Haryana

Ambala

CC/171/2015

Ravinder Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eakansh Wheels. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashutosh Aggarwal

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.: 171 of 2015

Date of Institution    : 18.06.2015

Date of Decision      :  08.04.2016

Ravinder Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Ram Dutt Sharma R/o VPO Bihta, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                    ……Complainant

Versus

1.       Eakansh Wheels, K.M. Stone No.126, Village Tepla, State Highway No.5, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt through its owner.

2.       Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon -122015 through its General Manager.

3.       JK Tyre and Industries Ltd. C/o Multani C&F Agency, Plot No.20, Baba Hira Singh Nagar, Haryana Motor Market, G.T. Road, Ambala through its Owner/Manager.

                                                                                        ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, Adv. counsel for  complainant.

                   Sh. U.S. Chauhan, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. S.R. Bansal, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.

                   OP No.3 exparte.

ORDER.

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a car having chasis No.MA3FHEBIS00543681 & engine No.D13A 2258289 from OP No.1 in November 2013 (Regn. No.HR54B/4888) and the company  assured that the car is the best one in its class and  having warranty of all the parts used in the car.  It has been further alleged that after just 31000 KMs, all the four tyres got flat and complaint was made to OP No.1 who sought expert opinion  from OP No.3. In the report No.1541 issued by OP No.3, it has been clearly mentioned that ‘Bubble causes finding is uneven wear due to not proper done alignment and tyre rotation’ though  the servicing of car was being carried out by the complainant periodically from the OP No.1 as per service schedule and it was the duty of the OP No.1 to do alignment and rotation of tyres on periodical service whereas the OP No.1 did not do so and now withdrawing back from its liability to change all the four tyres in warranty period rather  Op No.1 have issued warranty rejection letter dated 23.05.2015 whereby refused to replace the tyres by taking unreasonable plea ‘As per MSIL warranty policy tyres are not covered under warranty’. On 27.05.2015, complainant took quotation of the expenses of different tyre companies from Walia Tyres, Opposite New Grain Market, Hissar Road, Ambala City and the quotation for JK Tyre is Rs.2850/- per tyre.  It has been further contended by the complainant that even as per warranty policy issued by J.K. Tyres i.e. OP No.3, the warranty of J.K. Tyres is 3 years from the date of invoice irrespective of the kilometers covered. Relevant clause available on the internet at the site of J.K. Tyres is reproduced as under:-

“In case of LCV/JEEP Tyres (Bias & Radial), the  warranty is for a period of three years from the date of manufacture or from the date of invoice (Proof of purchase is required), or till the tyre tread is worn up to Tread Wear Indicators (TWI), whichever is earlier, irrespective of kilometer covered.”

                                     

                   Thus the complainant has alleged that the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and have adopted unfair trade practice  which caused mental tension, agony & harassment at the hands of Ops.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred by the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint. On merits, it has been submitted that tyre of the car got flat due to negligence of the complainant and even otherwise tyre of the car not covered under warranty clause of MSIL i.e. OP No.2 It has also been urged by the OP No.2 that ‘answering OP has taken the matter with the OP No.3 due to healthy relationship between complainant & answering OP to give better service but OP No.3 declined the request as per warranty conditions” and complainant has intentionally dragged the answering OP into the uncalled litigation just to blackmail though he is not deficient in any way.  Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

                   OP No.2 tendered its written statement separately raising preliminary objections qua no cause of action, no deficiency in service and mis-joinder of necessary party.  On merits, it has been  urged that the answering OP has not sold the vehicle in question to the complainant directly rather it was sold by their dealer and relation between answering OP and their dealer OP No.1 is on Principal to Principal basis. It has been further urged that the complainant has violated terms & conditions of warranty policy by getting the vehicle serviced lately i.e. beyond schedule. The tyres and tubes being items of wear & tear are excluded from warranty as per clause 4(b) of warranty policy and wheel alignment, wheel balancing and tyre rotation are repairs  which are to be carried out on paid basis  and excluded from warranty clause as per clause 4(a) of warranty policy.  Had there been any manufacturing defect in tyres then the same would not have covered such a huge mileage of 31000 Km. in just 1 and half years from the date of purchase. As such, the answering OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                   OP No.3 did not bother to appear despite service through registered post and as such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.08.2015.

3.                To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered documents Annexures R1/1 to R1/-3 and closed their evidence. OP No.2 did not tendered any evidence rather tendered a statement that contents of his written statement may kindly be read into their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Counsel for the complainant has argued that after 31000 Kms. all the four tyres of the car  got flat and when complaint was made to OP No.1, expert opinion was sought by OP No.1 from OP No.3 (Annexure C-2) wherein it has been opined that ‘Bubble causes finding is uneven wear due to not proper done alignment and tyre rotation’.  Counsel for complainant further argued  that as per letter dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure C-3) issued by OP No.1, they have denied the warranty as per MSIL Warranty policy rather suggested that  work will be carried out on payment basis after written approval from  the complainant which is wrong, illegal and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops have argued that the tyres & tubes  are not covered within warranty clause and as such, the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected by them vide warranty rejection letter (Annexure C-3) and emphasized upon document Annexure R-1/1 i.e. warranty policy of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

5.                     After going through the document Annexure C-2 which is spot inspection report for passengers car-tyres carried out by J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd.-OP No.3, it emerges that the probable cause in defect of tyres is:- Bubble causes finding is uneven wear due to not proper done alignment and tyre rotation. Whereas as per warranty policy (Annexure C-5) of J.K. tyre Industries, warranty period for Passenger Car tyres (Bias & Radial) is for a period of five years from the date of manufacture or from the date of invoice (proof of purchase is required) or till the tyre tread is worn up to  Tread Wear Indicators (TWI), whichever is earlier, irrespective of Kilometer covered. We have also gone through the document warranty policy  of MSIL i.e. OP No.2 (Annexure R1/1) placed on record by OP No.1 whereby in the clause of Limitation it has been mentioned that:-

                                    (4)       Limitation:

                                                This warranty shall not apply to:

 

2. the replacement of normal wear parts including without limitation, bulbs, battery, tyres and tubes and spark plugs etc. etc.

 

                        Admittedly, it is correct that one who purchases  a product is bound by its terms & conditions but when as per report of J.K. Tyre  & Industries Ltd. which too sought by OP No.1, OP’s themselves are at fault and deficient in providing  proper services to the complainant, then they cannot seek benefit of the terms & conditions of their policy.  Further, as per warranty policy of J.K. Tyres i.e. OP No.3, warranty of tyres in respect of Passenger Car  tyres is 5 years from the date of invoice irrespective of kilometers covered meaning thereby that the tyres in dispute were within  the warranty period and were required to be replaced by Ops but they failed to do so. As such, we have no option except to  hold that Ops are guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant.

6.                     In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the view that the Ops have committed unfair trade practice in this matter and as such,  we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops No. 2 & 3 (being manufacturer of Car & Tyre in question) jointly & severally  to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)      To replace the 4 tyres of the car in question or reimburse a sum of Rs.11400/- to the complaint as costs of four tyres as per quotation (Annexure C-6) issued by Walia Tyres, Ambala City.

2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs  No. 2 & 3  jointly & severally within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 9 % per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                             

ANNOUNCED:08.04.2016                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                            (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT       

         

                                                                                                           Sd/-           

                                                                                       (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

         MEMBER