MRF LIMITED vs Bhalchandra Jamnadas Patel

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") challenging the Final Order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short the "State Commission") thereby confirming the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch (for short "the District Forum").

SHORTLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present complaint are: Respondent No. 1 purchased a Tractor manufactured by Eicher Tractor Limited-respondent No. 3 herein on 29.8.2000 by paying Rs. 2,57,000 purportedly for carrying on farming. The said Tractor was fitted with tyres manufactured by the petitioner and sold it to respondent No. 3. The case of respondent No. 1 before the District Forum was that within 2 months of the purchase of the Tractor by him, which was manufactured by respondent No. 3, the rear tyres fitted in the tractor, were worn out which fact was intimated to respondent No. 2 on 1.11.2002. That the representative of the petitioner had inspected the said tyres but no action was taken, as a result of which, respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the District Forum.

ON being served, petitioner filed its Written Statement denying the allegations made in the Complaint. The stand taken by the petitioner was that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant and, therefore, the complaint filed was maintainable against the petitioner. Other Opposite Parties filed their separate Written Statements.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, allowed the Complaint and directed the petitioner and other Opposite Parties to replace the two rear tyres within 30 days from the date of Order and also give warranty to respondent No. 1 from the date of replacement. Rs. 1,500 were awarded as costs. In the alternative, it was held that if the Opposite Parties are not in a position to replace the tyres, then, it will pay the market price of the tyres along with interest @ 7% on the said price from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 17.1.2001.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order.

COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner, relying upon a Judgment of this Commission in Goodyear India Limited v. Dolatsingh Prabhatsingh Kher and Ors., in Revision Petition No. 30 of 1994, submitted that the complaint filed against the petitioner is not maintainable as there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant. Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner got the tyres examined by its Engineer, who had filed its Affidavit and informed that there was no manufacturing defect in the said tyres. That the said tyres were damaged due to carrying on of heavy weight. It was further submitted that onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect was on respondent No. 1, which it had failed to discharge by leading any cogent evidence in terms of Section 13(1) of the Act. We find substance in the submission made by Counsel for the petitioner. That there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

THIS Commission in Dolatsingh's case (supra), held as under: "After hearing Counsel appearing for the Revision Petition (the 1st Respondent who was complainant in the case remained absent), we are firmly of the view that the complaint filed by the 1st Respondent herein as against the Revision Petitioner was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as there was no privity of contract whatever as between the complainant and the Revision Petitioner. The Revision Petitioner - M/s. Goodyear India Limited had sold the tractor tyres to M/s. Escorts Limited and so happened that long subsequent thereto two of those tyres were fitted on the rear wheels of a tractor that was sold by M/s. Escorts Limited to a dealer who, in turn, sold the tractor to the complainant. The complainant has brought this case against M/s. Goodyear India Limited putting forward the grievance that there was some defect in the tyres fitted to his tractor. It is clear from what has been stated above that there was no transaction of sale or purchase between the complainant and M/s. Goodyear India Limited and there was no privity of contract as between the Revision Petitioner - M/s. Goodyear India Limited and the complainant. In the circumstances the grant of any relief to the complainant by the District Forum and the State Commission was totally illegal and without jurisdiction. The orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside and the complaint petition in so far as it is against the Revision Petitioner herein is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs."

(Emphasis supplied)

THE above observations clearly show that this Commission has held that the complaint against the manufacturer of the tyres is not maintainable.

THE petitioner's Engineer, in his Report has submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. The onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the tyres was on respondent No. l, which he failed to discharge by leading any expert evidence. As against this, the petitioner had got the tyres examined from its Engineer, who, after examining the same, stated in his Report that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. No reasons have been given by the State Commission to differ from the opinion given by the petitioner's Engineer.

RESPECTFULLY following the view taken by this Commission in Dolatsingh's case (supra), we hold that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant and, consequently, the complaint filed against it was not maintainable. It is further held that the onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the tyres was on the complainant, which he failed to discharge by leading any cogent evidence.

FOR the reasons stated above, this Revision Petition is accepted and the Orders passed by the Fora below are set aside. No costs.

SINCE, other Opposite Parties have not filed Revision Petition, the respondent/complainant, if so advised, may proceed against them. R.P. allowed.