Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/111

Sital Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhola Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Hamant Chaudhary

05 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROOPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.  111 of 2022

Date of Institution:          : 26.07.2022

             Date of Decision            : 05.05.2023

 

Sital Singh aged about 68 years son of Gurbax Singh, resident of Village Marauli Khurd, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Bhola Automobiles MRF Executive C/o Mata Gujri Nagar, Road, Near Truck Union, Morinda, Tehsil Morinda , District  Rupnagar through its Proprietor.

2.       MRF Company Office and Services at 37, Chandigarh Panchkula Road, Sector 13, Manimajra Chandigarh Haryana 160101.

 

                                                                               …..Opposite parties

 

(Complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

 

For complainant                       :         Sh.Hemant Chaudhary, Advocate

For OP no.1                             :         Sh. Gagandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate

For OP no.2                             :         Mrs. Sonu Mittal, Advocate

                            

Per : KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased  the four tyres from OP no.1 vide bill no. 692 dated 01.07.2022  for his vehicle i.e. Alto Car bearing registration no. PB-12 M 8683 amounting of Rs.13,000/-  under the influence of brand value of OP no.2 as they provide the good service and renowned brand in the public at large and so at the time of mounting the said tyres by employee  of the OP  nos.1 and 2. The complainant was under the faith that they will provide good service and they will mount properly but while mounting the said tyres on rim, the employees of OPs no.1 and 2 badly damaged the four rims  of the vehicle of the complainant which worth value of Rs.20,000/-  The complainant alleged that when he raised the complaint  regarding damaging of rim of his vehicle they did not bother about the same and openly threatened  the complainant that he will do whatever he want to do.  Due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has suffered monetary, physical and mental agony, as such, the complainant has filed the instant complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to  reverse Rs.13,000/- which was wrongly received by the complainant with interest @ 12%  on the above said amount,  besides Rs.50,000/- as damages, Rs.10,000/- as cost of complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written reply separately by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. On merits, it was averred that the complainant purchased tyres form the OP no.1. There is no problem in the tyres of the car and tyres were purchased by the complainant on his fully satisfaction, but later on the complainant after making false story  against OP no.1.  OP no.1 is having company fitted machine for mounting the tyres and there are no chances of any damages to the rims and there is no complaint even of a single customer against the OP no.1.  The complainant wanted to grab the illegal money by adopting unfair trade practice against OP no.1. OP no.1 denied any deficiency in service on its part and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Commission.  On merits, it was averred that  the complainant purchased four tyres of MRF  make for his Alto Car for Rs.13,000/- and at the time of purchase  of said tyres the complainant was under influence that the tyres will be mounted of OPs badly damaged the four rims of the vehicle and the complainant which is worth Rs.20,000/-  and when the complainant raised the complaint regarding  damaging of the rims   of his vehicle and they did not bother about the same and openly threatened  the complainant are incorrect.  The guarantee/warrantee if any is only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyres.  The tyre is not examined  by OP no.2 , OP no.2 is deprived of examining the product in order to examine whether there exists any  manufacturing defect. Thus due to act of the complainant this OP is denied of the basic principles of natural justice which has resulted in irreparable injury to the OP.  OP no.2 is not liable  for the consequential loss or indirect loss. The complainant has no right to demand damages or compensation for any accrued losses.  OP no.2 is only manufacture of tyres and its employees are in no way associated with the fitment of tyres to vehicle as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant has not stated any complaint pertaining to the tyre. Rest of the averments of the complaint were denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1 along with photographs clippings as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 , Ex.C-6 is copy of job card and Ex.C-7 is copy of aadhar card. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashok Gupta as Ex.OP-1/A Proprietor of OP no.1 and copy of photograph as Ex.OP-1/B . On the other hand, OP no.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjay Kumar as Technical Engineer as Ex.OP-2/1, copy of power of attorney as Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.

6.                It is an established fact that the complainant has purchased the four tyres from OP no.1 vide bill no. 692 dated 01.07.2022 for his vehicle i.e. Alto Car bearing registration no. PB-12-M-8683 amounting to Rs.13,000/-  , this fact is clear from perusal of copy of bill Ex.C-6 on the record.  In this bill the amount of consideration is mentioned as Rs.13,000/-.  The main grievance of the complainant is that OPs sold him defective tyres. But from perusal of entire record of the file, it has revealed that the main grouse of the complainant is regarding “damaging of rims”  basically the complainant purchased four tyres of his vehicle i.e. Alto Car from OP no.1 and not the rims.  The complainant clearly  mentioned in para no. 3 of his complaint that “ at the time of mounting the said tyres by employee of the OPs no.1 and 2 , the complainant was under the faith that they will provide good service and they will mount properly but while mounting the said tyres on rim, the employees of OPs no.1 and 2 badly damaged the four rims of the vehicle of the complainant.”  But from perusal of photographs clipping of the tyre as Ex.C-2  to Ex.C-4 mounting with rims , it has revealed the tyres are in good condition but rims of the vehicle already in bad condition but allegation of the complainant is that the employees of the OPs badly damaged the four rims of the vehicle, we do find any substance in the version of the complainant.   From perusal of entire record, it has also revealed that complainant never raised any such complaint before OPs regarding defective of tyres.  We have also perused the photograph of the machine Ex.OP-1/B, from perusal of this, it has transpired the this machine is well equipped machine and with the help of this machine we can easily mount the tyres on the rim.

7.                 We also found that tyres in question not examined by any technical expert person who examine whether there exist any manufacturing defect or not?  We are of the view that OPs not liable if the product is damaged due to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance. Tyre/tube being rubber product can be damaged for any reason other than manufacturing defect. The performance of the tyre /tube depends on many factors like air pressure, driving habits, road conditions, load carried by the vehicle, mechanical condition and irregularities of the vehicle, proper maintenance of tyres, nature of terrain i.e. level ground, hilly and or winding roads, the season of the year when the tyre was used, position of tyre on the vehicle and external object with which the tyre may come in contact while in motion.

8.                Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we find no substance in the submission of the complainant raised by him. Basically, the tyres in question are in good condition but the rims of the tyres are already in bad condition and for this condition, we cannot say that the OPs are liable to refund the amount of tyres in question to complainant. As such, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

9.                This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

10.              File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

 

Dated         :05.05.2023                             (Kuljit Singh)

                                                                    President

 

 

                           (Rakesh Kumar Gupta)                                                      (Ranvir Kaur)           

                                  Member                                                                              Member