MAHESH VERMA vs MRF LTD.

THIS is an appeal against the majority judgment passed by the President and one of the Members dated 14.5.2001 in Complaint Case No. 542/1997.

A complaint was filed by the complainant/appellant with the allegations that for his Maruti Car he purchased four radial M.R.F. Tyres and two tyres were purchased on 24.3.1995 and when he was on journey from Aligarh to Mathura on 24.3.1997, he found that the tyres bursted and got cracked. The complaint was lodged with the manufacturer as well as dealer alleging that the tyres got cracked and bursted because of manufacturing defect. Since no heed was paid, there was no option left except to file the complaint. When called for written statement the specific stand of the manufacturing unit as well as dealer was that there was no imperfection in manufacturing of the tyres but it was on account inappropriate and hasty use of the tyres which created problem and consequently the liability for change of the tyre on the ground of manufacturing defect was totally retaliated.

The learned District Forum passed the impugned order against which the present appeal has been preferred.

MR. O.P. Duvel, learned Counsel for the appellant has been heard. The entire material available on record has been perused. In support of the appeal two sets of arguments were placed before us for judicious consideration. One, there was abadent material available on record to justify a conclusive conclusion that the tyre and question was having manufacturing defect but this aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the learned District Forum forming majority by the President and another Male Member. Second set of argument has been that the judgment delivered is null and void and it is contrary to the Section 14 Sub-clause (ii) of the Act. In this connection, reliance was also placed on two decisions, the details of which are as follows : 1. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. V.K. Jain, Reported in I (1991) CPJ 50 (NC)=1991 (1) CPR 162. 2. Executive Engineer, C.C.O. & M. Division & Ors. v. Anil Gulabrao Mankar, Reported in II-1995 (1) CPR 331.

AS regards the first set of argument with regard to the alleged manufacturing defect in the purchased tyre is concerned, there is no foundation in the shape of evidence available on record. It is clear that the tyre in question was purchased on 24.3.1995 and it was made to use extensively and regularly. This itself admitted to the complainant that he was on journey with the same tyre on 24.3.1997 when the tyre was damaged. That obviously means that the tyre in question which was purchased admittedly on 24.3.1995 by the consumer has been regularly used for two years. A tyre being used for such a long period of two years and in a rough-tough condition is supposed to get damaged and that way that there was manufacturing defect could not be readily available. The finding in this regard thus recorded by the learned President and Male Member does not require any comment. Thus, it is not to be interfered with. AS regards the second submission is concerned, the ratio on which the reliance has been placed it clearly speaks that on the day when the judgment was pronounced the President did not hold the office as he retired. Obviously it is not the case here. In the instant case, when the judgment by the President was delivered he was in office and occupying chair of the District Forum concerned as a President. Section 14 Sub-clause (ii) of COPRA is also of no avail to the appellant obviously for the reason that Section 14 Sub-clause (ii) provides that every proceedings shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and atleast one Member thereof. In the instant case the hearing of the complaint was done by the President and a Lady Member. There is no error in the procedure. The Lady Member differed from the opinion of the President, consequently the matter was referred for the third opinion to the another Member and that way the male Member concurred with the view of the President. Thus this was a judgment delivered by majority and there is no illegality in it. Thus the contrary argument to this effect is of no avail. The appeal is dismissed. However, parties will bear their own costs. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.