BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.144/12.
Date of instt.: 02.05.2012.
Date of Decision: 31.3.2015.
Gurwant Singh son of Sh. Surat Singh, resident of Village Dera Kakehri, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Fauji Tyre House, Opposite Mahavir Dal Hospital, Patiala Road, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal through its proprietor.
2. Good Year India Ltd., Mathura Road, ballabhgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004 (Haryana).
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. R.K.Gandhi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Som Dutt Sharma, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased tyre No.165/65R13/77 of Rs.4900/- on 12.12.2011 vide receipt No.297 dt. 12.12.2011 from Op No.1 against the warranty of one year. It is alleged that after 10/15 days from the date of purchase of above-said tyre, the same has become defective and also giving trouble for driving and the vehicle was not running properly/smoothly. It is further alleged that due to trouble in the tyre on 09.03.2012, the tyre was blast on the road. It is further alleged that the complainant informed the Op No.1 regarding the blast of the above-said tyre and the Op No.1 sent a mechanic. It is further alleged that the mechanic checked the tyre and repaired the same and also assured the complainant that in future the same will be running smoothly but after few days, again the tyre was not functioning properly. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times for replace the above-said defective tyre, but the Ops flatly refused to do the same. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, it is stated that the tyre No.165-6-13 purchased from the shop of respondent was of ‘Kally Brand’ and not ‘Rally Brand’ and name of the manufacturer of Kally Brand tyre is Good Year Ltd., Faridabad (Haryana). The answering respondent never gave any warranty period of Kally Brand tyre to the complainant. The respondent never assured the complainant regarding durability, repair and replacement of the ‘Kally Brand’ tyre. The complainant purchased the said tyre after due care and thought. The complainant should had requested the respondent so that the answering Op would have informed the manufacturer. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant purchased the tyre from Op No.1, who is neither a dealer nor an Agent, much less distributor of the answering Op. Further, the tyre so purchased by the complainant has neither been manufactured by the answering Op nor the answering Op has extended any warranty. Further, the complainant has not filed any document to substantiate that the tyre purchased by him is of make “Goodyear”. Hence, in the absence of any documentary evidence, it can be construed that there exists no privity of contract between the parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased tyre No.165/65R13/77 of Rs.4900/- on 12.12.2011 vide receipt No.297 dt. 12.12.2011 from Op No.1 against the warranty of one year. After 10/15 days from the date of purchase of above-said tyre, the same has become defective and also giving trouble for driving and the vehicle was not running properly/smoothly. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 contends that the tyre No.165-65-13 purchased from the shop of the Op was of ‘Kally Brand’ and not ‘Rally Brand’ and name of the manufacturer of Kally Brand tyre is good year Ltd. He further contends that the complainant never made any complaint regarding any defect in the tyre to the Op No.1. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 vehemently contends that the complainant has bought a tyre known by the name of Relly Tyre or Kelly tyre, which is not manufactured by the Op No.2. After careful perusal of all the record available on the file, we find that the complainant has failed to place any expert opinion or mechanic report on the record which could prove the tyre purchased by the complainant from Op No.1 was defective. Moreover, the complainant also did not make any complaint to the Ops regarding the defective tyre. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.31.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
