M R F LIMITED vs A BAWA BUGARDHEEN

THE opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in C. O. P. No. 111/2001 on the file of the District Forum, Madurai are the appellants herein.

THE case of the complainant was as follow : For his cultivation and other agricultural purposes, the complainant owned one Swaraj Tractor. For the replacement of its rear tyres, he purchased two numbers of M. R. F. tyres from O. P. 3, the authorised dealer of MRF tyres. This was done on the basis of the advertisement of the opposite parties and also on the basis of the guarantee given by the first and the third opposite parties. However, the new tractor tyres purchased got damaged. The buttons of both tyres had worn out as also the thread/lugs tip. On 21. 9. 2000 the complainant reported to O. Ps. 1 and 2 about the damage caused to the tyres and also contacted O. P. 3. On the advice of O. P. 1, the technical service engineer one Mr. Charles Staines visited the place of the complainant and checked up the tyres. He submitted his report stating that alternate lugs were worn out not due to manufacturing defect and, therefore, the claim could not be considered. The complainant moved M/s. Marimuthu Associates for inspecting the tyres and to find out the reasons for the damage. They inspected the tyres and gave opinion/report stating that the tyres got worn out only due to manufacturing defect. In the circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 10,800 being the cost of the two tyres, to pay Rs. 50,000 towards the damage for the loss of income and mental agony due to unfair trade practice and to pay cost of the complaint. O. P. 1 filed a version which was adopted by O. P. 2. The complainant was not a consumer as the tyre had been used for commercial purpose. The alternate lug-wear would occur on the tyres only if the tyres were operated prolongly in haulage on hard surfaces like roads with insufficient air pressure inside the tyres. The complainant had fixed a trailer with the tractor to carry coconuts from coconut gardens to coconut Mandis (market) by road, which was a hard surface. The purpose thus was different. The defective tyres had to be examined by authorised boards, viz. , Rubber Board, Kottayam, a Government Body. The expert Marimuthu Associates were not qualified to detect the defect on the tyre. There was no manufacturing defect.

O. P. 3 contended that they were only a dealer of O. Ps. 1 and 2 and they could not be made liable for any defect in the tyre purchased from them.

BEFORE the District Forum on the side of the complainant, Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 while on the side of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, Ex. B1 to Ex. B4 were marked and on the side of O. P. 3 Ex. B5 was marked. The District Forum found that the reasons given by the Surveyor Marimuthu was accepted that the cause for damage to the tip of the alternate threads was only due to manufacturing defect. The alternate threads/lugs tip only got worn and it was not a regular wear. That, if the tyres had been damaged within the guarantee period, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had to replace the defective tyres with new tyres. By order dated 1. 4. 2003 the District Forum directed the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 14,800 towards cost of two tyres or supply new tyres after taking back the damaged tyres from the complainant to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs. 1,000 towards cost of the complaint.

IT is as against that, the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 appellants submitted that Mr. Marimuthu was only an insurance loss assessor for motor fire and engineering and he was neither qualified nor an experienced person to render any opinion in the field of tyre defects and rubber technology. The District Forum ought to have referred the subject-matter of the complaint under Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act to an independent laboratory like the Rubber Board, Kottayam. This had not been done by the District Forum. It was a mandatory procedure. The District Forum had endorsed the opinion of a person, who was neither qualified nor experienced in handling tyre defects. There was no representation for the complainant. We have gone through the materials on record. We are satisfied that the order of the District Forum is right. It is seen that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed a petition before the District Forum in M. P. No. 201/2001 requesting the Forum below to send the tyres to an appropriate laboratory to find out the nature of defect. However, at the time of inquiry, an endorsement of "not pressed" was made on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and hence that petition was dismissed. No further steps having been taken by O. Ps. 1 and 2, the stand of the complainant stood unchallenged. Even otherwise it is rather strange for the opposite parties to conted that there was misuse of tyres; that the tyres were for use in agricultural fields, that the complainant had used the tractor for transporting coconuts from coconut garden to coconut Mandi (market) and this was the reason for the damage to the tyres. This stand can hardly be accepted. The tractor tyres are supposed to be tough and they should serve the purpose in any surface, whatsoever and the stand of the opposite parties that the complainant had misused the tyres cannot, therefore, be accepted. It should also be noted that the report of Mr. Marimuthu, Surveyor, was not at all challenged before the District Forum. In the above circumstances, we have no alternative other than to confirm the decision of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal.

IN the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.