MRF LTD Vs. RAM SAWRUP & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by District Forum, Bhiwani whereby while accepting the Complaint Case No. 689 of 20.11.2001 filed by the respondent No. 1 -complainant, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were directed jointly and severally to pay 50% cost of the tyre so purchased on 7.11.2000 along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. In addition, Rs. 1100 were directed to pay as litigation expenses to the complainant by the opposite parties.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that on 7.11.2000 the complainant purchased a tractor, mark Eicher 241 NC for agricultural purposes from opposite party No. 1 being dealer of opposite party No. 2. The warranty period was of one year for all parts such an engine, lift, battery, tyre, etc. After the expiry of period of six months of the purchase of the tractor, the complainant noticed that rear tyre of the tractor was damaged and this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 1 in the month of June, 2001. At that time, the opposite party No. 1 assured that the tyre would be replaced within 7/8 days but the opposite party No. 1 did not honour the commitment and thereafter the complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 on several occasions but brought no result. At the same time, the opposite party No. 1 intimated about the complaint of the complainant to the appellant -opposite party No. 2 on 27.8.2001 but the opposite party No. 2 refused to replace the tyre. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the rear tyre of the tractor and to pay Rs. 50,000 for the loss caused due to the carelessness of the opposite parties and to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs.

(3.) ON notice, opposite party No. 1 in the separate written statement contested the complaint. It did not dispute that the tractor in question was purchased by the complainant but maintained that there was no defect in the tyre of the tractor. It was further stated that complaint was made after the expiry of 9 months of its purchase for which he was informed that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to indemnify the damage caused to the tyre and not by it. It was further pleaded by opposite party No. 1 that the complaint received by it was forwarded to the opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 27.8.2001, upon which service engineer was deputed to visit the workshop of the opposite party No. 1 on 15.9.2001 in order to attend to the complaint made by the complainant but the complainant did not turn up despite intimation given to him about the visit of the service engineer of opposite party No. 2. It was further stated that after the expiry of a week, the complainant came to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2, where the piece of tyre was taken for laboratory verification and during investigation and test it was found that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre in question, except the fact that normal wear and tear of the tyre due to the use of the tractor. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written statement denied any deficiency on its part as it was maintained that tyres in question were absolutely free from all kind of manufacturing defect and when the investigation was carried out by the service engineer it was found that the tyre was damaged due to alternate lug wear and caused due to excessive load transfer from the trailer as a result of improper position of the tractor axle. It was again stated that the said report was handed over to the complainant on 3.10.2001 and thus prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.