MRF LIMITED vs ASHOK LUTHRA

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 26.6.90 in Case No. 348 passed by the District Forum.

THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Ashok Luthra, the respondent, had purchased one MRF Cheetah tyre 3.50-8-4 Ply rating No. YT44 02568 in April'' 89. THE tyre suddenly burst on 13.8.89 and its tread got separated resulting in accident where both the respondent and his wife, sustained injuries. He complained to the Delhi Office of the Company on 20.10.89 who took the tyre from the complainant for inspection with regard to manufacturing defect. Sh. Rajeev Kaila, Technical Service Engineer of the Company accepted that the tyre in question had manufacturing defect of tread separation and issued the respondent an adjustment award Memo asking him to deposit Rs. 71/- plus sales tax for replacing the tyre. As the respondents request for the replacement of the defective tyre was not acceeded to by the Delhi Office he sent a written complaint dated 25.10.89 to the Company''s Technical Service Manager at Madras. He received no reply. On 29.12.89 the respondent sent a registered letter to the Technical Service Manager of the Company and also to the Consumer''s Relations Manager of the Company but he received no reply. The respondent finally lodged a complaint with the District Forum on 19.12.90 wherein he prayed for free replacement of defective tyre and Rs. 5,000/- for losses suffered on account of his accident. The learned District Forum directed the. defendant to replace the defective tyre with a new one, within a month.

Arguments were heard at length. The appellant admits that the tyre had a manufacturing defect. However, he emphatically stated several times during the course of arguments that the tyre was manufactured in 1983. The respondent has purchased the tyre in April, 1989. The appellant did not mention anything about the. shelf life of the tyre whether the period of six years of storage with the trader had anything to do with the defect in the tyre. In any case the information about the date of the manufacture of the tyre was not available to the consumer i.e., the respondent. The contention of the appellant that the tyre was manufactured before the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came into force is not maintainable.

BY his own admission the appellant has acknowledged that the tyre, has a manufacturing defect. Definition of the defective goods is given under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A defective goods is defective and has to be replaced fully. The question of pro-rata replacement as per the existing policy of the MRF Company is not convincing. The Company needs to change its policy and undertake to replace defective goods, a tyre in the instant case, free of cost The contention of the appellant that their letter dated 29.3.90 was not taken note of by the District Forum is not confirmed by examination of the records of the District Forum. In response to the notice issued by the District Forum on 21.2.90 for appearance in this case on 26.6.90 the appellant had sent their letter dated 29.3.90. The District Forum on receipt of this letter had sent a copy of this letter to the respondent and the offer made in the letter is also reflected in the order of the District Forum.

THE impugned order of the District Forum was passed in the presence of Shri Pawan Bajwa, Sales Executive of MRF. We are not in agreement with existing policy of the Company regarding pro-rata replacement of defective tyre. The appellant should forge good customer''s relation by replacing the tyre free of cost. We find no legal or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed with Rs. 200/- as costs. Appeal dismissed with costs.