the appellants by filing separate replies. On behalf of appellant No.1, i.e. the manufacturer, it was stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre or the tube and that the cause of bursting was improper inflation of tyre & tube. Also, it was stated that tube & tyre had been purchased for a commercial vehicle and as such, respondent was not a consumer.
5. Appellant No.2 did not deny that the tyre & tube were purchased nor did it deny that the same were replaced on account of their bursting on the very day of their fitting. It was stated that manufacturer took forty two days to send a new set of tyre & tube, so delay took place. Also, it was pleaded that respondent was not a consumer as the vehicle was used by him for commercial purpose. Amount of `450/- was stated to have been rightly charged as the said appellant was in no way responsible for bursting of the tyre & tube.
Page 3 of 6 {(M/s. MRF Limited & Anr. Versus Mahinder Singh Verma) (F.A. No.256/2013)}
6. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Appellant No.1, i.e. the manufacturer of the tyre & tube, placed on record the report annexed to letter Annexure R-1. The report is dated 11.09.2012. It speaks of inspection of tyre & tube on 30.07.2012 by office Manager-cum-Depot Supervisor of appellant No.1. It was sent to respondent, Mahinder Singh Verma, through letter dated 11.09.2012, Annexure R-1.
9. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant No.1, vide para-2 of the reply on merits, it is specifically mentioned that burst tyre & tube were inspected on 23.07.2012 and on receipt of report of the same date, appellant No.2, the dealer, was told to collect a new set of tube & tyre as a goodwill gesture.
10. Contents of para-2 of the reply on merits are contrary to the above referred to report and letter Annexure R-1, through which that report was dispatched to the respondent/complainant. Report, as already noticed hereinabove, is dated 11.09.2012 and Page 4 of 6 {(M/s. MRF Limited & Anr. Versus Mahinder Singh Verma) (F.A. No.256/2013)} it speaks of inspection of tyres & tubes on 30.07.2012. It was sent to the respondent/ complainant, vide letter dated 11.09.2012, copy Annexure R-1. Tube & tyre had been ordered to be replaced on 24.07.2012, as stated in para-2 of reply on merits.
11. Averment in the said para about inspection of tyre and tube on 23.07.2012 is belied by the aforesaid report dated 11.09.2012. Under these circumstances, coupled with the fact that tyre and tube had been ordered to be replaced on 24.07.2012 by appellant No.1, the plea that cause of bursting of tyre was improper inflation as per inspection carried out on 30.07.2012, cannot be accepted. Report to this effect appears to be fabricated subsequently. This report is dated 11.09.2012, while the complaint was instituted on 24.08.2012 and the fact that report bears a date, subsequent to the date of filing of the complaint, further strengthens our view that the same is fabricated.
12. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Page 5 of 6 {(M/s. MRF Limited & Anr. Versus Mahinder Singh Verma) (F.A. No.256/2013)}
13. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member December 06, 2013 *dinesh* Page 6 of 6