Ceat Limited vs ROURKELA CONSUMERS FRONT

-THIS appeal has been directed against the orders dated 5. 11. 1997 of the District Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela in C. D. Case No. 312 of 1997 directing the opposite parties to replace the tyre and tube under dispute and handover a defect free tube and tyre of the jeep without any extra charges and cost of litigation rupees 300 to the complainant.

OPPOSITE Party Nos. 2 and 3 are the appellants and opposite party No. 1 is the respondent No. 3 and complainant viz. , General Secretary, Rourkela Consumers'' Frong and Mr. Salib Patnaik, OIS are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in this appeal. C. D. Case No. 312 of 1997 has been filed by the General Secretary, Rourkela Consumers'' Front on behalf of Mr. Salil Patnaik, OIS, the District Information to Public Relations Officer, in short, D. I. to P. R. O. , Panposh, Rourkela. The case of the complainant in brief is that as the Head of the D. I. to P. R. O. , Rourkela unit, Salil Patnaik purchased four numbers of tyres and tubes to be used in the office jeep on 17. 3. 1997 on payment of price rupees, 10,152 from opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 3. Opposite Party No. 1 is the authorised dealer of CEAT tyres. He had given guarantee of these materials for one year. On 10. 7. 1997 when Salil Patnaik was proceeding to his office situated at Panposh, Rourkela through the Ring Road in the said office jeep, the rear right side tyre and tube were brushed. Salil Patnaik handed over the brushed tyre tube to opposite party No. 1 to replace the same to which opposite party No. 1 assured for replacement within a week. After one week when Salil Patnaik approached opposite party No. 1, opposite party No. 1 told him that, he has referred the matter to opposite party No. 2 the appellant No. 1. Then on 28. 7. 1997, opposite party No. 1 informed Salil Patnaik in writing (Annexure 11) to receive back the tyre which is lying with him as the company i. e. , M/s. CEAT limited has rejected his complaint on the ground that here is no manufacturing defect in said tyre and tube. Therefore, Salil Patnaik filed the C. D. Case through respondent No. 1 claiming for replacement of the damaged tyre and tube by new one, to pay compensation of Rupees 2,000 towards harassment and mental agony and cost of litigation of rupees 500 to him against all the opposite parties.

The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 - the appellants, have admitted sale of those tyres and tubes manufactured by them to Salil Patnaik through dealer opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 3 as per their joint written version. But, they deny liability in respect to damage caused to those articles which is not due to manufacturing defect and no warranty or guarantee was given by them. It is also stated through their written version that as every effort has been made by their Company to secure the highest possible standard of excellence of both materials and workmanship, their company or their bona fide dealers have not given warranty or guarantee. As they are the largest manufacturers in the tyres industries, they are conscious about their responsibility to consumers and reputation of the industry. In these end of the view when they received the said damaged tyre and tube from opposite party No. 1, they got the same examined through their Technical Service Engineer who found the tyre and tube have failed on account of, "throughout cut on side wall", which means on account of tyre coming in contact with (i. e. , either running over or along side) a sharp object and not due to manufacturing defect. This fact they have intimated to opposite party No. 1 vide their letter Nos. 81 and 82 both dated 25. 7. 1997 (Annexure B and Annexure B ). Thus they deny their liability as there is no manufacturing defect in the tyre and tube.

OPPOSITE Party No. 1 admitted in his written version to have received the damaged rear side tyre and tube but denied to have given warranty at the time of sale and assurance to complainant to replace the same. However, he had referred about these articles to he CEAT Limited and the report received from Regional Office of CEAT Limited that the tube is damaged and tyre, "through cut on side wall" have been intimated to the complainant. Thus since the manufacturer viz. , CEAT Limited reports that the damage of tyre and tube is due to negligent driving, he is not liable to compensate the loss of the complainant. The District Forum observed while passing the aforesaid impugned order that in absence of any evidence and materials, it cannot be said that complainant had warranty or guarantee for any period of time while purchasing tyres and tubes. However, it is beyond expectation of a purchaser from such a reputed company that one tyre and tube out of four would be damaged after four months of purchase when the jeep had run only 3000 kms. and when the jeep was not driven in rough road like the present case. Therefore, the District Forum did not accept the plea of the opposite parties that the said tyre and tube were free from manufacturing defect or in quality. Accordingly, it passed the aforesaid order dated 18. 11. 1997 holding all the opposite parties jointly and severally liable.

THESE orders have been challenged by the appellants in this appeal on the ground that the District Forum has wrongly decided about manufacturing defects in the tyre and tube in question which is against the materials and evidence available in the record. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants only as none appears for the respondents. Also perused the pleadings of the parties, documents filed in the case and affidavit of Hr. Ch. Venketeswar Rao. We find that there was no warranty or guarantee for any period of time in respect to the tyre and tube when those were purchased by Salil Patnaik. Salil Patnaik would have filed the same had there was warranty and guarantee. Being dissatisfied with the termination of his request to replace the tyre and tube by all the opposite parties, on the ground that there is no manufacturing defect, Salil Patnaik had filed the C. D. case. Therefore, the initial onus is on Salil Patnaik/complainant to prove that said damage was due to manufacturing defects. But, no attempt has been made by him to discharge this onus. Salil Patnaik has not got said tyre and tube examined by an expert having degree of tyre technology from a recognized Institution. Even, he has not got the damaged tyre and tube examined at least by an M. V. I. which could have been done easily as the tyre and tube were damaged when the same were used in the Government jeep and was driven by the D. I. and P. R. O. On the other hand, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 claim to have examined said tyre and tube though their Technical Service Engineer as they are very much conscious about their responsibility to consumers and reputation of the manufacturer being a largest manufacturer of tyres. According to them, after the Technical Service Engineer reported that the damage was not due to manufacturing defect but due to "through cut in side wall" which means cut by an external object, this fact has been intimated to their dealer, opposite party No. 1 on 25. 7. 1997. Opposite party No. 1 has also intimated the said cause of damage to the complainant vide its letter dated 28. 7. 1997 (Annexure-C) requesting to take back the damaged tyre and tube. The aforesaid cause of damage has been corroborated by Ch. Venkateswara Rao, the Territory Service Engineer of opposite party No. 2 at Bhubaneswar Regional Office. He claims to have sufficient knowledge in tyre technology and have undergone technical training in this subject at Bhandup Factory, Bombay. He claims that said tyre and tube being examined by expertise on 26. 7. 1997, the cause of damage was found not due to manufacturing defect but "through out cut in side wall" that means cut by an external object owing to negligent use. No counter affidavit to this affidavit has been filed by the complainant. The complainant has neither produced any evidence nor (sic.) any materials cross-examining Ch. Venkateswar Rao that the damage in question is due to manufacturing defect and not due to cut by external object owing to negligent use. In these end of the view in no circumstance, the opposite parties would be held responsible for the damage occurred to said tyre and tube. The District Forum has lost sight of all these materials and held wrongly that the opposite parties have caused deficiency in service. Therefore, the aforesaid order of the District Forum deserves to be set aside.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed on merit without cost in the circumstance of the case. The impugned order dated 5. 11. 1997 of the District Forum in C. D. Case No. 312 of 1997 is set aside. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal allowed.