Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 336.
Instituted on : 30.07.2015.
Decided on : 17.08.2016.
Smt. Lovina Singla, Advocate w/o Sh. Arvind Singla, c/o Chamber No.262, District Courts, Rothak..
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd., Near CSD Canteen, Sonepat Road, Rothak through its Marketing Manager.
- MRF Ltd. Kachcha Chamaria Road, Northern Bye Pass, Rohtak through its Marketing Manager.
- MRF Ltd. Regd. Office 124, Greams Road Chennai-600006 through its General Manager.
- Volkswagan India Private Limited, E-1, Phase-3, Mhalunge Road, Chakan, Pune-410501 through its Marketing Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in p[erson.
Sh.N.K.Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. Pardeep Dangi, Advocate for the opposite party no.2 & 3.
Opposite party no.4 exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that she purchased a car from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by opposite party no.4. It is averred that the complainant got the vehicle serviced from the company on regular basis for two years and in the year 2015 the car was serviced from the market. It is averred that on 24th May 2015 the complainant was coming from Hisar to Rohtak in the car and the upper layer of the tyre peeled off and the tyre busted. It is averred that the life of the entire family of the complainant were endangered but due to the God’s grace the same was saved. It is averred that tyre installed was of MRF make and the quality of tyre was poor. It is averred that complainant filed a complaint to the opposite parties through email and in writing and informed the opposite parties that tyre has busted and there was inherent defect in the tyre. It is averred that local dealer of Volkswagan company did not co-operate with the complainant and started leveling false and baseless allegations against the complainant. It is averred that opposite party no.1 alleged that the service schedule is missing and moreover standard warranty upto 2 years has expired so the opposite party will not take any action to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant. It is averred that the MRF company deputed some officers of their company to look into the condition of the tyres who had taken some photographs of the tyres and after 2-3 days complainant received a letter from the company alleging therein that the tyres were of good quality but the peeling of the tyre was due to some external item striking the tyre which resulted in peeling and bursting of the tyre. It is averred that the complainant had to purchase the tyre from the market worth Rs.3600/- and has to get it changed from the mechanic in the market. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to replace all the five tyres, repair the damaged portion of the car and to provide the compensation but any heed was not paid to her requests. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that a compensation of Rs.10 lacs + interest @ 18% from the date of filing the complaint till its realisation be awarded to the complainant on account of harassment, endangering the human life on account of installation of poor quality tyres in the car.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the car can be got serviced from only authorized service stations as market operators do not have the requisite equipment for services highly sophisticated engineering product of the opposite party no.4. It is averred that opposite party No.4 uses good quality materials in the car and car tyres manufactured by opposite party No.2 & 3 have a world wide reputation for matching the best quality in the world. It is averred that the car must have been run over some sharp obstacle/object due to which the tyre would have got damaged or the tyre may be worn out. It is averred that the warranty period of two years had already expired. Hence the claim of the complainant does not fall under warranty. Further the warranty of tyres is to be provided by the manufacturer of tyre as per the warranty policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre has not been inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant as is required under section 13(1)( c) of the C.P.Act. It is averred that the tyre in question was inspected in a garage and it was found that the said tyre had failed due to a through cut on the tread area caused due to some sharp object come in contact with the tyre while the vehicle was in motion and as a result the said tyre run with inadequate air pressure for a prolonged period which generate over heating due to excessive rolling resistance leading to burst of tyre. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. However opposite party no.4 did not appear inspite of the fact that notice was sent to opposite party no.4 through registered post and as such opposite party no.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.09.2015 of this Forum.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in her evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed her evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, Ex.RW2/B, documents Ex.R1 and has closed their evidence.
6.. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per complaint, affidavit and copy of emails Ex.C2 to Ex.C3, the tyre of the complainant’s car was burst on 24.05.2015 and complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the tyres but the opposite parties refused to accede the request of complainant on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. To prove its contention, opposite party has placed on record copy of letter Ex.R1 issued by the MRF Limited. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C7 whereby it is submitted that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the tyre.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the copy of letter Ex.R1 issued by the opposite parties is not supported with the inspection report. On the other hand, as per inspection report Ex.C7 placed on record by the complainant there was inherent manufacturing defect in the tyre. It is also on record that complainant had to purchase a new tyre worth Rs.3600/- as per bill Ex.C6. . It is also on record that Sh. Sumit Kumar TSE on behalf of opposite party no.2 & 3 as per statement dated 28.07.2016 has stated that in case of settlement, opposite party no.2 & 3 are ready to pay the cost of tyre worth Rs.3100/- and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. But the complainant did not agree for the same and has prayed for compensation.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as the complainant has purchase the new tyre for a sum of Rs.3600/-. Hence she is entitled for the same beside cost of litigation. As such it is directed that opposite party no.2 & 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.3600/-(Rupees three thousand six hundred only) as cost of tyre alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the amount of award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.08.2016
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
