1. THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case
No. 324/1995.
2. THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant purchased a tyre for his vehicle on 18.7.1995-for a sum of Rs. 7,900/-. Opposite
party No. 3 Vikrant Tyres is the manufacturer of the tyre and the opposite party No. 2 is the Regional Manager of opposite party No. 3, opposite
party No. 1 is the dealer of the Company.
According to the complainant there was a manufacturing defect in the tyre on account of which it burst on 12.9.1995. Complaint of this fact was
lodged to the opposite party No. 1, dealer on 13.9.1995. The complainant sent the tyre to opposite party No. 1 who in turn sent the same to
opposite party No. 2. Thereafter it was sent .to the manufacturer who only on the basis of a false report rejected the claim of the complainant on
account of which he has suffered mentally. He also suffered in his business. The complainant has, therefore, asked for a sum of Rs. 7,900/- as cost
of the tyre and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of busienss.
The opposite party No. 1 filed the written statement and admitted the sale of the tyre and about receipt of the report about its defect. It is alleged
that the tyre was sent to opposite party No. 3 who got it examined from the Engineer and it was found that there was no manufacturing defect.
Hence the claim of the complainant was rejected. It is alleged that when there is a defect in the goods only then the Company is liable to make
good the loss. If there was any loss on account of manufacturing defect, then the opposite party is liable to pay the sum and claim against it is not
maintainable.
3. THE opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a joint written statement in which they have alleged that the tyre which was purchased by the
complainant and handed over to them did not contain any manufacturing defect. On this ground the complainant''s claim was rejected.
The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was a manufacturing defect in the tyre and
hence it decreed the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 7,900/- as cost of the tyre to be paid along with 15% per annum interest within a
period of one month. It also allowed a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
4. AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Vikrant Tyres Limited have come in appeal and has
challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The facts of the case which are admitted are that the complainant purchased the tyre manufactured by opposite party No. 3 which got burst about
two months after its purchase. The complainant sent this tyre for testing which was tested by opposite party No. 3. Now the dispute arises
between the parties. According to the complainant there was a manufacturing defect on account of which the tyre was burst. While according to
the opposite party No. 3 there was no manufacturing defect and the tyre has cut on account of deep cuts due to mishandling of the same. In the
present case opposite party No. 3 has filed a report of its tyre expert who has reported that there was deep cut in the tyre on account of which this
tyre had burst. There is a paper dated 30.9.1995 of claim rejection advice/ replacement offer. The tyre of the complainant was examined and it is
written that there were large ""through cuts"". An affidavit has also been filed by the expert who examined the defective tyre. He has stated that he is
a qualified Chemical Engineer and was in service of the Company as Technical Service Engineer in 1998. He inspected the tyre on 30.9.1995 and
submitted his report. According to him during the inspection he found that there was no manufacturing defect in the disputed tyre and the disputed
tyre had a ""through cut"". He further stated that due to through cut and deflation in the disputed tyre, it got a bigger cut in the inner side. This was
due to the mistake of the complainant. According to this report there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. The complainant has not produced
any expert report to show that the report given by the appellant''s expert is not correct and is wrong. A report of the expert of this nature can only
be rebutted by report of another expert. Unless the complainant himself is able to show that the report filed by the expert is wrong in any way, the
complainant cannot get any advantage. No mistake in this report has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the present case.
Therefore, the learned District Forum should not have rejected this report without assigning any reason. There is no reason to disbelieve this report
of expert filed by the manufacturer. Thus in our opinion, the view taken by the learned District Forum cannot be correct. The appeal is, therefore,
liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum are set aside and the
complaint is dismissed. No order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.