STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution : 02.03.2016 Date of Final Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.10.2025 SC/5/A/16/20 MRF Ltd.

Registered Office: 124 Grahms Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai Near Canara Bank, Chennai – 600006 Branch Office: Khasra No. 235/CH, Opposite Titan, Kaunwala, Haridwar Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand - 248001 Through Branch Office Praveen Kumar (Through: Sh. Chetan Jain, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS

1. Sh. Veenit Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh R/o Mohanpura, Mohhamadpur, PS Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar

2. M/s Vishal Auto situated at Prem Mandir Road, Civil Lines, Roorkee, District Haridwar ….None for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer c omplaint No. 624 of 2014 styled as Sh. Veenit Kumar Vs. M/s Vishal Auto and anr., wherein and whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint directing the opposite party No. 2 to supply new tyre with new warranty and to pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant towards costs within a month from the date of judgment and order.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant had purchased a tubeless tyre of MRF company for Rs. 1,550/- on dated 20.03.2014 for the purpose of his motorcycle with one year warranty from the opposite party No. 1 – M/s Vishal Auto. During the warranty period, air in the tyre was leaking and this information was immediately given to the opposite party No. 1, but inspite of that information, the opposite party No. 1 denied to replace it. Thereafter, the complainant dispatched a legal notice on dated 30.09.2014 to the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to replace the tyre in question with new one with new warranty, but no action was taken. Thus, this act constitutes deficiency in service, therefore, complaint was submitted.

3. The opposite party No. 1 – M/s Vishal Auto has submitted its written statement alleging that it is true that the complainant has purchased a MRF tyre from the answering opposite party for his motorcycle on dated 20.03.2014 for Rs. 1,550/- with warranty of one year. But it is pertinent to mention that this tyre was not tubeless and it was used by the complainant in negligent and rash manner, therefore, the damages have occurred in the tyre in question. The tyre in question was not used as per warranty terms and conditions, therefore, it cannot be replaced with new one. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The opposite party No. 2 – MRF Ltd. has submitted its written statement alleging that the present complaint is not maintainable since the d efective tyre has not been got inspected either by the company or from any approved laboratory by the complainant as is required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further stated that the answering opposite party cannot be held liable, unless it is established that there is manufacturing defect in the tyre, i.e. due to usage of defective material / faulty workmanship. Thus, the onus lies to the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect. It is further stated that the tyre being a rubber product can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect. The life / performance of a tyre depends on many factors like Air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition and / or irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of the tyres, speed, nature of the terrain, i.e. level ground, hilly and / or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of the tyre on the vehicle, inflation / pressure and the external object with which the tyre