BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 12 of 2014
Date of Institution : 22.1.2014
Date of Decision : 20.10.2016
Hari Singh son of Sh. Bhoop Singh, resident of village Roopawas, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Goodyear India Ltd., 1st Floor ABW Elegance Tower, Jasola Commercial Complex, Behind Appolo Hospital, Mathura Road New Delhi- 110025 through its M.D/ Manager/ Auth. Person.
2. Singla Gas Store, Hisar road Sirsa, through its Prop/ partner/ Manager, (Authorized dealer of Goodyear, Dunlop, Podar, Appollo Tyre and Tube).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.R. Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte vide order dated 4.10.2016.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that he had purchased four tyres of Goodyear company for his tractor from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- vide bill No.7920 dated 26.1.2009 with guarantee of five years. However, in the month of December, 2012, cracks developed in the tyres and they started to become puncture. The complainant immediately approached the op no.2 and showed him the said cracks in the tyres but he told that this is a minor problem and they will remove the same and then they repaired the same. But after sometime, the said problem again occurred. The complainant again visited to op no.2 and asked that tyres are not original and there is major defect in these tyres, hence they should replace the same with new one. But the op no.2 started to put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately he flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant and asked to register the complaint with op no.2. Then the complainant lodged his complaint bearing No.Q1709130139 dated 17.9.2013 with op no.2 but no action has been taken till today. In this way, the ops have cheated the complainant and have caused harassment and as such he is entitled to compensation of Rs.65,000/- besides replacement of tyres or refund of Rs.25,000/- i.e. price of the tyres besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed separate replies. OP no.1 has replied that had there been defect in tyres, the complainant would not have used the said tyres for four years and nine month. As a matter of goodwill gesture and reputation which the op no.1 enjoys globally, the op no.1 deputed one of its Engineers to inspect the tyres at the showroom of op no.2 on 3.10.2013, but the complainant did not turn up for inspection of his vehicle at the showroom but he was adamantly demanding home visit of the engineer which was not possible. It is denied that the gurarantee is for five years, however, the warranty is of five years but the warranty policy is applicable only where the tyres suffer from manufacturing defect which is not in this case. It is denied that it was ever assured that if there will be any problem i.e. cracking etc, the op will replace the tyres. The complainant has concocted the facts and he has not reported his grievance to answering op at the particular time. The allegations are general in nature. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in separate reply also contested the case of complainant on similar lines as that of op no.1. It is also submitted that the puncture is only due to external object inserting in the tyre. Other contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A, cash/ credit memo Ex.C1, warranty card Ex.C2, Mechanical report Ex.C3, copy of diploma of Mechanical Engg. of Kawaljeet Kaur Ex.C4 and copy of letter dated 13.8.2009 regarding training of Kawaljeet Kaur Ex.C5.
5. When the case was fixed for evidence of ops, none appeared on their behalf and as such they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 4.10.2016.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Undisputedly, said four tyres were purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 on 26.1.2009 and the tyres were having warranty of five years as is evident from warranty card Ex.C2. According to the complainant, cracks developed in the tyres in the month of December, 2012 i.e. within warranty period upon which he approached op no.2 who got repaired the same. But after sometime the said problem again occurred in the tyres. The complainant in order to prove defects in the tyres has placed on file report of Kawaljeet Kaur, Mechanical Engineer as Ex.C3 according to which on 10.9.2016 she inspected all the four tyres which were already got removed from the tractor. The said tyres were again put on the rims and after filling air, she saw numerous cracks i.e. 10 to 15 in number of 2-3½ inches in length in front tyres and 15 to 20 in number of 3½-4 inches in length in rear tyres and tubes are seen from the tyres due to cracks. She further reported that tyres have run up to 30% to 40% and cracks are very old and tyres are not in position to ply. From the above said report of Mechanical Engineer, it is clear that cracks developed after running of tyres for very short period and have to be removed from the tyres due to very poor condition. There is no denial of the fact from the side of ops that they did not receive any complaint from the complainant. As the tyres were not road worthy, the ops could get inspected the same by sending their expert person/ Engineer but they have failed to do so. Even when the case was fixed for their evidence, they opted to be proceeded against exparte and they have not lead any evidence in support of their versions. The evidence led by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. So, the case of the complainant is fully proved and the complainant is entitled to replacement of all the four tyres besides compensation for harassment.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace all the four tyres of the tractor with new one of same price and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant including litigation expenses. This order should be complied by the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from today. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 20.10.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
