DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.447/2014
Amaan Kaushal
S/o Sh. Manmohan Kaushal
R/o 1/10996, Gali No. 3, Saptrishi Marg,
Subhash Park, Shahdara,
Delhi - 110032 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Koncept Hyundai
A-15, Green Park,
Delhi – 16.
2. Hans Hyundai,
TSG Complex, 69/1-A
Moti Nagar Crossing,
Najafgarh Road,
Delhi – 15. ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 24.11.2014
Date of Order : 16.03.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had bought a Santro (Car) in May 2013 and started having problem in Tyres in August. On getting checked the defect from an outsider mechanic, he came to know that there is a manufacturing defect (internal wires of the tyres are broken). He also states to have registered complaint with Hans Hyundai, Moti Nagar, Delhi, OP-2 who forwarded the complaint to Goodyear (Tyre Manufacturer). On 21.8.14, the complainant met a technician who inter-alia stated the reason that “alignment and tyre rotation was not done in time”. He further states that OP-2 never informed about the defects and kept him in dark. Thereafter, the complainant had been approaching OP-1 who diverted him to Regional Office in Jasola where he is said to have met Ms. Punita, Area Manager who promised the complainant an offer of 15% discount against the full replacement of 5 tyres amounting to Rs. 15,000/- which he refused and insisted upon the complete replacement. Lastly, the complainant met one Sh. Soumitra Dey (Regional Head) on 31.10.14 who promised him to be suitably replied by 5th Nov., 2014 but in vain. Pleading loss in his business due to non-mobilization, he has prayed before this Forum for replacement of all the tyres and also to pay him the compensation for harassment done to him and his family.
The OPs were sent notices for filing written statement. As per track reports, the said notices have been delivered to OP-1 & 2 but OPs chose not to reply to the notice. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.3.15, OPs were proceeded exparte.
The complainant has filed exparte evidence.
We have heard the complainant.
We have gone through the complaint and perused the entire records.
Now, we straightway come to the question as to whether the complaint is maintainable and, if so, whether the relief prayed for is admissible to the complainant.
As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant purchased the car in May 2013 and the tyres started giving problem in the month of August (year not mentioned). However, as per the documents filed by the complainant including Spot Inspection Report bearing No. 414364 (copy mark A), the complaints were made by him to the OPs in or after August 2014. Therefore, we have the reason to presume that the tyres of the car properly worked for about one year and three months. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any manufacturing defect in the tyres. The complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 16.03.3016.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 447/14
16.03.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
