STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

M/s Goodyear India Limited, Registered office at :  Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad -121004,Haryana.

                                                                   ……Appellant

V E R S U S

1. Anil Kumar S/o Late Sh.Prem Nath,  R/o # 2185/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.
2. The General Manager, Ultimate Hyundai, Plot Nol.154-155, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

                                                                …….Respondents 

           Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection

                 Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh. Vishal Satija, advocate for  the appellant.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                 Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 has filed this appeal  against  order dated 04.10.2016 passed  by the   District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant.

2.          Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant/respondent No.1 that within 7 months of purchasing of his car, covering only 4200 Kms,  its two tyres   started showing bubbles in them.  To show above defects, photographs have been placed on record as Annexure C-2.  The complainant brought above said defects to the notice of Opposite Parties.  His request to replace/change the tyres was flatly refused stating that  the damage was caused due to driving  of car at a high speed over potholes. The complainant is a teacher.  He was using the car only for travelling to school and back, which is proved in view of the fact that within 7 months the car had travelled only 4200 kms.  A legal notice was sent which failed to get any positive response. Under compelled circumstances, he had to purchase a new tyre by spending a sum of Rs.3800/-, and to replace second tyre, he used the spare wheel.

 3.             Upon notice,  both OPs filed their respective replies.  The appellant/OP No.2 after getting report from an  alleged expert stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres.  It  further stated that the tyres suffered damage on sidewall which was due to impact/pinching of sidewal at an external object etc.  It was   further stated that as there was no deficiency in providing service, as such,  the complaint be dismissed.    

4.           Both parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence placed on record and arguments raised, vide impugned order dated 4.10.2016 allowed the complaint by  granting following relief to  respondent  No.1/complainant ;

 a]  To pay an amount of 11,475/- being the cost of the two defective tyres as well as the cost of one tyre purchased by the complainant;

 b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment by rendering deficient services and by resorting to unfair trade practice;

c]  To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

                    Further direction was issued to make payment within 30 days of the receipt of order, failing which, the  amount awarded was to entail penal interest. Hence, this appeal.

5.                By making reference to alleged report made by an expert, Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres. Damage was caused on account of running the car with low air pressure in the tyres.  Affidavit of the expert was  also placed on record. 

6.              After analyzing the arguments, and going through the paper book which is available with us, and also of the finding of the Forum, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the order under challenge.  It is not in dispute that within 7 month from the date of purchase of the car when it had travelled 4200 Kms, two tyres started showing bubbles on them. A complaint was made to the dealer- OP No.1.  Complainant’s grievance was brought to the notice of OP No.2. However, nothing was done.  Affidavit filed by the so called expert was rightly rejected  by the Forum noting that it was nothing but a replica of reply filed by  OP No.2. It was further noted that observations made by the said expert, and averments made by OP No.2 in its reply, does not correspond with each other.  To support above said finding, in para No.13 of the order, averments made by OP No.2, and the expert , were reproduced and discussed.  By noting facts from the expert report and averments made in the reply, it was rightly said that  the inspection was not made by  demounting  the tyres and no internal inspection was made by the expert.   Inspection was made when the tyres were fixed in the car. We have seen the report also. It is not firm, rather it is vague.  The expert was not sure as to whether there existed any manufacturing defect or not ; as to whether damage was caused on account of less pressure of tyres as stated at the time of arguments.  We find no case  made out by the appellant, to make interference, in the order under challenge.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage,  with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

8         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

18^th January,2017  

Js