| Complaint Case No. CC/10/35 |
| | | | 1. Chirra Venkanna,S/o. Nagaiah ,R/o.Thettelapadu Village ,Thirumalayapalem Mandal,Khammam District. | | Chirra Venkanna,S/o. Nagaiah ,R/o.Thettelapadu Village ,Thirumalayapalem Mandal,Khammam District. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Bharath Motors ,H.No.6-54,Warangal Road ,Khammam rep by its propriter | | Bharath Motors ,H.No.6-54,Warangal Road ,Khammam rep by its propriter | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh | | 2. J.K Tyres & Industries Ltd., PBS Industries Estate ,D.No.15-17-4,Ward No.32,AE Auto Nagar ,Vijayawada. | | J.K Tyres & Industries Ltd., PBS Industries Estate ,D.No.15-17-4,Ward No.32,AE Auto Nagar ,Vijayawada. | | Krishna | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 24th day of June, 2011 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.35 of 2010 Between: Chirra Venkanna, S/o Nagaiah, Age:40years, Occ:Agrl and owner of tractor AP 20 Y 6817, R/o Thettelapadu Village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District. …Complainant And 1. Bharath Motors, Rep. by its Proprietor, H.No.6-54, Warangal Road, Khammam. 2. J.K.Tyres & Industries Ltd., PBS Industries Estate, Door No.15-17-4, Ward No.32 AE, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. …Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.V.Madhu Babu, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and of Sri M.Muralidhar Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tractor on 22.05.2009 from opposite party No.1. While purchasing the Tractor J.K. tyres were affixed to the Tractor by the opposite party No.2 and issued a warranty and also made a promise that the tires will work for 1500 hours in case any problem arisen with in 1500 hours they will replace the tires. The complainant was using the tractor for agriculture purpose. But the tractor became damaged though the complainant used the tractor 678 hours. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 the problem was detected by the opposite party No.1 as ‘Rear left tyre Garside Button worn out’ and the same was informed by the opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 through a letter. Thereafter the employee of opposite party No.2 visited and observed the damaged tyres and also noted that the tractor used only for 698hours and promised that the tyres will be replaced within 2 weeks. Surprisingly the opposite party issued a letter without date by informing that they are rejecting the claim of the complainant without showing any reason. The replacement of tyres is very much essential while the complainant is an agriculturist and used the Tractor for agricultural needs. In fact the complainant purchased the tractor by obtaining loan from the financiers. If the opposite party failed to replace the tyres, they are liable to pay the cost of Rs.40,000/-. In order to escape from liability, the opposite party No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant. This act on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint. 2. Apart from the complaint, the complainant filed an affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint. 3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their counter separately. 4. In the counter of opposite party No.1 para No.6, it is submitted that after intimation, a qualified service engineer deputed who visited and detected the problem as “Alternate lug wear”, which will not come under the purview of warranty and also the defect was not caused due to manufacture defects. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5. The opposite party No.2 also filed a separate counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint and submitted at para No.7 of the counter that the defect appeared with the tractor is because of Alternate Lug wear i.e. uneven wear, which is not a manufacturing process and purely related to extended use on metal roads, extensive use of trolley, loose linkages between tractor and trolley, excessive inflation pressure. These are the problems to which the opposite party No.2 is not liable, as such the question of payment does not arise. A qualified engineer deputed and based on his report the claim has been repudiated, due to over sight they could not mention the date. At the behest of interested persons, the present complaint is filed. The cost of Rs.20,000/- each as alleged by the complainant is excessive and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. Both the parties filed written arguments. 7. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents have been filed. 1) Photocopy of Tractor Bill. 2) Photocopy of Certificate of Registration of Tractor. 3) Photocopy of repudiation letter issued by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2. 4) Photocopy of repudiation letter issued by opposite party No.2 5) Digital Photographs (Nos.3). 8. Heard both sides. Perused oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the points that arose for consideration are, 1) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as sought in the complaint? 2) To what relief? Point No.1:- The undisputed facts of the case are regarding purchase of vehicle from the opposite party No.1 along with the tyres from the opposite party No.2. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party No.2 issued warranty for a period of 1500 hours promising that in the event of any problem they will replace the tyres. But the only dispute is that the problem which has arisen in the tyres did not come under the purview of warranty period. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated only on the ground that there was a defect in alternate lug wear i.e. uneven wear, which is not related to manufacturing process. On intimation by the complainant, a qualified service engineer was deputed and the problem was detected i.e. Alternative Lug wear, which will not come under the purview of warranty period. But only due to oversight the date was not mentioned in the repudiation letter. Absolutely there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties either in service or in the manufacturing. A strange argument is placed by the learned counsel for opposite parties submitting that the tyres became damaged while the tractor was used on a road, which is not a metallic. Perhaps the learned counsel for opposite parties is unaware that the purpose for purchase of tractor is only for agriculture use. Nobody can imagine that the tractor will run on metallic road. Once the warrantee issued regarding the use of tyres for about 1500 hours, the opposite parties cannot go behind the warranty period. The learned counsel for the complainant rightly argued that in order to escape from the liability they have taken flimsy ground by showing that the tractor was used on a road, which is not a metallic one. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is fully entitled for the replacement of tyres or to refund the amount spent for the purchase of two tyres. Accordingly the complaint is fit to be allowed. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace two tyres of the tractor or else refund an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards the costs of two tyres within in a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. till the date of deposit. The opposite party 1 & 2 further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- towards cost of the litigation. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 24th day of June, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainants:-None- Witnesses examined for opposite party:-None- Exhibits marked for complainants:-Nil- Exhibits marked for opposite parties:-Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM. | |
