Order dictated by:

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Aman Kumar  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  he purchased 4 tyres of the Santro Car belonging to Opposite Party No.2 from Opposite Party No.1 amounting to Rs.10,200/- vide receipt/ invoice No.2011 dated 22.10.2015. Soon after the  purchase of said tyres i.e. after lapse of 7 days approximately, one tyre of the car was found to be defective one as there was inside cut having length of 1 Inch and from the outer side, the shape of the tyre was become in the nature of balloon and said tyre was defective in nature and same is manufacturing defect. Afterward, the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 number of times with the request to change the said defective tyre with new one, but all the times, the Opposite Parties used to procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other. The complainant was moved from pillar to post to get justice at the hands of the Opposite Parties, but of no avail, as two times, though the Opposite Parties lodged the complaint of the complainant, but inspite of that, they could not do the needful in the matter in hand.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to replace the defective tyre with new one and also direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony besides Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Forum.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant. Answering Opposite Party has neither given any performance guarantee/ warranty/ assurance regarding the tyre in dispute. The guarantee/ warranty  if any, is only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyres. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 from whom the complainant had purchased the tyre in question, is not an authorised dealer of MRF Limited, the complainant has approached Opposite Party No.1 and who had forwarded the subject tyre to one of the authorised dealer. Opposite Party is not aware of the circumstances in which the subject tyre was brought for inspection. Moreover, soon after the receipt of the said tyre, it was thoroughly inspected by the Technical Service Personnel of the company, and he revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to through cut on sidewall, caused due to impact with some sharp object and that is not due to any manufacturing defect.         Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C5  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Shantanu Phoolwar Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.Op2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased 4 tyres of the Santro Car belonging to Opposite Party No.2 from Opposite Party No.1 amounting to Rs.10,200/- vide receipt/ invoice No.2011 dated 22.10.2015. Soon after the purchase of said tyres i.e. after lapse of 7 days approximately, one tyre of the car was found to be defective one as there was inside cut having length of 1 Inch and from the outer side, the shape of the tyre was become in the nature of balloon and said tyre was defective in nature and same is manufacturing defect. Afterward, the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 number of times with the request to change the said defective tyre with new one, but all the times, the Opposite Parties used to procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other. The complainant was moved from pillar to post to get justice at the hands of the Opposite Parties, but of no avail, as two times, though the Opposite Parties lodged the complaint of the complainant, but inspite of that, they could not do the needful in the matter in hand.  Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.

8.       Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that the present complaint is not maintainable since the defective tyre has not been got inspected from the approved laboratory by the complainant. Answering Opposite Party has neither given any performance guarantee/ warranty/ assurance regarding the tyre in dispute. The guarantee/ warranty  if any, is only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyres. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 from whom the complainant had purchased the tyre in question, is not an authorised dealer of MRF Limited, the complainant has approached Opposite Party No.1 and who had forwarded the subject tyre to one of the authorised dealer. Opposite Party is not aware of the circumstances in which the subject tyre was brought for inspection. Moreover, soon after the receipt of the said tyre, it was thoroughly inspected by the Technical Service Personnel of the company, and he revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to through cut on sidewall, caused due to impact with some sharp object and that is not due to any manufacturing defect. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 qua the complainant.

9.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased 4 tyres of the Santro Car belonging to Opposite Party No.2 from Opposite Party No.1 amounting to Rs.10,200/- vide receipt/ invoice No.2011 dated 22.10.2015, copy of the invoice accounts for Ex.C2. It is the case of the complainant that soon after its purchase i.e. within 7 days one tyre became defective and he immediately, approached the seller of the said tyre, but Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has contended that Opposite Party No.2 has neither given any performance guarantee/ warranty/ assurance regarding the tyre in dispute. The guarantee/ warranty  if any, is only regarding manufacturing defects in the tyres. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 from whom the complainant had purchased the tyre in question, is not an authorised dealer of MRF Limited, the complainant has approached Opposite Party No.1 and who had forwarded the subject tyre to one of the authorised dealer. Opposite Party is not aware of the circumstances in which the subject tyre was brought for inspection. Moreover, soon after the receipt of the said tyre, it was thoroughly inspected by the Technical Service Personnel of the company, and he revealed that the said tyre was damaged due to through cut on sidewall, caused due to impact with some sharp object and that is not due to any manufacturing defect, but this Forum do not agree with the contention of the Opposite Party No.2 because if there was no defect in the tyre in dispute, what was the need for the complainant to file the instant complaint after spending huge money by hiring a counsel. Secondly, with regard to the warranty/ guaranty of the product in dispute, Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandgiarh in caseM/s.Sandeep Marbles Vs. Jagdev Singh  2013(4), CLT page 184 has held that  even otherwise, if there was no guarantee, then also the appellant was not authorised to sell the defective material and for supplying any goods which are defective, the complaint can be filed whether there is any guarantee/ warranty or not. In the instant case, the tyre purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 became defective within 7 days from the date of its purchase, hence there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

10.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the tyre in dispute with new one of same make and model, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which Opposite Parties be liable to refund the price of the tyre i.e. Rs.2550/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment  is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation,   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 12.04.2017.