DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 217 of 30.9.2015
Decided on: 17.11.2016
Charanjit Singh son of Sh.Jiwand Singh resident of H.No.155, St No.9, Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- The Managing Director, Goodyear India Limited, Regd. office Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad.
- The Managing Director, Bhagat Automobiles, Jhill Adda, Sirhind Rajpura Byepass, Sirhind Road, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Jasjot Singh, Advocate, counsel for
complainant.
Sh.Naveen Garg, Advocate, counsel for
Opposite Party No.1.
Sh.N.S.Sarwara, Advocate, counsel for
Opposite Party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Charanjit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.25,000/- as costs
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a car make New Polo Candy White on 23.12.2014 bearing registration No.PB-11-BQ-3141 from OP No.2, for the purpose of his personal use. On 7.5.2015, when he was driving his car, suddenly FR tyre burst and he immediately went to the authorized service station at Patiala and got the burst tyre changed with spare tyre. On 8.5.2015, he filed a complaint before M/s Bhagat Automobiles, Patiala. On 13.5.2015, the Inspection Executive of OP No.1, inspected the damaged tyre and made the report to the effect that car has covered 518KMs and cause of damage to the tyre is external sharp object/road hazard. The report is irrelevant as the damage of the tyre is due to manufacturing defect. Thereafter, he started using the vehicle. On 22.5.2015, RL tyre of the vehicle again burst, when the vehicle covered only mileage of 3739KMs.He again visited the authorized service station of O.P. No.2 and filed a complaint. On 2.6.2015, the Inspection Executive done the inspection of the vehicle and submitted the similar report. He got the damaged tyre changed after paying 50% amount of the tyre to OP No.2. He requested OP No.2 for approval of his claim but all in vain and did not pay any heed to his request. He also got served the O.Ps. with legal notice dated 15.7.2015 and 18.8.2015.The O.P.No.1 vide reply dated 28.7.2015, with regard to the inspection report, stated that claim is not payable. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., due to which he has suffered from mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notice, O.Ps.No.1&2 appeared and filed their separate written versions .In the written version filed on behalf of O.P. No.1, preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen against it and that the complainant has not produced any evidence/report of any expert that the tyres are suffering from manufacturing defect. On merits, it is stated that O.P. No.1 i.e. M/s Goodyear India Limited, is an ultimate subsidiary of the internationally well-known and reputed Ohio based tyre manufacturing company having ISO 9001:2008 certification, which confirms its commitment to quality and excellence as recognized by the international community. On receipt of the complaints, it deputed Mr.Ompal Kamboj,its Tyre Expert, who thoroughly and diligently inspected the Tyres of the car in question and made the reports that “on observation found through damage on side wall due to Bruise/Penetration by an external object/road hazard. Tyres do not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Hence not covered under warranty”. The reports have been verified and executed by the complainant himself and if he has any objection with regard to the report, he can state so on the reports himself. The complainant is now estopped from taking the plea of deficiency of service or supply of defective tyres by OP No.1.It is not liable for any warranties/guarantees given by third party, as it strictly adheres to its own Warranty Policy. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the tyres or is liable to replace the same with new ones. It is denied that complainant has suffered from mental agony , physical harassment or financial loss at the hands of O.P. No.1. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part After denouncing all other averments, made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version, filed on behalf of OP No.2, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from it. It is also admitted that the complainant reported about the tyres in question and immediately arranged Mr.Om Pal Kamboj, an expert from Good Year India Ltd.who thoroughly inspected the tyres in question and gave observation regarding the same. After receipt of the report dated 2.6.2015, the complainant is not entitled for exchange of the tyres under warranty. There is no manufacturing defect in the tyres. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld.counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Exs.C1 & C2, copies of inspection reports, Ex.C3 RC of the car, Exs.C4 & C5, copies of hypothecation, Ex.C6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C7 postal receipts, and closed the evidence.
On contrary, the ld.counsel for O.P. No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Gupta, Manager(Legal) of M/s Goodyear India Ltd.,Ex.OPB, affidavit of Mr.Ompal Kamboj , Ex.OP1, copy of warranty policy, Ex.OP2, report dated 13.5.2015, Ex.OP3 report dated 2.6.2015 and closed the evidence.
The Ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPC, affidavit of Sh.Ajay Shukla,Service Manager of Bhagat Automobiles, Ex.OP4 copy of spot inspection report, Ex.OP5 copy of resolution and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by O.P. No.2 and also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The contention of the complainant is that as the tyres in question got damaged after some time of purchase of the car, which shows that the tyres in question suffer from manufacturing defect. The O.Ps.refused to replace the tyres in question. Thus,the O.Ps. are not only liable to replace the tyres but also to pay compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
8. The Ld. Counsel for O.P. No.1 submitted that the damaged tyres in question were duly inspected by its expert and as per the report of the expert, the tyres were damaged due to penetration of an external object and not due to any manufacturing defect. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, if there is a road hazard or cuts in the tyres with sharp object then the case is not covered within the warranty, therefore, complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount as prayed for in the complaint. Even otherwise, to prove the allegation that the tyres in question are having inherent manufacturing defect, the complainant has not placed on record any report of the expert. Thus the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. The ld. Counsel for OP No.2 submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file a complaint against it even otherwise as per the report of the expert there is no manufacturing defect in the tyres in question and no expert opinion has been produced on record .Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the tyres or for the payment of any compensation.
10. From the perusal of spot inspection reports, dated 13.5.2015& 2.6.2015, Exs.OP2 & OP3 respectively, it is apparent that the expert namely Mr.Om Pal Kamboj after inspecting the tyres in question has given the following report:
“On observation found through damage on tyre side wall due to Bruise/Penetration by an external sharp object/Road hazard. Tyre does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Hence not covered under warranty”.
The O.P.No.1 has also tendered affidavit Ex.OPB, of Mr.Ompal Kambaj i.e. certified technical expert. However, to prove the fact that the tyres in question suffer from inherent manufacturing defect, the complainant has not placed on record report of some expert. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the tyres in question are suffering from any manufacturing defect. Our view is supported by the order 16.12.2010, passed in Suresh Chand Jain Versus MRF Ltd. And Anr., in which the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, had held that petitioner did not produce any expert evidence to either show the nature of the defect or proof of manufacturing defect and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint being devoid of any merits. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
DATED:17.11.2016
