Delhi

East Delhi

CC/293/2015

UDIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEAT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.293/15

Sh. UDIT ARORA

S/O Sh. SANJIV ARORA,

R/O C-710 VARDHAMAN APARTMENTS,

MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-1, DELHI-91

 

                                                                                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/S CEAT Ltd.

463, CEAT MAHAL,

Dr ANNIE BESANT ROAD,

WORLI NEW, MUMBAI-400030,

 

2. M/S CEAT Ltd.

C & F HARIOM UDYOG

104, TRANSPORT CENTRE,

PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI=110035

 

3. M/S OASIS AUTOMOBILES

E-57, PANDAV NAGAR, PATPARGANJ

NEW DELHI-110091.

           

                                                                                                                          ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 23.04.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 30.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 01.02.2017

 

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

 

This complaint pertains to allegations of deficiency in service against M/S Ceat Ltd   (OP-1), M/S Ceat Ltd (OP-2), M/S Oasis Automobiles (OP-3) by the complainant Shri Udit Arora.

FACTS IN BRIEF

1. On 18/03/2014, the complainant purchased four Ceat Milaze tubeless tyres admeasuring 175-70-13 from OP-3, the authorized dealer of OP-1 for Rs.14,250/-. The complainant faced problem with one of the purchased tyres as the air would lose slowly despite changing the nozzle and rims the problem persisted. In the month of January 2015, the complainant was told that there was a minute pin like puncture on the rib of the tyre, thus the tyre could not be used without tube. The complainant visited OP-3 in February 2015 and requested for replacement but was asked to pay the cost of the same to which the complainant refused. It is further stated that the complainant was assured by the engineer of OP-1 that the tyre would be Exchanged within a week against payment of minor amount. On05/02/2015 the complainant left the tyre with OP-3 for replacement for which claim docket no. 1468 was issued. Rs. 1,350/- were demanded by OP-3 as part cost of the tyre. The complainant has alleged that as the said tyre had manufacturing defect he was entitled to new tyre free of cost and because of the conduct of the OPs he was forced to drive car without spare wheel. Legal notice dated 19/02/2015 was served upon OPs which was replied by OP vide reply dated 04/03/2015, OP had denied their liability. Hence the present complaint praying for refund of Rs.14,250/-, Damages of Rs.10,000/- and litigation Expenses.
2. Annexure C-1 is the retail invoice dated 18/03/2014, AnnExure C-2 is the claim docket dated 05/02/2015, legal notice dated 19/02/2015 and the reply there of dated 04/03/2015.
3. OP-1 & OP 2 filed their joint written statement after the notice of the complaint was served upon them, where they stated that they sell products to dealers/original equipment manufacturers on principle to principle basis. It was submitted that OP ensures that each and every item is properly scrutinized by the OP’s technical personal to assess whether the claim deserves to be rejected or adjusted and in the instant case the verdict of the technical personal was to allow pro-rata allowance which was replacement with new tyre for Rs.1,141/- plus taxes. After measuring the skid depth of a tyre i.e. on the basis of the Extent use already made by the complainant. The claim receipt dated 10/02/2015 vide no. DELC25661C was issued to complainant. It was also submitted that OP followed strict quality control right from raw material stage to finished product. The said principle of pro-rata adjustment was a standard practice adopted by the tyre trade in general. Hence, no deficiency in service could be attributed on OPs.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 & OP-2 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the written statement were denied and that of the complaint were reiterated.
5. Evidence was filed by the complainant, where Sh. Udit Arora, stated the contents of the complaint and Ex CW1/1(copy of the bill dated, Ex CW1/2 (colly)- claim docket number 1468 bears terms & conditions wherein clause 8 reads as follows-

“The consumer will receive intimation (‘Claim Advice’) document regarding the disposition within 7 working days from receipt of claim (However if any unavoidable delay due to circumstances beyond our control occurs the claim advice will be sent at the earliest possible date). The claim advice will indicate the adjustable amount of claim in the case of “adjustable” item and the consumer has to pay the differential amount”.

6.  Further perusal of Ex CW1/1 reveals that the said tyre was purchased on 18/03/2014 and alleging that the tyre had manufacturing defect after use of 11 months cannot be taken on the face of it. The complainant has not filed any Expert opinion to substantiate his allegations. OP is justified in offering replacement after complainant pays Rs.1,114/- plus taxes as per terms and conditions of the claim docket . Hence, we find no weightage in the allegations of the complainant and dismiss the complaint without any orders as to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

 

(P.N. TIWARI)                                                                           (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

   MEMBER                                                                                                       MEMBER

 

 

 

                                                            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT