MRF LIMITED vs RANVEER SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.9.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Agra in Complaint Case No. 48/1996.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant purchased one tyre on 26.8.1995 for his vehicle No. UP 80G/9835. THE opposite parties at the time of purchase charged a sum of Rs. 10,650/- for two tyres and gave a guarantee for one year. According to the complainant this tyre bursted and a complaint was made to the opposite party, M.R.F. Limited but they did not return the tyre and replacement was not done. THE complainant has prayed for return of the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 25% per annum or for replacement of the tyre. Cost of Rs. 1,000/- was also claimed. The opposite party No. 1 filed its written version and alleged that the complainant has purchased the above tyres which was used for commercial purposes, hence the complainant is not a consumer. It is further alleged that the tyres in question were examined by the then Sales Executive and it was revealed that the tyres were free from any manufacturing defect and they were damaged due to sidewall concussion or any other factor.

The parties led evidence before the learned District Consumer Forum. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record directed that the tyres be replaced after charging 25% cost from the complainant as the tyres has been used for certain period. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also allowed as compensation for mental torture and harrassment. It was also provided that if the tyre is not replaced within 45 days then the interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be payable.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant has come in this appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None was present from the opposite party. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. We are not impressed with this argument because in the report it has been mentioned that the said tyres were damaged due to sidewall concussion and this might have been due to sudden impact of this tyre with some heavy object while vehicle was in motion and this was not due to any manufacturing defect. The tyres in question were not returned to the complainant by the appellant so that he may also obtain a report from its own technical expert in order to show whether the report filed by the appellant is correct or not. Thus the complainant was deprived of an opportunity to get the tyres inspected under the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, in view of these facts we cannot place any reliance on the report submitted by the appellant. This report has been rightly rejected by the learned District Consumer Forum. It has been further argued that the vehicle has been used for commercial purposes. There is no evidence on record to support this contention. The opposite party has alleged about this fact and the burden was on it to prove that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. Thus we find that there is no force in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.